Afghanistan – where is the SOFA?


Karzai is not running for another term.  He will leave office on a date that roughly coincides with the end of NATOs mandate in his country and Obama's stated intention to withdraw.  Karzai clearly holds the US and its "leadership" in amused contampt.

Afghans don't want foreign soldiers in their country.  There are continuing incidents involving attacks by people in Afghan uniforms on foreign soldiers.  There are continuing accusations by Afghans of "atrocities" committed by foreign soldiers, aircraft, etc.  There are demands for foreign soldiers to be tried under Afghan law.

Why would anyone think that the Afghans are going to give us legal extra-territoriality for indefinite time when they can get rid of us by not agreeing to a SOFA?

You think that they will want the flow of materiel and offshore training to continue and that will require them to give us a SOFA?  I don't think so.  The Iraqis refused to give us a SOFA.  We have 200 plus military people stationed in the embassy in Baghdad who are documented as diplomats under the Vienna Convention.  That gives them immunity from Iraqi law.  They are there for the express purpose of managing the continuing flow of materiel into Iraq and arranging offshore training.

The pattern is obvious.  Is this Obama's real exit strategy?  pl

This entry was posted in Afghanistan. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Afghanistan – where is the SOFA?

  1. confusedponderer says:

    The US army wants to buy the Afghan army Russian 30 Mil Mi 17 helicopters, so they can transport troops and materiel. Tbe Mil Mi 17 was chosen because it is robust, and the Afghan pilots are the most familiar with the Mi-17. The U.S. Army had bought the previous Mi-17 helicopters without problems.
    The new deal, however has come under – guess what – congressional scrutiny!
    The manufacturer, Rosoboronexport, deals with Syria!
    So, last year, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, blocked the confirmation of Heidi Shyu, the Army’s top civilian acquisition official, over his concern with the contract to buy 21 Mi-17 helicopters for the Afghan air force. A year later the negotiation continues with the Russian defense firm even though they have not backed down from their commitment to the Assad regime.
    Come to think of it, Bell helicopters has a plant in Forth Worth, TX, and they offer and rebuild UH-1 helicopters for foreign clients. Honi sont …

  2. Fred says:

    Why should we buy the Afghan army anything? Let Karzai pay for it, he stole enough from us as it is. Last I looked we are trillions in debt with double digit unemployment.

  3. confusedponderer says:

    Well, al fine points, but Mr. Cornyn doesn’t complain about the spending. He just wants the money being spent in Texas, and bashing Rosoboronexport for selling choppers and spares to Syria is a handy opportunity doing that without saying so explicitly.
    Just look at the benefits for Cornyn: He can bash Russia, bash Syria, annoy democrats, and give local business a chance to bid on a contract with an inferior product – and so so all at the same time! Win-win-win-win.

  4. Charles I says:

    Current chance(none) of one blown to shreds with the explosively auspicious start of the new peace talks.
    “KABUL—Afghanistan’s president said Wednesday he will not pursue peace talks with the Taliban unless the United States steps out of the negotiations, while also insisting the militant group stop its violent attacks on the ground after it claimed responsibility for a rocket attack that killed four Americans.”

Comments are closed.