Finally, Clarity on US Forces in Afghanistan

As soon as he was inaugurated, new Afghan president Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai signed a long-delayed security pact with the United States.

Many local politicians and commentators say it is their country's best hope of surviving, even prospering. Some fear, though, that it will perpetuate rather than curtail the conflict by allowing the Taleban to rail against "foreign occupation".

Finalising the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) was the first major action of Ashraf Ghani's presidency. The crucial and controversial deal will allow the US to continue training and advising the Afghan security forces, as well as to carry out counter-terrorism operations.

It allows around 10,000 American troops to stay on in Afghanistan beyond the withdrawal of the bulk of NATO forces. The number will be gradually reduced over the next two years.

The BSA was signed on September 30 by Afghan national security adviser Hanif Atmar and US ambassador James Cunningham. Atmar and NATO envoy Maurits Jochems signed a separate agreement on continuing cooperation shortly afterwards.

The pact was confirmed by the Afghan cabinet on October 15, and Ashraf Ghani ordered it to be sent for approval by parliament as soon as possible.

One of the most controversial points of the BSA is that US military personnel will be immune from prosecution under Afghan law for any crimes they may commit. Instead, the US retains jurisdiction over its troops.

Ashraf Ghani's predecessor, Hamed Karzai, had spent months refusing to sign the BSA. After calling a consultative assembly or "jirga" to decide the matter last year, Karzai ignored its recommendation that he support the agreement, and set out numerous preconditions which the US refused to accept. (See Afghans to Sign US Pact - But When?)

Ashraf Ghani's swift move was welcomed by the international community, and he tried to reassure Iran and Pakistan about the implications of the BSA by insisting that it was no threat to any country.

The Taleban made it clear that they viewed the BSA as a signal for the jihad to continue. In a statement posted on a website they use, they said America's goal was domination, with no respect for religion or culture.

Future US aid for Afghanistan has been heavily conditioned on approval of the agreement, and many Afghan politicians expressed hope that the way was now open to supporting lasting peace and stability, including by helping build their country's security services.

Asef Baktash, a member of the leftist Hezb-e Taraqi-ye Watan party, said the BSA would bring strategic benefits.

"If the pact had not been signed, Afghanistan's economy could be at zero, in which case there would be no state and no government," he said. "The signing of the pact can attract international aid. The security forces of the country can be equipped and better trained. International assistance will flow into Afghanistan."

Global markets would also benefit from a secure Afghanistan, he continued.

"Asia is going to dominate the future of the world economy. The US and its allies are interested in engaging with Asia and its economies," he said. "Afghanistan is located at a crossroads that is vital for the US."

Baktash argued that the BSA would add legitimacy to the presence of American forces.

"Henceforth, the term 'occupation', which domestic and foreign enemies of Afghanistan have misused for their own purposes, is meaningless. These forces will be present here by contract from now on," he said.

Baktash said this might help tame the ambitions of Afghanistan's neighbours.

"Under the agreement, the US is responsible for defending Afghanistan," he said. "So it might convince Pakistan to accept peace in Afghanistan, one way or the other, and it might halt its interference in Afghanistan."

Others, however, argue that the BSA is skewed unfairly in America's favour.

Defence analyst Atiqullah Amarkhel said the agreement was merely a consequence of Afghanistan's helpless situation, which the US had exploited.

"We are at war. Our armed forces need equipment and wages. The economy is extremely weak. People live in fear. Our armed opponents get stronger by the day," he said. "Afghans signed the pact because of this vulnerability - it offers no further benefit. Everything in it serves America."

He accused the US of ignoring Pakistani support for the Taleban and turning a blind eye to cross-border rocket attacks on eastern Afghanistan

"Hamed Karzai's stance on the pact," he said. "Whatever Afghans wish for, they must do themselves. They must use their own resources and not rely on such pacts."

Matiullah Abasin, a political analyst, said the BSA was essential since the insurgent campaign was far from over.

"The war will enter a new stage," he predicted. "A more extremist group will emerge. Although the signing of the security pact does not prevent the insurgents from negotiating, the Taleban are determined to fight on."

Abasin said the BSA's focus on training and equipping Afghan armed forces should eventually lead to the conflict tailing off .

Other analysts are not so optimistic that the pact are significantly alter the security situation.

Mohammad Eshaq Atmar, a political scientist, said that the agreement would in effect serve as a recruiting call for insurgent groups.

"Fundamentalist forces use every possible tool to attract people into their ranks. The security pact is the best propaganda device these groups could. They're presenting it as a total invasion of Afghanistan by the US," he said. "People aren't sufficiently literate or knowledgeable. They have always been deceived by such propaganda, and they will be deceived again. It's up to the government to make people truly aware of what the pact means."

Public opinion is still divided on the pact's significance. Some people see it as essential to Afghanistan's future security, while others regard it as a symbol of capitulation.

Wahid, 45, who lives in Kabul's Kart-e Naw neighbourhood, said that without such a deal with the US, other countries - Pakistan in particular - would feel free to intervene.

"We're pleased the security pact has been signed," he said. "It's a positive step towards a better economy, peace, stability and future."

However, Fawzia, 34, who lives in Shahr-e Nau, also in Kabul, argued that the BSA left Afghanistan at the mercy of the US.

"After signing the pact, the Americans will commit all kinds of arbitrary acts in Afghanistan and there will be no one to ask them why," she said. "If the security pact hadn't been signed, our [insurgent] opponents might have moved closer to the government, but this opportunity has now been missed."

For Abdul Hadi, 56, the hostility of neighbouring countries left Afghanistan with no choice but to sign the agreement.

"If the Taleban did not impose the Islam of Pakistan; if our Muslim neighbours Iran and Pakistan did not oppress us and kill us in cold blood, Afghans would never sign such a pact with America," he said.