A series of recent incidents and missteps, including the tragic killing of 16 Afghan villagers by a U.S. soldier in Kandahar and the burning of Qurans at the Bagram airbase, has riled many and created further tensions between the United States and Afghanistan. All of this comes at a time when the U.S. and Afghan governments are still at odds over a now long-negotiated strategic partnership agreement that many believe will be inked before the NATO Chicago Summit in May. It’s perhaps natural for both Americans and Afghans to consider why such an arrangement is important.

While a sizable number of Afghans believe that their country needs such a partnership for the sustainability of their security and economy, there’s also a growing perception, mostly among Afghan officials, that the United States needs Afghanistan more than the other way around. But Afghans shouldn’t ask why such a partnership with the U.S. is needed, but rather what is at stake if such an agreement isn’t finalized for all parties involved.

The agreement will helpensure lasting American security, economic and political commitment to Afghanistan,and will provide the legal basis for the U.S. military to remain in Afghanistan for at least a decade after 2014 – the deadline for the end of the NATO combat mission. As part of the agreement, the U.S. will remain, but with a lighter military footprint, and its presence on the ground will consist mostly of U.S. special operations forces focused on counterterrorism operations, as well as trainers and advisers for the Afghan National Security Forces. Additionally, a U.S. civilian presence would continue to build and support Afghanistan’s nascent democratic process and structures, devise mechanisms that will develop Afghanistan's fragile economy, and ultimately help to ensure regional stability.

It’s often downplayed or forgotten, but the United Stateshas direct national security interests in Afghanistan. Over the years, the U.S. grappled with several serious security chal*lenges that stemmed from Taliban control of the country in the 1990s, including the sanctuary provided to international terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda. In the wake of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, these elements were simply re-routed, not defeated, and are still potent and at large. An accelerated U.S. troop withdrawal would most likely result in a situation reminiscent of the 1990s, aggravated by the support Pakistan provides the Taliban. Under such a scenario, an intransigent Pakistan will continue to cause the same problems for Afghanistan and regional stability as it does now. To that effect, challenging and containing Pakistan’s spoiler role is imperative, and the U.S. has both the capacity and capability to do so by closely monitoring Pakistan, best done if the U.S. has some kind of enduring strategic presence in neighboring Afghanistan.

The heightened tensions of the past few weeks have also led many in the U.S. to question the possibility of a partnership agreement, leading some prominent political figures, including Republican Newt Gingrich, to suggest the U.S. remove all troops from the country. Yet while this may seem an easy and even seductive solution, such calls are both irresponsible and misleading, and implicitly acknowledge that the U.S. has failed in Afghanistan. At the same time, employing and acting upon such a rash strategy isn’t only impractical, but jeopardizes hard-earned achievements and ignores the ultimate sacrifices made by Americans and Afghans. It would also effectively put the future of American and Afghan security at risk.

It’s undeniable that Afghanistan’s current trajectory is mired in political and economic uncertainty, insecurity, and many other problems; however, this is still a far cry from a government controlled by the Taliban that’s working actively to undermine American and regional security.

As long as the U.S. and Afghan governments are at odds, particularly over issues such as night raids, the Taliban will prosper. Only efficient cooperation between Washington and Kabul will work as a deterrent against the Taliban and other subversive regional elements. The recent agreement on the gradual U.S. transfer of detainees to Afghan control is being touted as a compromise, and is a significant breakthrough that effectively overcomes one of the major hindrances to signing the pact – one less item the Taliban can exploit to drive a wedge between Washington and Kabul.

Today, while the Afghan war is far from over, a lot more needs to be done in order for the U.S. to protect its national security and provide for a stable Afghanistan. With the end of the NATO combat mission looming, U.S. objectives should be increasingly focused on providing the Afghan government the tools and expertise necessary to fight and contain insurgency as they take the lead on its own security. A strategic partnership agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan is best placed to guarantee this cooperation, long after the last foreign troops leave the country.

Why U.S. Must Stick with Kabul | Flashpoints