Both Afghanistan government and U.S. have been trying to give a very positive picture of present and future state of affairs after signing the Afghan-US strategic agreement. However, the outcomes are not yet too ripe to be gauged as positive or otherwise. Few of the recent interviews and statements by Afghan and US officials and reactions to the agreement are worth consideration in this regard.

Right after the agreement was signed Afghan President Hamid Karzai hoped that the agreement would play a vital role in helping Afghan authorities to gain control of the country by themselves. He also expected that US along with the international community would remain committed to assist Afghanistan in the required areas. He also assured the neighboring countries that the signed deal will not cause any threat to them, "There is no threat from Afghanistan soil to our neighbors."

Nevertheless, the neighboring countries have shown their concerns regarding the deal. Iran, in particular, has mentioned that the agreement may lead to more insecurity and instability in the region. Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Ramin Mahmanparast said, "Ambiguity about US military bases in Afghanistan and lack of transparency regarding the military role of US forces in the future have raised Iran's and other countries' concerns… Iran believes that peace and stability in Afghanistan is possible with a complete withdrawal of ISAF troops, closure of any foreign military base in Afghanistan, and the start of Afghan-led peace negotiations."

Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded on Sunday, May 6, 2012, that the agreement would help sustaining peace in the region and would not pose any threat to the neighboring countries. Janan Mosazai, Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said, "We have always assured neighboring countries, particularly Iran, that we will not tolerate any kind of threat from our soil against them." But, it is sure that regional countries will keep on mentioning their concerns regarding the permanent US bases in Afghanistan unless a conclusive decision is carried out in this regard.

US before and after the agreement has kept on insisting that it would not seek permanent Afghan bases so as to calm down the neighboring countries. Afghanistan, however, has to keep its own interests as the top priority matter, while continuing its friendly relations with the neighboring countries.

US President Obama, after signing the deal expected a prosperous future for Afghanistan – "A future in which war ends and a new chapter begins." In his weekly address to the US nation on Saturday May 05, 2012, President Obama mentioned that the goal was almost achieved in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, "We have devastated Al-Qaida's leadership and one year ago, our troops launched the operation that I set to defeat Al-Qaida and deny it a chance to rebuild is within reach." However, it is important to ask whether the only threat for Afghanistan and US has been the Al-Qaida.

Has US been fighting Al-Qaida alone in the last one decade? What about Taliban? Aren't they, at the moment, a threat? What about their lethal attacks throughout Afghanistan; with the most recent one in the capital Kabul, only few hours after the strategic deal was signed between Obama and Karzai? It is really alright to invite them for negotiations but how to convince them when they are not ready to talk and have announced their Spring Offensive as a reaction to galvanizing invitations of negotiation? What, in this situation, is the alternate plan? It is of utmost importance to reach a proper conclusion regarding the attitude towards Taliban if a lasting peace has to be achieved in Afghanistan and the region.

Commenting on the cooperation agreement with Afghanistan, Obama in the speech mentioned above said, "We build an equal partnership between two sovereign states, a future in which the war ends and a new chapter begins… As our coalition partners agreed by the end of 2014, the Afghans will be fully responsible for the security of their country. And this is as it should be. Because after more than a decade of war, it is time to focus on nation-building here at home." What about the "nation-building" in Afghanistan, after a decade of war? Unfortunately, it remains ambiguous so far.

US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in a recent interview, defended the ongoing transition to a great extent and mentioned that Afghan security forces are capable enough to guarantee the country's security after the withdrawal is complete. He said, "We are on the right course. We have made significant progress. We are making transition. Our troops are doing a great job. The Afghan troops are doing a great job.

The country is more secure… We're transitioning areas to Afghan security and control. Right now as we speak, 50 percent of the Afghan population is under their security and under their control, and I'd say by late summer 75 percent of their population will be under their security and control." However, it is important to note that the things will be not as easy as many Afghan and US officials want them to appear. At the moment it is necessary to understand how grave the situation is so that the preparation for them must be in the right direction and with sufficient potential. Underestimating the situation may lead to a very threatening outcome.

The vital concerns regarding the capability of Afghan security forces to guarantee peace and tranquility and the issue of their funding must be solved before the transition is complete. And then there is the issue of ill-governance and corruption as well. Leon Panetta, commenting on the same issue said, "We're going to have to ensure that governance is there, Afghan governance is there…

We do have problems obviously with Afghan corruption. We've got to make sure that this continues on the right path, so I don't think we ought to take anything for granted. We're going to have to keep pushing to make this work." Earlier European Union had also warned Afghan government regarding corruption. European Union special representative to Afghanistan Vygaudas Usackas told that billions of dollars had come to Afghanistan to assist in its development, but the Afghan government had failed to provide good and transparent governance.

The agreements and deals can be best gauged from their outcomes, not from the expectations that are linked to them. It is not important what we expect from the Afghan-US deal, the important thing is what it is going to yield.