IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

After nearly 10 years, will Afghan war die with bin Laden?

Image: U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan
Staff Sgt. Alexander Pascual, right, of Kohala, Hawaii, and Spc. Zachery Boyd of Fort Worth, Texas, from the U.S. Army First Battalion, 26th Infantry, pause along a mountain trail as they patrol in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan's Kunar Province on May 9, 2009. David Guttenfelder / AP file
/ Source: NBC News and news services

The death of Osama bin Laden is adding fuel to the long debate among U.S. lawmakers about the nation's strategy and timetable in Afghanistan.

Amid assertions by the administration that it remains committed to the current policy, congressmen are wondering out loud whether the costly war against al-Qaida has moved beyond Afghan borders.

Speaking on Tuesday, Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that the president "lacks vision of success" in Afghanistan, and that after 10 years, the fight is without a "strategic value."

“With al-Qaida largely displaced from the country, but franchised in other locations, Afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost, especially given current fiscal restraints,” the lawmaker said.

Lugar is not along in his criticism of the plan.

, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., told a gathering at the Center for American Progress that, "the single biggest reason we went into Afghanistan was to get Osama bin Laden."

"If Osama bin Laden was still alive, that would have given some people an argument, 'Oh you can't get out of Afghanistan for reputational reasons.' ... Having killed Osama bin Laden deprives people who wanted to stay in Afghanistan for other reasons of the argument that we would be leaving in defeat," the lawmaker reportedly said.

In an interview with , Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said that the nation should to take a long, hard look at its policy in Afghanistan. "We accomplished what we had to do in Afghanistan a long time ago. We ought to stop wasting our troops and our money and our lives and get out."

Snuffing out the al-Qaida network has always been the top goal of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Now that bin Laden is dead, war-weary Americans may demand a speedier withdrawal of the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops still fighting the Taliban, years after the al-Qaida leadership they once harbored fled to Pakistan.

"The killing of bin Laden outside of Afghanistan raises a question: If this is a fight to destroy al-Qaida, and al-Qaida is not there but in Pakistan, should Afghanistan really be the focus?" said Vali Nasr, until recently a senior U.S. State Department adviser on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Nasr said bin Laden's death on Pakistani soil reduces the importance of the Afghan war for U.S. national security. It could make it easier for the U.S. to wind down the war there and focus more on Pakistan, he said.

"We could come to the conclusion that the sideshow ought to be the main show," he said.

U.S. says no rapid withdrawal
The president's plan — to drawdown toops beginning this summer — remains the stated goal of the White House. In December 2009, while announcing the troop increase at West Point, the president laid out the nation's overarching aim: "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future." All indications from the White House are that it remains as such.

Addressing reporters during a press conference on Monday afternoon, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said a large troop presence was still necessary to keep Afghanistan from becoming a "launching point" for al-Qaida.

"This victory will not mark the end of our effort against terrorism," added U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry in a statement released in Kabul. "America's strong support for the people of Afghanistan will continue as before."

Beyond the White House, the current phase of the war finds support on both sides of the aisle.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said Tuesday that the response to the killing of bin Laden is likely to be "why don't we pack up and leave Afghanistan?" He said the U.S. can't do that. He said the critical question is how will peace be achieved.

House Speaker John Boehner took a similar position, explaining that U.S. involvement in Afghanistan . "It's important that we remain vigilant in our efforts to defeat terrorist enemies and protect the American people,” he said during a late afternoon press conference at the Capitol.  “This makes our engagement in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan more important not less.”

First Read:
Similarly, NATO said the alliance and its partners would "continue their mission to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for extremism, but develops in peace and security."

Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd said his country's 1,500 troops in southern Afghanistan will "stay the course until our mission is complete."



Afghanistan's Taliban government hosted bin Laden and al-Qaida's training camps until it was toppled in the U.S.-led invasion triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Time for Afghans to 'take responsibility'?In a conference call with reporters on Monday, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan said he would continue to push for a significant reduction in U.S. forces from Afghanistan this July, not a symbolic one.

"Security needs to be in the hands of the Afghans," Levin said. "The killing of bin Laden doesn't change my view, it reinforces it. Afghanistan is in even better position to take responsibility. Whatever direction is coming from a Pakistan safe haven no longer has the direction bin Laden could have given it."

Mohammad Abaas, an 18-year-old Kabul resident, agreed.

"They (Americans) achieved their aim and now they should leave," he said. "They were here to capture Osama bin Laden and now that he is killed they should leave."



Some Afghans said they hoped bin Laden's death would nudge the Taliban to the negotiating table. Afghan, U.S. and international leaders say they will negotiate with Taliban fighters who embrace the Afghan constitutions, renounce violence and sever ties with al-Qaida — a heavy red line in any prospective talks.

Agha Lalai, an Afghan lawmaker from Kandahar province where bin Laden used to be headquartered, said he thinks the Taliban are anxious to break with al-Qaida.

"I think that now the Taliban will be free to make their own decision, and maybe these peace negotiations will finally have some success," Lalai said.

Al-Qaida fighters are mostly Arabs. The Taliban are Afghans and "we can't fight with them forever."