The US has signalled it might not leave any troops in Afghanistan after its pull-out, in spite of the Pentagon claiming thousands may be needed to contain al Qaeda.
The issue will be central to talks this week as Afghan president Hamid Karzai meets Barack Obama and Defence Secretary Leon Panetta to discuss ways of framing an enduring partnership beyond December 2014, when combat troops are scheduled to be withdrawn.
"The US does not have an inherent objective of 'X' number of troops in Afghanistan," said a White House spokesman. "We have an objective of making sure there is no safe haven for al Qaeda in Afghanistan and making sure the Afghan government has a security force that is sufficient to ensure the stability of the Afghan government."
The US now has 66,000 troops in Afghanistan, down from a peak of about 100,000 as recently as 2010.
The US and its Nato allies agreed in November 2010 they would withdraw all their combat troops by the end of 2014, but they have yet to decide what future missions might be necessary and how many troops they may require. At stake is the risk of Afghanistan's collapse and a return to the chaos of the 1990s that enabled the Taliban to seize power and provide a haven for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network.
Fewer than 100 al Qaeda fighters are believed to remain in Afghanistan, although many more are just across the border in Pakistani sanctuaries.
Mr Panetta has said he foresees a need for a US counter-terrorism force in Afghanistan beyond 2014, plus a contingent to train Afghan forces.
He is believed to favour an option that would keep about 9000 troops in the country.
Administration officials have said they are considering a range of options for a residual US troop presence of as few as 3000 and as many as 15,000.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article