U.S. CEDES DUTIES IN REBUILDING AFGHANISTAN

NATO, Other Allies Take On New Roles

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Four years into a mammoth reconstruction effort
here that has been largely led, funded and secured by Americans, the
United States is showing a growing willingness to cede those jobs to
others.

The most dramatic example will come by this summer, when the U.S.
military officially hands over control of the volatile southern region
- -- plagued by persistent attacks from Islamic militias -- to an
international force led by the NATO alliance. The United States will
cut its troop strength by 2,500, even though it is not clear how
aggressively NATO troops will pursue insurgents, who have shown no
sign of relenting.

At the same time, the U.S. government is increasingly allowing Western
allies, or Afghans themselves, to take on the tasks of rebuilding a
country that has suffered more than two decades of fighting and
remains beset by poverty, drugs and insurgency.

The United States says that its shifting approach complements
Afghanistan's evolution into a self-sustaining democracy and that
Washington has no plans to pull out altogether.

"The Afghans have to have enough space to make their own decisions,
even to stumble sometimes," said U.S. Ambassador Ronald Neumann. "But
we shouldn't leave them without critical support before they're strong
enough."

As the U.S. presence becomes less visible, however, Afghans are
starting to question whether the U.S. support is sufficient. Some
Afghan officials express concern that the Bush administration's
priorities are simply shifting elsewhere and that the United States
may abandon their country prematurely, much the way it did in the
early 1990s following the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

Funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, which
topped $1 billion for 2005 and has helped build highways, schools and
clinics across the country during the last four years, will be reduced
to just over $600 million in 2006, unless Congress appropriates more
money.

On one of the biggest threats facing the country, the illicit drug
trade, the United States has largely ceded leadership to the British
government and is pinning its hopes on Afghan provincial governors to
eradicate poppy fields. Although U.S. officials have warned repeatedly
about the need to curb the burgeoning opium business, they have so far
spent only modest amounts to help and now say Kabul must take the initiative.

Politically, too, the United States has been less willing to exert its
influence. The previous ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, played a strong,
high-profile role here, negotiating directly with recalcitrant
regional leaders and openly advising President Hamid Karzai. Neumann,
who arrived several months ago, is a quieter presence who rarely
interferes in Karzai's decisions.

Earlier last month, to the surprise of many Afghans, the U.S. Embassy
stood by silently during a struggle for the leadership of the new
parliament, in which Karzai's government was believed to have backed a
radical Islamic scholar and ex-militia leader accused of past human
rights abuses over a more moderate candidate who had run against
Karzai for president.

Some foreign allies are encouraged by the signs that the United States
is willing to loosen its grip and allow others a greater role in the
country's rebirth. Several Afghan officials said they welcomed the
increased responsibility.

"We don't want to be a permanent burden on the international
community," said Defense Minister Rahim Wardak. "This country has been
defended by us for 5,000 years. That is our duty." Still, Wardak
noted, the abrupt withdrawal of U.S. support after the decade-long
Soviet occupation ended in 1989 precipitated a civil war that
culminated with the Taliban movement taking power.

"I hope the international community, and especially the U.S., has
learned the lesson of what happened," he said. "I hope that history
will not repeat itself this time."

The transfer of power in southern Afghanistan will provide the first
critical test of the new U.S. strategy. The shift will allow the Bush
administration, which has spent more than $47 billion on military
efforts in Afghanistan since 2001, to cut the U.S. troop presence by
13 percent, from 19,000 to 16,500.

The move will leave U.S. forces in charge only in the eastern
provinces, and only until NATO is ready to assume command there as
well. That could happen later in the year, allowing the United States
to reduce its troop commitment further.

The reduction, the first since the U.S.-led invasion, comes after a
year in which nearly 100 American soldiers were killed in Afghanistan,
more than double the deaths during 2004. Military commanders said the
higher toll was a result of their more aggressive strategy for
battling the insurgency. They also asserted there would be a seamless
transition when NATO troops take over, with help from the Afghan army.

"It's understood that NATO will be in a position to carry on the same
counterinsurgency fight that we're running today," said Col. Don C.
McGraw, who directs U.S. military operations here.

But the Afghan army remains in its infancy, and mounting a
counterinsurgency has not been NATO's job. Questions remain about
whether it will be willing to take on that task once its troops are
deployed in the south, where on Monday, a suicide bomber in the city
of Kandahar attacked a convoy of foreign troops, injuring a U.S.
soldier and two Afghan civilians.

Until now, NATO has commanded the north and the west, which have been
less violent than the south and the east. In Kabul, its troops have
been a familiar and friendly sight on street patrols. In the
countryside, they have spent much of their time coordinating
reconstruction efforts -- and none chasing Taliban insurgents.

NATO's rules of engagement will be loosened when it takes over the
south, allowing its forces to be more aggressive, but it is unclear
exactly how much more. One member country, the Netherlands, is
wavering over whether it wants to send troops to the area, a longtime
Taliban stronghold that has recently been the site of numerous battles
and suicide bombings. Maj. Andrew Elmes, a British spokesman for the
NATO force -- officially called the International Security Assistance
Force, or ISAF -- said he expects its soldiers will primarily serve in
a peacekeeping function, unlike U.S. troops, who have been initiating
battles with insurgents.

"If you think of a policeman, who is armed but he doesn't go out
looking for a fight, that's along the lines we're looking at," he said
of the expanded ISAF mission, which will add 6,000 soldiers to the
9,000 currently in the country.

Some knowledgeable Afghans predicted that such a limited NATO role
would not succeed in the more dangerous territory. "The threat in the
south is terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime," said Ali
Ahmad Jalali, who recently resigned as Karzai's interior minister. He
spoke by telephone from Washington, where he now teaches at the
National Defense University. "If they don't get involved in fighting
those things, what will they be providing for the security of the country?"

Another major question is how the transition will affect U.S. efforts
to track down top fugitives such as al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden,
his deputy Ayman Zawahiri and Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, all of
whom are believed to be hiding in the region.

NATO has said it will not spend its time hunting individuals. The U.S.
military will keep only a small residual presence in the south, but
officials maintain that they will bring in Special Operations troops
as the need arises.
"If Mullah Omar shows up in Kandahar," McGraw said, "we'll go to
Kandahar."

Still, the U.S. willingness to cede authority in the south suggests
just how remote the possibility of catching notorious fugitives within
Afghanistan may be. Many security officials here say they believe bin
Laden and others are across the border in Pakistan, where the United
States has a much smaller presence.

That likelihood is another reason many Afghans wonder how much longer
the United States will stay, and whether it is as committed to
reconstruction as it is to catching terrorists. The possible dramatic
cuts in USAID funds for Afghanistan -- the result of tightened budgets
because of heavy U.S. spending in Iraq and domestic hurricane relief
- -- have increased that concern.

Neumann said the $623 million in aid planned for 2006 will not be
enough, and he is hoping Congress will allocate more through a
supplemental spending bill, as it has in past years. But he
acknowledged that getting lawmakers to understand the importance of
the U.S. commitment here "takes more explanation" than it once did.

Despite considerable reconstruction in the past four years, he said,
much more needs to be done. Building more roads, he said, would
strengthen the government, improve security and cut opium production
by giving farmers access to markets for other products.

"This is too critical to just say we want victory but we want it on
the cheap," Neumann said. "We're still in a war, and we need to win."