The new U.S. plan for Afghanistan--adding troops, trying to coax the Taliban into a peace process, and supporting government reforms--is being met with skepticism and outright hostility by some who believe the situation there has always been hopeless. But the idea that nothing has worked in Afghanistan, let alone that nothing would have ever worked, is a profound misreading of the past 16 years.

A soldier with U.S. Army's 4th Brigade looks over the Pech Valley in the Kunar province of Afghanistan, April 13, 2010. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times/Christoph Bangert
A soldier with U.S. Army's 4th Brigade looks over the Pech Valley in the Kunar province of Afghanistan, April 13, 2010. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times/Christoph Bangert

Such a conclusion is wrong in two important ways: It ignores the crucial strategic mistakes the U.S. and its allies made in the early 2000s; and it doesn’t take into account the country’s evolution and changes over time, punctuated by several inflection points when opportunities were missed.

The first mistake, widely noted at the time, was the shifting of U.S. attention and resources away from Afghanistan to Iraq almost as soon as the surprisingly quick and easy victory over the Taliban was achieved in early 2002. That left the country under-resourced and at risk.

Second, it was a mistake to refuse to allow more conventional, adequately-resourced peacekeeping arrangements after the fall of the Taliban regime. The initial International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) included just a few thousand troops and, strikingly, was not allowed to set foot outside of Kabul.

Another early error was the decision to back local warlords financially and otherwise, thus legitimating their often-abusive power. While it was understandable to rely on them instead of large-scale U.S. ground troops to defeat the Taliban in 2001, there was certainly a choice about whether to unreservedly support and entrench them subsequently. Viewing them as “good guys” and reliable allies was a naive sentiment, easily discredited by anyone aware of their activities in the early to mid-1990s civil war.

Yet another costly strategic error was refusing to allow any kind of negotiations with the Taliban, at a time when that would have involved little more than some kind of dignified surrender with guarantees they would not be sent to Guantanamo or prosecuted for war crimes.

It is also important to recognize the considerable dynamism and fluidity of the situation on the ground. Just because something did not work when it was tried does not necessarily mean the same approach would have failed if implemented at another, more propitious time.

For example, what would have happened if a more conventional international troop presence (with peacekeepers) had been deployed to Afghanistan in the early years? This kind of early “surge” might well have been a game-changer, and would have involved only about 20,000 troops, not many more than the U.S. and its allies will have in Afghanistan under the new strategy, and far short of peak troop levels of over 100,000 in 2010-2011.

So the lesson from all the efforts and mistakes of the past 16 years is not that we should throw up our hands and declare the conflict hopeless. Thoughtlessly disengaging would be not only wrong, but dangerous.

The new Afghanistan strategy may well be the best among a bad set of options, not least because it omits disastrous ideas that reportedly were being considered. But it will be important to proactively take advantage of opportunities as they arise.

Related Publications

U.S.-Taliban Deal: The Beginning of the End of America’s Longest War?

U.S.-Taliban Deal: The Beginning of the End of America’s Longest War?

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

By: Scott Smith

American officials announced on Friday that the United States and the Taliban agreed to a seven-day “reduction of violence” that, if adhered to, would be followed by a signed agreement. The deal would pave the way for intra-Afghan talks and a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. USIP’s Scott Smith examines the U.S.-Taliban deal and what comes next.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

Will Rising U.S.-Iran Tensions Spark Afghan Proxy War?

Will Rising U.S.-Iran Tensions Spark Afghan Proxy War?

Monday, February 10, 2020

By: Belquis Ahmadi; Barmak Pazhwak; Michael V. Phelan

Rising tensions between the United States and Iran—illustrated and exacerbated by the January 3 assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani—are rippling out beyond the Middle East. Now, American officials are voicing growing concern about Iranian activities in Afghanistan. In recent weeks, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Iran is supporting militant groups in the country and seeking to undermine the peace process between the U.S. and the Taliban. A top U.S. general for the region, meanwhile, warned that Iranian actions in Afghanistan pose a risk to the approximately 14,000 American troops deployed there.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Afghan Women’s Views on Violent Extremism and Aspirations to a Peacemaking Role

Afghan Women’s Views on Violent Extremism and Aspirations to a Peacemaking Role

Monday, February 3, 2020

By: Haseeb Humayoon; Mustafa Basij-Rasikh

Recent efforts at settling the decades-long conflict in Afghanistan have featured an increasingly vibrant and visible display of women’s activism. Even with the support of the government and its international partners, Afghan women still face tremendous challenges to realizing their aspirations for a role in peacemaking. Based on extensive interviews throughout Afghanistan, this report attempts to better understand the changing public role of Afghan women today and their contributions to peacebuilding and ending violence.

Type: Peaceworks

Violent Extremism

Colombia’s Imperfect Peace Could Provide a Roadmap for Afghanistan

Colombia’s Imperfect Peace Could Provide a Roadmap for Afghanistan

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

By: Belquis Ahmadi; Maria Antonia Montes

The Afghan peace process was jumpstarted in September 2018 when President Trump appointed Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad as special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation. Since then, Khalilzad has led 10 rounds of U.S.-Taliban talks, with negotiations focusing on two issues: ensuring the Taliban’s commitment to prevent transnational terrorists from using Afghanistan as a base for attacks, and a U.S. military withdrawal. As the search for peace in Afghanistan continues, what lessons can be learned from other peace processes that could apply to Afghanistan? Colombia’s imperfect peace agreement with the FARC is one especially relevant international reference point for Afghanistan—we explain why.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications