By THOM SHANKER and JOHN H. CUSHMAN Jr.
WASHINGTON — The top allied commander in Afghanistan told Congress on Tuesday that he would not be recommending further American troop reductions until late this year, after the departure of the current “surge” forces and the end of the summer fighting season.
That timetable would defer one of the thorniest military decisions facing President Obama — the pace at which the United States removes its forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 — until after the November elections.
Gen. John R. Allen, a Marine four-star general who commands the American-led allied forces in Afghanistan, said that he remained optimistic about eventual success but that it was too early to begin shifting forces from battles in the south to the country’s turbulent eastern provinces.
He also acknowledged the deep sensitivities, especially given the current diplomatic crisis with Afghanistan, involved in handing over complete security control to Afghan forces, including over the commando night raids that American commanders say are critical to the war effort. These are the subject of intense negotiation, he testified.
General Allen said that only after reviewing the results of the next six months of fighting — at the end of which there will be 68,000 American troops remaining there — would he turn his attention to the pace of further reductions in the force.
But he repeatedly said that by the end of next year, Afghan forces would have taken over primary responsibility for operations across the country, allowing NATO’s combat role to be finished by the end of 2014, as currently scheduled.
He spoke during a lengthy hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, where the questions and comments of members showed a deep exhaustion with overseas conflict after two wars carried out over the decade since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
General Allen’s testimony also came after a troubling, violent period in Afghanistan, beginning with public protests and a series of murders of American troops by Afghan security forces, after the burning of Korans by United States military personnel. That was followed by a rampage attributed to an American soldier that left 16 Afghan civilians dead.
The general said that in addition to the criminal inquiry into the massacre, there would be an administrative investigation into the headquarters organization and the command of the soldier’s unit.
In his opening statement, he did not stray from the line taken by the White House and the Pentagon in recent weeks: that the progress toward what the Obama administration calls an “orderly and responsible” transfer of the fight against insurgents from the American-led alliance to the fledgling Afghan Army is going smoothly, and that the schedule should not be altered.
He said he recognized the challenges, and deplored the Koran burnings and the killings. But he and members of the committee both described those events as isolated, if unfortunate, and there was little discussion of them at the hearing.
Instead, it focused on the schedule and mechanics of the withdrawal, a subject that is being reviewed by NATO, whose member countries are assembling their leadership in May in Chicago, and in talks between Washington and the government of President Hamid Karzai.
On one delicate subject, the night raids carried out by Special Operations forces that have unsettled the Afghans but are credited with weakening the insurgency’s command structure, General Allen said the Afghans would be taking control of them, too, eventually. Twelve Afghan strike teams are being trained for that purpose, he testified.
He said it was important not to rob the surprise raids of “their momentum, which gives them their effectiveness.” And he said it was “very premature” to say what the outcome of the talks would be. Ultimately, he said, as the Afghans take control of operations, the requirements of the Afghan Constitution would need to be respected.
“Throughout history, insurgencies have seldom been defeated by foreign forces,” General Allen said. “Instead, they have been ultimately beaten by indigenous forces. In the long run, our goals can only be achieved and then secured by Afghan forces. Transition, then, is the linchpin of our strategy, not merely the ‘way out.’ ”
The possibility of an accelerated withdrawal order by Mr. Obama has angered senior Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee. The chairman, Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, said, “With our eyes at the exits, I am uncertain whether we will be able to achieve the key tenets of the president’s own strategy, due to the constraints that the president himself has put in place.”
Mr. McKeon made the case that “with friend and foe alike knowing that the U.S. is heading for the exits, our silence is likely viewed as a preamble to retreat. And, in warfare, when the mission becomes redeployment, rather than mission success, the outcome can quickly become disorderly.”
General Allen emphasized that Afghan security forces were growing stronger, having reached 330,000, and that their buildup remained on track.
And James N. Miller, the acting under secretary of defense for policy, testified that attacks initiated by the enemy were down 22 percent in the first two months of this year compared with last year, after falling 9 percent in 2011.
Representative Walter B. Jones, Republican of North Carolina, captured the war-weariness expressed by many members as he offered a heartfelt plea to General Allen and Mr. Miller to answer a fundamental question about the war in Afghanistan that had been posed to him by a wounded Marine.
Over the past 10 years, “I have been hearing from the administration and those who were in your position prior to you being in here today,” Mr. Jones said. “Everything is: ‘Our gains are sustainable, but there will be setbacks. We are making progress, but it’s — it’s fragile and reversible.’ ”
He paused, and asked, “Why are we still there?”