Obama dazzled U.S. strategists with respect to the future of the military mission of the United States in Afghanistan. He announced on Thursday that the U.S. would keep some 5,000 troops in the war-wracked country up until the end of the year 2016. The move is in direct conflict with the previously announced U.S. intentions that was said to leave the country’s security to Afghan security personnel.

Is the change of policy due to the reemergence of the Taliban and the strengthening of ISIL or is it the fruit of Afghanistan’s inability to take charge of their security or is it both? That, however, is not really important.

It nonetheless shows that the United States’ analysis of the Afghanistan developments, following the exit of U.S. troops from the country in 2011, did not entirely conform to the realities on the ground. Obama has however ruled out any change of policy with respect to the issue of Afghanistan, claiming the move is expected to serve the Ghani government’s anti-terrorism strive. But his comments are not likely to convince his critics in Washington and in the Senate’s Armed Forces Committee, who think the U.S. policies vis-à-vis international developments are flawed and deficient.

The reason for such a shift, according to Obama and the National Security Council members, is the rising power of ISIL. If so, the greater ambiguity would be the ability of forces under Ghani’s command. After all, the U.S. spent some 3 years for the training of the Afghan forces to fight terrorism. Besides, the U.S. also spent $3-4.5 billion on talks with the Taliban. This all has brought no results but the increasing inability of the Afghan forces against terrorists.

The fall of Kunduz to the Taliban can be regarded as the climax of such a trend. All said, it seems very unfortunate that the security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating back to the pre-2011 status.

In February and after ISIL’s carnages in Iraq and Syria, there were rumors about Taliban’s inclination towards ISIL and their attempts to join the group as (a) Taliban and al-Qaeda suffered from capable leadership, (b) their new command lacked a clear strategy, and (c), their operational might was weaker than that of ISIL, whose leadership and financial power were far superior. Tajik president’s August trip to Moscow and talks with Putin was due to the threat he felt on his country’s doorstep.

Given the U.S. test results with respect to the developments in the Middle East, Russia cannot act indifferently in the region. By holding the troops in Afghanistan, can the United States both prevent the expansion of terrorism and support Ghani, and at the same time, prevent Russians’ march to the South?

MD/P