Afghanistan after 2014: Why zero is not an option | The Economist Both sides are taking up positions that risk damaging what should be their real objectives. From Afghanistans point of view, the bilateral pact with America and a related status of forces agreement with NATO are essential for stability, as they would define the role and legal standing of international troops after 2014. Afghan National Security Forces are now leading the fight against insurgents in all parts of the country, and they are acquitting themselves well. However, they still need assistance with logistics, air support, intelligence, medical evacuation and dealing with improvised explosive devices (see article). Denying Afghan soldiers this help would damage their morale, while encouraging the Taliban to believe that time is on their side Having invested so much and lost so much, what should be the involvement of not only American forces but NATO forces in Afghanistan post withdrawal?