Nov 27, 2013 3 min read

Consider for a moment all the progress that is being made in Afghanistan these days.

Wait, who are we kidding? Actually, Afghanistan continues to devolve before our eyes, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the United States has no business leaving its servicemen and women there beyond the end of next year, as previously committed.

What should be a deal-breaker regarding the continued presence of our troops was the decision by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to ignore, at least for the time being, the verdict by a gathering of tribal elders from across the country who want Karzai to sign off immediately on a proposed security deal with the United States that would assure a lengthy extension of our military commitment there.

Karzai, apparently concerned that the United States, with an agreement in hand, might work to influence the election of a candidate not to Karzai’s liking in next April’s presidential vote, is indicating that he will not endorse the deal until after those ballots are cast. To the United States, this is, and should be, unacceptable.

Also, the Afghan president is now adding conditions that the United States would be foolish to meet. For one, Karzai is demanding the release of all Afghan prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. More troubling, he wants the United States to agree that our troops will no longer conduct raids on homes in Afghanistan, which would cripple efforts by U.S. and NATO forces to pursue and rout out terrorist elements in that country.

One Western diplomat, speaking anonymously, told The New York Times, “He’s definitely pushed too far. There’s a general consensus that he’s overestimated the importance to the Americans of the agreement and is thinking that they must have it at all costs. The Americans internally are very clear: that it’s not a vital strategic interest, and he doesn’t get that.”

Karzai also has critics at home. Prominent opposition leader Abdullah Abdullah told the Times, “I have no doubt in my mind there are politicians thinking back in the U.S. about the zero option (total withdrawal), and this will further strengthen their argument. There’s a possibility that will backfire, and the price will be paid by the people of Afghanistan.”

It’s a reality that all that stands between Afghanistan and a return to total chaos is the presence of foreign troops. Even after many years of training and the infusion of billions in foreign aid to prop up that country’s military, Afghanistan is far from able to handle its own security.

Another troubling development there was the news this week from Reuters that a government-endorsed panel is working on a new set of laws for Afghanistan that would shift the country toward a return to a sharia penal code and institute death by stoning for anyone found guilty of adultery. If a judge were feeling especially merciful, the offenders might get away with an old-fashioned public flogging. Taliban, anyone?

Some suggested, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, that we should bomb Afghanistan “back to the Stone Age.” Given enough time, it appears they’ll get there on their own, and there’s no need for the United States to have a front-row seat, or to put our servicemen and women in mortal peril in the process.