Instead, he is set to announce Monday that Canada will offer financial assistance to help pay for Afghanistan’s own army and police – joining other nations in contributing to meet Kabul’s projected $4-billion-plus budget shortfall.

The Obama administration has led a campaign to persuade allies to commit funds, asking Canada to pledge $125-million a year for the three years after 2014 – although Canadian officials wouldn’t say Sunday how much Ottawa will pony up. Comparable nations, including Australia, Britain and Germany, have each pledged between $100-million and $200-million a year.

NATO, keen to ensure that plans to withdraw combat troops over the next two years don’t appear to be a rush to abandon Afghanistan, had also looked for Canada to extend the mission of about 950 trainers past 2014 – with NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen applying new public pressure on Mr. Harper as the summit opened Sunday.

But Canadian officials said Mr. Harper will not commit to extending the training mission at this summit – although they would not say whether he will categorically rule out an extension at a later date.

“A lot of discussion here today [is] about what happens post-2014, and a key discussion around sustainability,” Defence Minister Peter MacKay told reporters at the summit. “So that doesn’t necessarily mean troop contributions, or trainers. That means giving the Afghans the resources that they need to continue to make progress, and hold the fort.”

The NATO goal is to raise pledges of $4.1-billion per year, but even that is likely only to pay for a smaller Afghan force than the current 352,000. The NATO leaders are expected to endorse a reduction, perhaps to as low as 228,500 soldiers and police.

NATO leaders here will formally embrace plans to speed the exit strategy, handing over the lead role in combat to Afghan forces by mid-2013 – rather than 2014 – and shifting to a “support” role. The foreign combat troops – which currently number 130,000, including 90,000 U.S. troops – are to leave by the end of 2014.

But some will go sooner: France’s new President, François Hollande, confirmed that his country’s troops will leave Afghanistan by the end of this year.

Mr. Obama, at a meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai Sunday before the summit opened, even looked forward to a not-so-distant future when war would be over. NATO leaders, he said, would be “painting a vision post-2014 in which we have ended our combat role, the Afghan war as we understand it is over, but our commitment to friendship and partnership with Afghanistan continues.”

It only took one peek outside Chicago’s heavily fortified McCormick Place, the convention centre where leaders of NATO countries met, to see why he’s rushing to see a brighter future after a decade of war: In Mr. Obama’s own home turf of Chicago, thousands of anti-war protestors gathered outside, with some engaging in a shoving match with police.

For Mr. Obama and many NATO leaders, the issue is not that their summit attracted protestors, but that the protestors’ message increasingly reflects the public mood, with support for the war at a low level in many NATO countries

Mr. Obama, running for re-election in November, is clearly seeking to ensure Afghanistan is not an issue, and hopes this summit will offer a show of global support for a quick exit strategy.

“The loss of life continues in Afghanistan. There will be hard days ahead,” he said at his meeting with Mr. Karzai. “But we’re confident that we are on the right track, and what this NATO summit reflects is that the world is behind the strategy that we’ve laid out.”

However, he did not categorically rule out keeping Canadian soldiers in the country post-2014, saying the government will make make “the decision that is in the best interest of country” which is to make sure Afghanistan doesn’t “once again become a safe haven for terrorism.”

“Canadians take note, they aren’t denying it,” Mulcair responded.

The NDP leader said his party would not support any other extension of the mission.

“It was supposed to end in 2006, then it was supposed to end in 2009 . . .then in 2011,” Mulcair said. “When will it finally end?”

Canada currently has about 900 military personnel in Afghanistan providing support for the NATO training mission in Kabul. They are scheduled to withdraw in the spring of 2014.

Using Canada’s special forces could be an attractive option for the Conservative government. The U.S. thinks very highly of their skills, they work mostly in secret and have not suffered any direct fatalities during the 10-year Afghanistan mission.

With files from David Pugliese, Postmedia News

Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office have refused to comment on whether Harper will make a pledge this weekend, but former Afghan ambassador to Canada Omar Samad said the only way to ensure stability in Afghanistan is if countries support those security forces.

Samad said any Canadian commitment to Afghanistan past 2014 would be done government-to-government and not through NATO, as has been the case up until now.

“That is probably being discussed right now,” he said, “and if it happens it will be between Afghanistan and Canada.”

At the same time, while Canada has committed up to 950 military trainers to Afghanistan through 2014, there have been reports that the U.S. is looking for Canada to maintain some type of military footprint past that point, including the deployment of special forces. So far, the government has not ruled out the possibility.

“Canada is committed until 2014 to participating in an international mission to train Afghanistan security forces to prevent that country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists,” Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, told the House of Commons on Friday. “We will assess what is necessary to meet these objectives and we have not made any final decisions at this time.”

That has prompted outrage from the NDP, who have demanded the government declare that Canada has done its share and end all military involvement in Afghanistan.

“We’ve seen this time and time again, that there is seemingly no end to the mission with this government,” NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said. “I think we have to be clear and declarative. And we should be saying we’ve done our part and that’s it when it comes to the military side.”

Given that there are still 130,000 international troops in Afghanistan and the majority won’t pull out for another two years, the idea Harper will make a commitment one way or the other is highly unlikely.

But University of Ottawa defence expert Roland Paris said that, given the Conservative government’s past record of promising to withdraw all Canadian troops only to reverse itself, the possibility of an extended presence this time around isn’t ridiculous.

“The prime minister has been full of surprises on this file over the past number of years,” Paris said. “There have been significant changes without advance warning.”

Postmedia News

CNN reports:

 

House Republicans pulled the plug on a vote Thursday on a bipartisan amendment to a defense bill that would force the Obama administration to stick firmly to its timetable for getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.

 

Republicans were concerned the amendment could pass, according to two GOP congressional sources.

 

There you have it. The reason that the amendment couldn't be allowed to come to a vote was because it could pass. "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it," an old anarchist saying goes. But this is certainly not the democracy they told us about when we were little. When Schoolhouse Rock sang, "I'm just a bill, sitting on Capitol Hill," do you remember anything about a measure with majority support being throttled by the House leadership? I don't.

But wait! It's not that simple.

 

One of the Republican sources stressed that there were a combination of factors for not allowing a vote on the timetable proposal, including "a lack of White House engagement." GOP leaders expected a bloc of their own members to support the measure, and they couldn't rely on the White House to lobby Democrats against it.

So, now we have a more nuanced view. It's not that the GOP leadership was against voting on the amendment per se. It's that they couldn't trust the White House to break enough Democratic arms to oppose it, because the GOP leadership couldn't stop enough House Republicans from defecting. It all makes sense if you start from the premise that the majority of the House, like the majority of the American people, can't be allowed to have any say, if they insist on disagreeing with the policy that has already been determined by others. Of course, the ideal isn't that they don't have any say; the ideal is that they approve the policy that has already been determined. But, if we can't make them approve the policy that has already been determined, then their say has to be taken away.

But this is not the end of the story.

 

A frustrated Jones said he would try again to attach the language to the defense spending bill when it comes up. "This is supposed to be the people's House - that means we listen to the people. How about listening to the 72% of those who say get out of Afghanistan?"

 

We now know what the Achilles' heel of the current policy is. Until now, the administration has gotten away with a having a two-faced policy, presented to the American people as a timetable for withdrawal but understood by the Pentagon and the Republican leadership as allowing tens of thousands of US troops to remain in Afghanistan forever. Now we know how to kill the Pentagon's fantasy of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Afghanistan forever: nail the administration's pseudo-timetable for withdrawal to the wall.

Members of National Nurses United, the nation's largest nurses union, were joined by members of the Occupy movement, unions and veterans. City officials have said the event could draw more than 5,000 because of a performance by former Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello, an activist who has played at many Occupy events. Early crowds did not appear to be that large.

The nurses and their supporters dressed in red shirts and wore green felt Robin Hood caps with red feathers. There were few problems at the rally, though police arrested at least one demonstrator as the gathering broke up.

About a dozen police officers, some wearing riot gear, surrounded the protester, who was dressed entirely in black and identified himself as a 19-year-old from Albuquerque, N.M. Police handcuffed him and walked him away from the rally on Daley Plaza.

Deb Holmes, a nurse at a hospital in Worcester, Mass., said she was advocating for the tax but also protesting proposals to cut back nurses' pensions.

"We've worked 30 years for them and don't want to get rid of them," she said.

The rally — which originally was scheduled to coincide with the start of the G-8 economic summit before that summit was moved from Chicago to Camp David — drew a broad spectrum of causes, from anti-war activists to Occupy protesters and Cathy Christeller's nonprofit Chicago Women's AIDS project.

Christeller, the agency's executive director, said there is common ground among all protesters, even against the backdrop of the NATO summit.

"The whole ... idea we should slash the (social) safety net instituted here and in Europe — It's a disaster," she said. "It ignores the source of the economic downturn, and it's making people suffer unnecessarily. This brings us together,"

Mary O'Sullivan and Chris Fogarty held the same signs that they carry every week. The retired couple have been protesting together for more than a decade, and Mary has carried the same sign for years, taping over "Honk to indict Bush" to read "Honk to indict banksters."

She said NATO "leaves rubble in their wake."

Ben Meyer, a Chicago lawyer who was observing the protest for the National Lawyers' Guild, denounced what he called an excessive police presence at the rally, which included dozens of officers milling through the crowd and lining the perimeter, some of whom were videotaping the rally.

"It's frustrating the state needs to come out and show this much force for a nurses' rally," he said. "They have everyone from the superintendent on down here. It's just ridiculous."

Chris Phillips, an Occupy activist from Buffalo, N.Y., said two police officers seized a wooden flag pole he was using to fly a flag reading "coexist" while standing on a bench on Daley Plaza. Officers told him the pole was considered a weapon.

"Did they read my flag? It's clearly a peaceful protest," he said. "I didn't hurt anybody. Are you kidding me?" Phillips said. He planned to protest nonstop for the next 4 days.

Meanwhile, lawyers for NATO summit protesters said police on Friday morning released four of nine activists arrested Wednesday on accusations that they had or planned to make Molotov cocktails.

The lawyers said police, with their guns drawn, raided an apartment building where activists were staying and arrested nine people. The Chicago chapter of the National Lawyers Guild said officers broke down doors in the building in the South Side Bridgeport neighborhood and produced no warrants.

The Chicago Police Department refused to comment.

Many office buildings in the usually bustling Loop business district were closed after workers were warned to stay home because of heightened security, snarled transportation and the possibility of unruly protests.

Other small protests, including one targeting climate change, are also planned.

Shawmaf Khubba, a student at Montclair State University in New Jersey, took a 14-hour bus ride on Thursday with 40 others to join the Chicago protests. He said he wanted to raise awareness and tough questions about what he called NATO's unwarranted military aggression around the world.

"NATO is a strong arm of the U.S. that gives an excuse to go everywhere around the world," he said before Friday's rally. "I'm here because I care about what happens to people around the world."

Scattered protests over the past week have been relatively small, including a march Thursday through the "Magnificent Mile" shopping district that drew about 100 people.

Estimates of how many might show up Sunday for an anti-NATO march have varied widely, from a couple of thousand to more than 10,000.

Police and the Secret Service have taken no chances as heads of state from 50 countries begin arriving for the NATO summit, where leaders will discuss the war in Afghanistan and European missile defense.

Security is high on trains. Barricades and fences have been erected around landmark buildings, and streets are being closed.

"We'll discuss this again at the summit in Chicago, and I think that we'll be able to find a way to make it possible for our allies to pursue their mission and for France to keep the promise I made to the French people," said Hollande, who campaigned on a pledge to pull France's combat troops out by the end of the year.

"We agreed that even as we transition out of a combat phase in Afghanistan that it's important that we sustain our commitment to helping Afghans build security and continue down the path of development," said Obama.

Obama and his guest, the first Socialist French president in 17 years, seemed far closer on other issues: Both cited the need to stimulate the sputtering global economy. "Growth must be a priority, even as we get our public accounts in order," said Hollande, whose calls for jobs initiatives is a break from predecessor Nicolas Sarkozy's austerity agenda. Obama and the French president were to meet hours later at Camp David with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has called for stricter fiscal discipline, at a summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations.

"We're looking forward to a fruitful discussion later this evening and tomorrow with the other G8 leaders about how we can manage a responsible approach to fiscal consolidation that is coupled with a strong growth agenda," said Obama.

The French president also said he and his host had agreed on the need for Greece to remain in the eurozone—Europe's common currency area—despite the country's profound debt crisis and calls from some quarters for dropping it from the 17-nation economic union.

"We share the same belief, that Greece must remain in the eurozone and that all of us must make an effort to achieve that goal," said Hollande. "And I wanted to send the Greek people this message: Your place is in the eurozone."

Both leaders also showed a united front on the tense diplomatic crisis over Iran's suspect nuclear program and international efforts to end Syria's bloody crackdown on opposition to President Bashar al-Assad.

Obama's talks with Hollande kicked off a frenetic four days of guns-and-butter diplomacy, starting with the G8 meeting at Camp David and continuing through the NATO summit in Chicago.

Both Afghanistan and the economy are central to Obama's legacy—not to mention his hopes for re-election in November. And the back-to-back summits offer vital opportunities to get the United States and its closest allies in closer harmony.

White House officials have worriedly watched Europe's debt crisis, concerned that a recession there could infect the already-weak American economy. And the president has made a successful handover of security responsibility from NATO-led forces to their Afghan counterparts by the end of 2014 one of his signature foreign policy goals.

"Our economies are interdependent. What happens in Europe has consequences on the United States. And what happened in the United States had consequences for Europe," said Hollande. "The more coordinated our actions, the more effective we can be."

(Hollande later doubled down on his Afghanistan policy in a press conference before the G8, telling reporters his withdrawal pledge was "not negotiable," Agence France-Presse reported.

"The withdrawal of combat forces is France's decision and this decision will be implemented," he said. But he noted that France would "make its decisions in harmony with its allies, including our American partners."

After 2012, any remaining French forces "will simply be tasked with logistics to bring home our equipment" and will take part in efforts to train the Afghan police and army.)

As the meeting began, Obama referred to Hollande's youthful adventures in the United States, which he traveled to in 1974 on a grant from a business school. The future president of a country famed for its food studied McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken, both unknown at the time in France. "I could have made a fortune in cheeseburgers, but I finally chose politics," he recently told The New York Times.

After offering Hollande a "hearty congratulations" on his election victory, Obama noted that his guest "actually spent some time in the United States in his youth, studying American fast food—and although he decided to go into politics, we'll be interested in his opinions of cheeseburgers in Chicago."

"I want to thank President Obama for his vast knowledge of my life before I became a politician. And I want to say nothing that might suggest that cheeseburgers might have any flaws," replied Hollande.

"I just want to remember that cheeseburgers go very well with french fries," joked Obama. "No declaration about french fries," Hollande said, in English.

That light banter recalled deep tensions between Paris and Washington in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, a war France fiercely opposed. U.S. lawmakers at one time voted to change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" in their cafeteria, while Air Force One served "freedom toast." Neither food is known as "French" in France.

"The event is still being assessed and additional information may be released as appropriate," a spokesman said.

If it is confirmed as a green-on-blue attack, in which Afghan forces turn their weapons against their Western allies, it would take the toll this year to 22 NATO soldiers killed in at least 16 such attacks.

Helmand province police spokesman Farid Ahmad Farhang told AFP that "two Afghan policemen opened fire on British soldiers inside a joint military base in Nahre Saraj district".

One of the police shooters "was killed when foreign troops returned fire, the second policeman has been injured", he said.

A senior security official in the province, Mohammad Ismail Hotak, confirmed the attack, saying the policemen had been in the force for a year.

ISAF confirmed that one of the attackers was killed, adding that the other "is being sought".

An increasing number of Afghan troops have turned their weapons against NATO soldiers who are helping Kabul fight a decade-long insurgency by hardline Taliban Islamists.

Some of the assaults are claimed by the Taliban, who say they have infiltrated the ranks of Afghan security forces, but many are attributed to cultural differences and antagonism between the allied forces.

ISAF has taken several security measures in response to the shootings, including assigning "guardian angels" -- soldiers who watch over their comrades as they sleep.

Aside from the "green-on-blue" shootings, relations between the United States and its Afghan allies have been rocked this year by a series of incidents involving American troops.

A joint statement by ISAF and US forces gave no details of how many civilians died in each incident, but local officials have put the total at more than 20, including women and children.

Karzai had summoned ISAF commander John Allen and US ambassador Ryan Crocker to warn that civilian deaths caused by international forces threatened the strategic pact he signed with US President Barack Obama earlier this month.

ISAF has around 130,000 soldiers fighting alongside some 350,000 Afghan security personnel against the Taliban-led insurgency, but they are due to pull out of the country in 2014.

Two other NATO soldiers died Saturday, one in a bomb blast and the other as a result of a "non-battle related injury", ISAF said, without identifying the nationalities of any of the victims.

U.S. concessions were relatively small, however, and the deal Obama signed in Kabul is probably the best one he could get on a tight deadline. He wants to showcase a long-term commitment to Afghan stability when he hosts NATO leaders for a summit in Chicago later this month. U.S. officials said the deal is legally binding, but it does not carry the force of a treaty as Afghanistan originally wanted.

Obama called the agreement historic, and said it "defines a new kind of relationship between our countries — a future in which Afghans are responsible for the security of their nation, and we build an equal partnership between two sovereign states."

The deal pledges Afghanistan to fight corruption, improve efficiency and protect human rights, including women's rights. All are areas where the United States already finds fault with Afghan performance, and Afghanistan has promised improvement on corruption many times before. The nine-page agreement spells out no consequences if those or other goals are not met.

The agreement uses even looser language to address the production and trafficking of illegal drugs in Afghanistan, a major opium producer. Both nations affirm that illicit drugs undermine security and legitimate economic growth but promise only to cooperate to confront the threat.

The United States promises to seek annual funding to train and equip the Afghan armed forces but gives no dollar figure. That money must be approved by Congress, which has so far supported the Obama administration's plan to build up the Afghan forces. There is growing concern in Congress, however, about the quality of those forces, and the billions of dollars they would need over 10 years is not assured.

The agreement promises ongoing U.S. investment in a variety of development, health, education and support projects aimed at helping the poor nation one day support itself, and it commits the United States to seek annual funding from Congress "commensurate with the strategic importance of the U.S.-Afghan partnership."

U.S. officials said they cannot make a more specific pledge because Congress controls the purse strings.

The agreement, which takes effect when U.S. and other foreign combat forces leave in 2014, also is not the last word on whether the United States leaves a much smaller contingent of troops in Afghanistan after that date.

Both of the current leaders want such a residual force. But if Iraq is a guide, the rationale for a continued U.S. military presence on the soil of a Muslim nation could change, or new leadership in Washington or Kabul could decide on a different path.

Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby said the "strategic partnership agreement" is not intended to address the specific terms of an ongoing military relationship. The agreement pledges the two nations to begin work on a more detailed pact, and sets a goal of one year to complete it.

"Clearly if you're going to have troops remaining in Afghanistan, you're going to have to have some guidelines that govern that," Kirby said. "What form it takes and what title it has ... we're just not there yet."

The U.S. promises to name Afghanistan a "major non-NATO ally," a loose term meant to underscore U.S. commitment to Afghan stability but not one that would automatically bind the U.S. to come to Afghanistan's defense if it were attacked. The deal does say that the United States would "regard with grave concern any external aggression against Afghanistan," and promises urgent consultation on a diplomatic, military or other response.

The agreement also sets in writing previous assurances from U.S. leaders that the United States will not build permanent military bases in Afghanistan or use its soil to launch hostile attacks on its neighbors. That does not preclude U.S. military and intelligence units from sharing space at Afghan bases, but if honored would prevent the United States from launching any future strike on Iran from inside Afghanistan.

Karzai had sought the deal as a measure of U.S. dedication to protect and underwrite his poor but strategically located country. He is worried about a political and military resurgence of the Taliban insurgency once tens of thousands of foreign forces leave, and U.S. officials share that concern.

Karzai, however, is scheduled to leave office in 2014, probably just before the new agreement would take effect.

His successor is unclear, as is the future of a political outreach to the Taliban that might draw the movement or its surrogates into some kind of power-sharing arrangement. All are factors that could affect whether Afghanistan continues to want such a deal with the United States.

Either nation can quit the agreement with one year's written notice. If both parties want to cancel it they can do so by mutual agreement at any time.

The deal was announced the same day the Pentagon said in a new report that the counter-insurgency campaign is making good progress on the military side, but little progress on issues that depend on cooperation from the Afghan and Pakistani governments.

"The Afghan government continues to face widespread corruption that limits its effectiveness and legitimacy and bolsters insurgent messaging," the semi-annual report to Congress said.

It identified safe havens in Pakistan where insurgents hide and re-arm for attacks on U.S. and Afghan forces as "the most critical threat" to the war effort.

The decision drew criticism from some of his GOP rivals, including the presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, that Obama was calibrating his war strategy to the election calendar. Romney, who on Tuesday gave Obama a share of the credit for bin Laden’s killing, has said the U.S. goal should be to defeat the Taliban on the battlefield.

But Obama on Tuesday laid out a different ambition.

“Our goal is not to build a country in America’s image or to eradicate every vestige of the Taliban,” he said. “These objectives would require many more years, many more dollars and many more American lives. Our goal is to destroy al-Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that.”

The last of the 33,000 troops Obama dispatched to Afghanistan in 2009 will head home at the end of September. Senior administration officials said Tuesday that, though no specific future troop levels have been determined, a “steady reduction” will follow over the next two years.

Obama’s timeline calls on Afghan security forces to take the lead in combat operations by the end of next year. All U.S. troops are scheduled to leave by the end of 2014, except for trainers who will assist Afghan forces and a small contingent of troops with a specific mission to combat al-Qaeda through counterterrorism operations.

In his remarks, Obama emphasized that the United States will not seek permanent military bases in Afghanistan, a country that for centuries has fiercely opposed foreign interlopers.

Those U.S. trainers and Special Operations troops that remain beyond 2014 will live on Afghan bases. Senior administration officials said the agreement is meant to send a signal to the Taliban that they cannot “wait out” the international presence, which is supporting a fragile Afghan government.

“The goal I set to defeat al-Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild is now within reach,” Obama said.

Traveling overnight and landing in darkness, Obama arrived at Bagram air base, 35 miles north of Kabul, at 10:20 p.m. local time and boarded a helicopter for a flight into the capital. He arrived at the presidential palace just after 11 p.m. for a meeting with President Hamid Karzai, who has had a contentious relationship with Obama over the years.

“I’m here to affirm the bond between our two countries and to thank Americans and Afghans who have sacrificed so much over these last 10 years,” Obama said. “Neither Americans nor the Afghan people asked for this war, yet for a decade we’ve stood together.”

In signing the agreement after 20 months of difficult negotiations, Obama said that “the Afghan people and the world should know that Afghanistan has a partner in the United States.”

Karzai has long requested reassurance from Obama that U.S. support would not wane after 2014. The agreement commits Obama to ask Congress for money to support Afghanistan through 2024, but it does not specify the amount of annual aid.

The accord is designed to promote the training of Afghan forces, a reconciliation and reintegration process for Taliban fighters who leave the battlefield, and regional stability with a focus on improving relations with Pakistan. A second senior administration official, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, called it “a crucial component to bring the war to an end responsibly.”

In speaking with troops after the signing ceremony, Obama sounded notes of praise and hope.

“I know the battle is not yet over; some of your buddies are going to get injured, some of your buddies may get killed. And there’s going to be heartbreak and pain ahead,” he said. “But there is a light on the horizon because of the sacrifices you made.”

Karzai has had a tempestuous relationship with American leaders in recent years, making demands that U.S. officials have seen as unrealistic and maligning Washington as trying to strong-arm reconciliation efforts with the Taliban.

At the heart of Karzai’s discontent were two issues that appeared to have the potential to obstruct a long-term partnership: night operations and a U.S. military prison at Bagram.

This year, at Karzai’s behest, the United States agreed to cede control of the night raids and the detention center to Afghan security forces — concessions that paved the way for the long-term partnership agreement.

But beyond the substantive reforms that Karzai has demanded, Afghan officials say their president has also longed for more access to Washington — a wish that Obama’s rare visit to Kabul may have sought to satisfy.

Administration officials said Obama wanted to sign the deal in Kabul to highlight Afghan sovereignty and the changing nature of the U.S.-Afghan relationship.

“Today, with the signing of the strategic partnership agreement, we look forward to a future of peace,” he said after signing the pact.

Americans have not outlined what the U.S. troop presence will look like beyond 2014, and NATO has yet to specify its long-term financial commitment to the Afghan security forces. That topic will be a focal point of the NATO summit in Chicago this month.

U.S. military officials say they have been impressed with the improvement of the Afghan forces — an assessment echoed Tuesday by administration officials traveling with Obama.

But the Taliban remains strong in the south and the east, penetrating key security barriers in Kabul and Kandahar — the country’s most important cities — within the past month. In a coordinated assault on April 15, more than 35 militants staged simultaneous attacks on high-profile targets in several cities across eastern Afghanistan, including the capital.

“Let us finish the work at hand,” Obama said Tuesday, “and forge a just and lasting peace.”

Wilson reported from Washington. Staff writers Karen DeYoung and Ed O’Keefe in Washington contributed to this report.

“We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated al-Qaida’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders,” he said.

But the violence that erupted about 90 minutes after his departure was a stark reminder of the difficult task still ahead for Afghan troops as they work to secure their country after U.S. and other foreign troops end their combat mission following nearly a decade at war.

The deal signed with Karzai does not commit the United States to any specific troop presence or spending. But it does allow the U.S. to potentially keep troops in Afghanistan through 2024 for two specific purposes: continued training of Afghan forces and targeted operations against al-Qaida.

The United States also promises to seek money from Congress every year to support Afghanistan.

The attack began with a suicide car bomb near the gate of the privately guarded compound, which sits off Jalalabad road — one of the main thoroughfares out of the city, Interior Ministry spokesman Sediq Sediqi said.

Kabul Deputy Police Chief Daoud Amin said those killed in the blast included four people in a station wagon that was driving past the area, a passer-by and a Nepalese security guard. He didn’t have the identity of the seventh person killed. The Interior Ministry said 17 other people were wounded, many Afghan children on their way to school.

Karzai’s office said three Taliban took part in the attack: the suicide car bomber and two other gunmen who stormed the compound disguised in burqas — the head-to-toe robes worn by conservative Afghan women.

Explosions and gunfire shook the city for hours as Afghan soldiers rushed to the scene and battled the attackers.

A Western official who had been briefed on the assault said the attackers had breached the perimeter defense, around the compound’s parking areas, but had not gotten past a secondary security gate that protects the actual living areas. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

The area appeared to have calmed down by about 10 a.m. NATO said all the attackers had been killed.

The fundamentalist Islamic movement later announced that its annual “spring offensive” would begin Thursday. The offensive comes every year as the snows melt, making both travel and fighting easier as the Taliban try to retake lost territory and intimidate the Afghan government.

Afghanistan already has seen a spike in violence this year.

The compound, which is known as Green Village, houses hundreds of international contractors, diplomats and aid workers in eastern Kabul. It also was the target of anti-foreigner protests following the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base in February. At that time, violent protests raged outside, but the angry crowds did not breach the compound’s defenses.

The compound’s main gate was destroyed, with the wreckage of the suicide bomber’s car sitting in front, the road running past it was littered with shoes, books, school supplies and the bloody ID card of a student from a nearby school.

A young man who saw the explosion said the dead pedestrian was one of his fellow classmates.

“I was walking to school when I saw a very big explosion. A car exploded and flames went very high into the air,” said 21-year-old Mohammad Wali. “Then I saw a body of one of my classmates lying on the street. I knew it was a suicide attack and ran away. I was so afraid.”

Karzai’s office condemned the attack, calling the perpetrators “the slaves of foreigners who don’t want Afghan children to learn.”

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid claimed responsibility for the attack.

“This was a message to Obama that those are not real Afghans that are signing documents about this country,” Mujahid said. “The real Afghan nation are those people that are not letting foreign invaders stay in this country or disrespect the dignity of our country.”

He said the target of Wednesday’s attack was a “foreign military base.” A spokesman for the alliance, Capt. Justin Brockhoff, said no NATO bases came under attack.

The Green Village complex, with its towering blast walls and heavily armed security force, is very similar in appearance to NATO bases in the city. An Associated Press reporter at the scene saw a group of Afghan soldiers enter the compound, after which heavy shooting could be heard coming from inside.

Elsewhere, NATO said that two coalition service members were killed Wednesday in a bomb blast in the country’s east. The alliance did not give the nationality of the troops or provide other details.

The Taliban said that this year’s “spring offensive” would be code-named “Al-Farouk,” the title of the second Muslim Caliph who lived in the seventh century.

They said the offensive would focus on “all those people who work against the Mujahedeen, toil to pave ground for the occupation of Afghanistan and become the cause for the strength of the invaders.”

___

The Strategic Partnership Agreement states that the United States will not use its presence in Afghanistan to launch offensive actions against other states from Afghan soil.

However, it does say that in the event of threats to Afghanistan the two countries would consult on an appropriate response.

“This is defensive in nature, not offensive, doesn’t threaten any one, but I hope the region takes notice,” Crocker said.

US officials are loath to discuss the secretive CIA program, the source of sharp tensions between Washington and Islamabad. Drones have killed scores of what the U.S. government says are Al-Qaeda suspects in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

This week, Obama aide John Brennan insisted that the missile strikes were legal, ethical, proportional and saved U.S. lives.

On Tuesday, the Pentagon warned that insurgent sanctuaries in Pakistan and corruption posed “long-term and acute challenges” to security in Afghanistan.

Crocker urged Pakistan to take action against safe havens and prevent cross-border attacks by the Taliban.

“I hope Pakistanis will take a look at this agreement and say ‘Wow, the Americans are not going to cut and run this time. We don’t need to hedge our bets, we don’t need to put up with these guys any longer’ and either take control of them or press them into the reconciliation process.”

Obama signs deal with Karzai on surprise trip

BAGRAM AIR FIELD, AFGHANISTAN—On a swift, secretive trip to the war zone, U.S. President Barack Obama declared Tuesday night that after years of sacrifice, the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan is winding down just as it has already ended in Iraq.

“We can see the light of a new day on the horizon,” he said on the anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s death and in the midst of his own re-election campaign.

“Our goal is to destroy Al Qaeda, and we are on a path to do exactly that,” Obama said in an unusual speech to America broadcast from an airbase halfway around the world.

He spoke after signing an agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai setting postwar promises and expectations. With two armoured troop carriers as a backdrop, Obama made his remarks in the midst of his endeavour to win re-election as U.S. president and commander-in-chief.

The president landed in Bagram in darkness, and his helicopter roared to Kabul for the meeting with Karzai, under close guard, with only the outlines of the nearby mountains visible.

Later, back at the base, he was surrounded by U.S. troops, shaking every hand. He ended his lightning visit with the speech delivered straight to the television camera — and the voters he was trying to reach back home.

“This time of war began in Afghanistan,” he said. “With faith in each other, and our eyes fixed on the future, let us finish the work at hand and forge a just and lasting peace.”

Earlier, he delivered a similarly upbeat message to the troops. Noting their sacrifice, he said, “There’s a light on the horizon.”

It was Obama’s fourth trip to Afghanistan, his third as commander-in-chief. He was about seven hours on the ground in all. He also visited troops at a hospital at the Bagram base, awarding 10 Purple Hearts.

The written agreement that he and Karzai signed is to cover the decade after the planned final withdrawal of U.S. combat troops in 2014. Obama said American forces will be involved in counterterrorism and training of the Afghan military. “But we will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains.”

In his speech to the nation, Obama said, “I recognize many Americans are tired of war.”

He said that last year, “we removed 10,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Another 23,000 will leave by the end of the summer. After that, reductions will continue at a steady pace, with more of our troops coming home. And as our coalition agreed, by the end of 2014 the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country.”

Without mentioning the political campaign back home, Obama claimed that on his watch the fortunes of the terrorists have suffered mightily.

Over the past three years, “the tide has turned. We broke the Taliban’s momentum. We’ve built strong Afghan security forces. We devastated Al Qaeda’s leadership, taking out over 20 of their top 30 leaders,” he said.

“And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.”

In a reference to the destruction of New York’s World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, he added, “As we emerge from a decade of conflict abroad and economic crisis at home, it is time to renew America . . . a united America of grit and resilience, where sunlight glistens off soaring new towers in downtown Manhattan, and we build our future as one people, as one nation.”

He spoke for less than 15 minutes, beginning at 4 a.m. in Afghanistan, 7:30 p.m. on the East Coast of the United States. Minutes later, Air Force One was on its way back to Washington.

According to the Pentagon, more than 1,800 American troops have been killed across more than a decade of war in Afghanistan. Some 88,000 remain stationed there.

KABUL—A man wearing an Afghan army uniform fatally shot an American service member in southern Afghanistan, officials said Thursday, the latest in a string of attacks against U.S. and other foreign forces by their Afghan partners or insurgents in disguise.

Since the beginning of the year, there have been at least 16 such attacks against American and other international troops. The U.S.-led coalition is trying to mentor and strengthen Afghan security forces so they can lead the fight against the Taliban and foreign troops can go home by the end of 2014. That mission, however, requires a measure of trust that has been repeatedly undermined by the deaths of coalition troops at the hands of their Afghan partners.

In one of the highest-profile attacks, a man working as a driver at the Afghan Interior Ministry shot dead two U.S. military advisers at close range in March. That incident alone led the U.S. military to temporarily pull all its advisers out of Afghan ministries.

U.S.-Afghan ties have also been under strain following the Qur’an burnings at a U.S. base and the alleged killing spree by an American soldier in the south in recent months. Relations appeared to be shifting back on track with Washington and Kabul agreeing to a long-awaited deal earlier this week on a strategic pact to govern the U.S. presence in Afghanistan till 2024.

The latest attack took place late Wednesday when the shooter turned his weapon on coalition troops and opened fire, the U.S. military said in a statement. International forces returned fire, killing the assailant, the statement said without providing further details. The incident was under investigation.

A senior U.S. defence official said the attack happened in Kandahar province and the coalition member killed was an American. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release details.

Also Thursday, three Afghan women were killed in the crossfire of a battle in the east. A mortar fired during the fighting in Wardak province hit a house, killing the women inside, said Shahidullah Shahid, a spokesman for the provincial governor

The battle began when Taliban fighters ambushed a NATO convoy Shahid said. Both sides used heavy weapons, but it was not immediately clear who fired the mortar, he said.

NATO forces spokesman Capt. Justin Brockhoff said reports indicate it was a joint Afghan and international patrol that came under fire. He said they were looking into reports that “civilian casualties may have been caused by the engagement.”

Last year was the deadliest on record for civilians in the Afghan war, with 3,021 killed, according to the United Nations. Taliban-affiliated militants were responsible for more than three-quarters of those deaths.

She will take her pull-out timetable to a NATO summit in Chicago next month with her announcement coming a day ahead of NATO foreign and defence ministers meeting in Brussels to fine-tune their own troop withdrawals.

“I’m now confident that Chicago will recognise mid-2013 as a key milestone in the international strategy,” she said in a keynote speech shortly after a wave of coordinated Taliban attacks in Afghanistan left 51 people dead.

“A crucial point when the international forces will be able to move to a supporting role across all of Afghanistan.”

Australia has some 1,550 troops stationed in the strife-torn country and has so far lost 32 soldiers in the conflict.

Gillard said they would begin leaving as soon as Afghan President Hamid Karzai declared Afghans would take responsibility for Uruzgan province, where most Australian forces are based.

Karzai is expected to make the announcement “in the coming months” and once he did, the withdrawal should take 12 to 18 months.

“And when this is complete, Australia’s commitment in Afghanistan will look very different to that we have today,” she said.

“We will have completed our training and mentoring mission with the 4th Brigade.

“We will no longer be conducting routine frontline operations with the Afghan National Security Forces. The Australian-led Provincial Reconstruction Team will have completed its work.

“And the majority of our troops will have returned home.”

While most soldiers will return, she made clear Australia stood ready to “provide niche training to the Afghan National Security Forces after 2014”.

“We are prepared to consider a limited Special Forces contribution — in the right circumstances and under the right mandate,” she said.

Canberra has faced increasing pressure over the long-running Afghan campaign and a 2013 pull-out will be a year in advance of the 2014 deadline previously laid down by NATO-led international forces.

It will also mean most Australian troops are likely to be home before the next election.

Gillard is struggling in the polls and many people oppose the deployment to Afghanistan, but she denied it was a political decision, or had been accelerated because US President Barack Obama faces an election in November.

“What drives the timetable is the assessment by ISAF and then by the Afghan government of the right moment to enter transition,” she said, referring to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

“And that is based on an assessment of the growing capacity of the Afghan national security forces.”

Australia’s Afghan deployment began in 2001 before Canberra pulled out, only to redeploy to the arena in 2005.

Gillard said while the challenges remained significant, important gains had been made that helped fast-track a transition to full Afghan security responsibility.

“Bin Laden is dead. Most of Al-Qaeda’s senior leaders have been killed or captured. We have pushed Al-Qaeda’s remaining leaders to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area,” she said.

“The Afghan National Army’s 4th Brigade is increasingly capable of planning and conducting operations on its own and the Afghan security presence across the province is expanding.”

Agence France-Presse

OTTAWA—Canadian soldiers could remain in Afghanistan past the current 2014 deadline even though many other nations are looking for a quick exit from the war.

In a plan that appears to have been hatched at NATO meetings in Brussels last week, the U.S. is seeking support from Canada and Australia to form a force of elite commandos that will remain in the troubled country when other nations leave. Their role would be to hunt down enemy insurgents in Afghanistan and train Afghan forces.

On the sidelines of the meeting of NATO defence and foreign ministers, U.S. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta reportedly met with Defence Minister Peter MacKay and his Australian counterpart Stephen Smith to discuss the possibility of a prolonged stay.

After ending their Kandahar combat role last year, about 1,000 Canadian troops have been involved in a Kabul-centred training mission that is slated to end in 2014. Australia is keen to wrap up its combat mission next year, but Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said she is open to a “limited special-forces contribution.”

Harper hinted Wednesday that he is on the same page after a report on the planned military extension made its way to the floor of the Commons.

The prime minister brushed aside the details of the report, saying Canada has not had a “specific request” from Washington to commit to sending troops to the country after 2014. But he admitted that it is a possibility.

“Our plan at the current time is obviously for the mission that goes to 2014, but as we approach that date, we will examine all options and we will take the decision that is in the best interests of this country,” Harper said.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair pounced on the prime minister over what he said appears to be an open-ended Afghan mission, which was extended in 2006, 2009 and 2011.

“Canadians do not want yet another Conservative extension of the mission in Afghanistan and the NDP will not support one,” Mulcair said.

Unlike previous extensions, the current Afghan training mission was not put to Parliament for a vote by the Tories because it did not involve combat and soldiers would not be put in danger. So far, one soldier has been killed in a roadside bomb blast.

But the limited gains that have been made by NATO troops and frequent skirmishes between Washington and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have sent a number of battle-hardened allies running for the exit. That’s expected to dominate debate next month when the leaders of the alliance nations meet in Chicago for the annual NATO summit.

As for the future of Canada’s participation, NDP defence critic Jack Harris said any extension would be both dangerous for the troops and unpopular for the government, particularly after the Harper’s previous broken promises to end the mission.

“This is something that I think Canadians are getting fed up with — getting told one thing and then all of a sudden this goes on and on and on. It’s a question of trust here. It’s a question of faith,” he said.

At the 2010 NATO summit in Lisbon, where Canada committed to the current training role, Harper predicted that the U.S. would keep fighting in the country after 2014 to “send the message to the Taliban that they’re prepared to stay if necessary.”

He added: “It’s not Canada’s position.”

The defence department closely guards any information about the training, deployments or responsibilities of Canada’s special forces units because of their role upholding national security.

But last fall, the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command, which includes Joint Task Force 2 and the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, pulled back the curtain on their activities over the past few years in Afghanistan and also revealed that CSOR forces are currently training Afghan commandoes with NATO’s Special Operations Advisory Group.

Harris said any future deployment needs to come to a vote in the House of Commons.

“They’re not talking about a training role. They’re talking about a training-and-combat role for special forces. They will be engaged in combat,” he said.

Over the past seven months, nearly 400 insurgents involved in plots to invade the capital have been arrested or killed, the general said.

Efforts to integrate former rebels into civil society have also made progress, with a 40 percent increase in people joining a reintegration programme since December, that now totals more than 4,000 former insurgents, he said.

NATO plans to give Afghan security forces the lead across the nation some time next year, paving the way for foreign combat troops to leave by the end of 2014.

Bradshaw said the transition process is "holding very strongly" but that the alliance would wait for "clarity" about France's intentions after its May 6 presidential election.

Socialist candidate Francois Hollande, the frontrunner, has vowed to pull French troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2012, one year earlier than President Nicolas Sarkozy.

"When a mullah, who is hired by us, is in violation (of the decree), we discharge him from his job. And if he is not hired officially by us, we report to security and judicial departments to act against him," Abdul Malik Zeyaee, head of the Mosques and Religious Sites department at the ministry, told Reuters.

Afghanistan now has a three-strike approach for clerics who preach against the constitution or incite violence - first a delegation will be sent to talk to the offending imam, then a strong warning and finally the leader may face dismissal if at a registered mosque, or possibly jail if not.

But with so few officially sanctioned mosques and little government leverage over those which are not, there are strong doubts that Kabul will be able to stop anti-government messages, especially in far-flung areas where government reach is weak.

Afghans in provinces outside Kabul said they had not seen much change in the mullahs' speeches since the decree was issued a few months ago.

"They speak against foreign forces in the country, they speak about violations by the government and the Taliban and they speak about anything. People are listening to them carefully," said Hajji Khoshdil, a 45-year-old resident of Herat city near the border with Iran.

"THE CRUSADER COLONIALISTS"

The decree has taken on renewed importance after a series of missteps by the West that have inflamed security tensions, including the inadvertent burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers in February, triggering riots stirred in part by mosque sermons.

The massacre of 17 Afghan villagers in Kandahar, for which a U.S. soldier was charged, and photographs of U.S. troops posing with dead suicide bombers have only added fuel to the fire.

"The crusader colonialists through their agent rulers are trying to uproot Islam from the Afghan society," Hizb ut Tahrir Afghanistan, a radical Islamic group, said in a statement on the new directives this week.

"All this is happening in the so called 'Islamic Democratic Afghanistan' where you are free to preach anything but not Islam. After killing hundreds and thousands of Muslims in Afghanistan, the colonialists, in collaboration with the traitor rulers, are trying to control Islam inside mosques."

Anti-Western sentiment is growing in Afghanistan, which is traditionally conservative, deeply religious and suspicious of outsiders in areas outside the capital. The welcome foreign troops got in 2001 has slowly soured as the war drags into its 11th year and civilian casualties, caused mainly by insurgents, continue to mount.

Many government imams in volatile southern Kandahar and Helmand provinces would not talk to Reuters reporters about the resolution for fear of retribution by the government. The mosques' department also declined to provide Reuters with a copy of the decree.

But in other provinces, outside the Pashtun-dominated south from which the Taliban draws most support, clerics said the decree would not influence their Friday sermons.

"Our holy Koran is more important than the resolution of the Hajj ministry. I'll never avoid telling the truth," said Ghulam Faroq, a member of the Ulema council in western Herat province.

"I'm not a politician who would encourage people to stand against the government or support a political party, but if something happens which is against Islam, I'll raise my voice."

Even with no specifics, Afghan National Security Adviser Spanta announced that, "The document finalized [on Sunday] provides a strong foundation for the security of Afghanistan, the region and the world and is a document for the development of the region." Western diplomats have speculated that a more detailed security agreement would possibly come sometime next year, once European nations make it clear how much they can give to fund Afghan national security forces.

Still, the very presence of a draft agreement is important to the goals of both the U.S. and Afghan governments. The U.S. needs to show the American people it is working on an exit strategy while Kabul needs to reassure international donors there is a future in Afghanistan and the Afghan people that they will not be left to fend for themselves against the Taliban's expected attempt to take over after the 2014 pull out. The agreement could also be seen as a possible application of pressure against the Taliban, since many have speculated that they will wait for a U.S. withdrawal before staging a power-grab.

"Considering that stability in Afghanistan would be stability for Central Asia and South Asia, the United States emphasizes that any kind of interference in Afghan affairs would be a matter of concern for the United States," he said, quoting from the Dari language version of the agreement.

"If any interference occurs, the United States, with the agreement of both countries, will give a proper response, including diplomatic means, political means, economic means and even military means."

He stressed that any such actions would be taken only with Afghan approval.

The commitment is a reminder that while U.S. forces are drawing down in Afghanistan over the next two years, the American military will remain active in the country long after that.

The draft agreement on a long-delayed strategic partnership agreement ensures Americans will provide military and financial support to the Afghan people for at least a decade beyond the 2014 deadline.

The pact is key to the U.S. exit strategy in Afghanistan because it establishes guidelines for any American forces who remain after the withdrawal deadline and for financial help to the impoverished country and its security forces.

The most contentious issues between the Afghan and U.S. government were resolved in separate memorandums of understanding governing the conduct of night raids and control of detainees ahead of the strategic partnership pact.

The agreement as read out by Spanta is broad, addressing a mutual commitment to the stability of Afghanistan and to human rights. It does not address specific troop levels or the size or location of bases, though it does say that the U.S. has no plans to keep permanent military bases in Afghanistan.

Many Afghans worry that the U.S. wants permanent bases, a setup that would make it more of an occupying force than an ally. Spanta said that specific decisions about bases will be left to a later deal.

U.S. officials involved in negotiations have said that they see the strategic partnership as overarching agreement to continue to support Afghanistan, with details on troop conduct and strength to be worked out in a "technical agreement" still to come.

The U.S. pledged in the agreement to continue to fund Afghan security forces after 2014. It does not say how much money this will involve, but says it should be enough to support the force. U.S. officials have said they expect to pay about $4 billion a year to fund Afghan forces, but the funding would have to be approved by Congress.

The agreement also says the U.S. will help support Afghan economic development, health care programs, education and social initiatives, and stresses that the U.S. remains committed to defending human rights and the right of free speech.

Afghan and American officials finalized the text of the document on Sunday after a year and a half of negotiations during which it often seemed that the deal was likely to fall apart. They went through 23 drafts before both sides were finally satisfied, Spanta said.

"We have had so many difficult discussions among ourselves and also with the U.S. delegation," Spanta said.

The agreement still has to go through internal reviews in both countries and to be signed by the Afghan and American presidents.

The document is needed to provide U.S. forces with the authority to continue in Afghanistan after 2014, when the Afghan government is slated to take over control of security countrywide.

The majority of U.S. combat troops are expected to be out of the country by that date, but some combat forces will continue to go on missions, and trainers and advisers to the Afghan security forces will also remain. The strategic partnership agreement covers the period from 2014 to 2024, Spanta said.

Spanta said the part of the document that took the most debate was section three on maintaining stability and peace in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials have declined to comment on the document until it is signed, or to provide the original English text.

Scott Camil was honorably discharged with 13 medals including 2 purple hearts following 20 months voluntarily spent as a Marine in Vietnam in 1966 and 1967.  He testified at the Winter Soldier Investigation in 1971, and was a founding member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War Inc. He is an active member of Veterans For Peace and serves as the President of Chapter 014 in Gainesville, Florida.

Veterans for Peace was founded in 1985 and has approximately 5,000 members in 150 chapters located in every U.S. state and several countries.  It is a 501(c)3 non-profit educational organization recognized as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) by the United Nations, and is the only national veterans' organization calling for the abolishment of war.