By James Blitz, defence and diplomatic editor, in Kabul
President Hamid Karzai’s inauguration speech has long been seen as a critical moment for him to spell out his determination to improve Afghan governance in his second term of office and begin the fight against corruption.
But the part of the speech that will make the headlines tonight in the US and Europe is his commitment to get the Afghan National Army and police into a position where they can manage the nation’s security alone by the middle of the next decade.
Mr Karzai is suggesting that the Afghan National Security Forces should take the lead in managing security in Afghanistan’s troubled provinces by 2013 – but with Nato forces still remaining on the scene in a supportive role if things go wrong. Within five years, he says, the ANSF should be self-sufficient – allowing Nato forces to begin withdrawal western electorates urgently desire.
In one sense there is nothing new in this timetable. Senior Nato figures already talk about a five year timetable to build up the ANSF to a self-standing position. General Stanley McChrystal, the Nato commander in Afghanistan, wants the ANSF built up to a total force of 400,000 by 2014. General Sir David Richards, head of the British Army, has also pointed to 2014 as the point where the ANSF could acquire self-sufficiency in Helmand – allowing the current UK force of 9,000 to begin withdrawal.
However, Mr Karzai’s explicit commitment to meeting these goals – one stated high in his inaugural speech – will matter to the US and UK. Senior figures in Washington and London acknowledge that the targets for army and police development are hugely ambitious. Developing a quality police force, in particular, is proving a really tough task because of the poor quality of recruits. Western diplomats therefore see it as essential that Mr Karzai throws his weight behind the drive to speed up training – for example, getting more army and police recruits down to Helmand as the British urgently demand.
One note of caution is needed. The mere act of setting deadlines for the handover of lead security responsibility to the Afghans does not mean the policy will be successful. Nato’s generals need to judge district by district whether the Afghans really can run the show.
What would be disastrous for this mission would be for Nato to hand districts over to the Afghans, only to have to go back in full time if the Afghans cannot contain the insurgency. As many top Nato figures are insisting, every handover to the Afghans has to be conditions based – and not driven by political deadlines.
Related link:
For views and opinions on the European Union from Peter Spiegel, Joshua Chaffin, Alex Barker and Stanley Pignal, follow the 