An Uninformative Afghan Speech and a Highly Questionable Agreement

President Barack Obama made his speech from Afghanistan very recently, with the podium parked in front of two U.S. armored vehicles with U.S. flags attached to them. This display of armored might is hardly comforting to those many viewers who don't associate war-making power with a nation intent on peacekeeping.

The Obama speech on the future conduct of the war was very short on content and was far more optimistic than the last six-month report by the Pentagon. Whereas Obama sees significant progress in reducing Taliban strength, the Pentagon report revealed a mixed picture of some reduction in violence and some territorial gains over the Taliban; however, the Taliban were described as resilient and capable of making gains in the spring and summer fighting season. General John Allen, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has been described as wanting to slow the pace of U.S. troop withdrawals, especially in areas where gains have been made against the Taliban.

There was no mention in Obama's speech of how many U.S. troops will be left in Afghanistan after December 2014, the date by which the U.S. is scheduled to have no further combat role in Afghanistan. The speech was also devoid of any estimate of how much the U.S. involvement with assisting the Afghans in the future will cost.

The rationale for the Obama speech was to announce the completion of a 10-year agreement, which would be the template for U.S. interaction with Afghanistan through 2024. Although in the agreement there is a provision stating that the agreement meet U.S. legal requirements, there has been no announced intent to submit it to the U.S. Congress for consideration as a treaty, yet the agreement contains many of the elements that would be found in a treaty. When George W. Bush concluded an agreement with Iraq, setting forth as a prime component that U.S. troops would depart from Iraq -- at least the great bulk of them -- no later than December 31, 2011, some Democratic legislators in Congress demanded the agreement be submitted for consideration as a treaty. Although it is still very early for reaction to fully form on the agreement, no member of Congress has yet requested the agreement's submission as a treaty.