In November 2005, the United Nations announced the completion of its program to disarm and demobilize more than 60,000 members of the Afghanistan Military Forces. How did the simultaneous Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) and Security Sector Reform (SSR) impact the Afghan government’s ability to assist Coalition Forces to create a safe and secure environment?  

In November 2005, the United Nations announced the completion of its program to disarm and demobilize more than 60,000 members of the Afghanistan Military Forces. Coincidentally, the U.S. was building a new Afghanistan National Army to face the threat from a resurgent Taliban. What was the relationship between these seemingly incongruous actions? How did the simultaneous Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) and Security Sector Reform (SSR) impact the Afghan government’s ability to assist Coalition Forces to create a safe and secure environment? These questions were addressed by a panel of experts.

Speakers

  • Caroline Hartzell
    Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow, U.S. Institute of Peace
    Author of the USIP Special Report “The Impact of DDR on SSR in Afghanistan” (forthcoming)
  • Shahmahmood Miakhel
    Afghanistan Country Director, U.S. Institute of Peace
    Former Deputy Minister of Interior of Afghanistan (2003-2005)
  • Mark Sedra
    Senior Fellow, Centre for International Governance Innovation
  • Thomas Donnelly
    Director, Center for Defense Studies, American Enterprise Institute
  • Robert Perito, Moderator
    Director, Security Sector Governance Center, U.S. Institute of Peace

Explore Futher

Related Publications

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

How to Revive an Afghan Peace Process

Wednesday, September 18, 2019

By: USIP Staff

The halt to U.S. peace talks with the Taliban, announced September 7 by President Trump, should be used as a starting point for new negotiations, according to U.S. and Afghan specialists. The United States and Afghans have a chance to shape a new phase of talks to maximize the possibilities for a peace accord that Afghans can accept, the experts said at USIP. Some urged resuming talks as quickly as possible. Others argued for focusing first on unifying non-Taliban Afghans following the planned September 28 elections, and on exploiting war fatigue among the Taliban.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

What are the Prospects for Power-Sharing in the Afghan Peace Process?

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: Alex Thier

While the negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban were recently thrown-off course, a peace agreement among Afghans remains an urgent priority. The U.S.-led negotiations over a phased drawdown of U.S. troops in exchange for a Taliban commitment to eschew terrorism and engage in intra-Afghan negotiations took nearly a year. Yet these talks excluded the Afghan government and other political elites and didn’t address the fundamental question of what it will take for Afghans to put a sustainable end to four decades of war: how will power be shared?

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

A Rift Over Afghan Aid Imperils Prospects for Peace

Monday, September 16, 2019

By: William Byrd

As the United States has pursued peace talks with the Taliban, international discussions continue on the economic aid that will be vital to stabilizing Afghanistan under any peace deal. Yet the Afghan government has been mostly absent from this dialogue, an exclusion exemplified this week by a meeting of the country’s main donors to strategize on aid—with Afghan officials left out. The government’s marginalization, in large part self-inflicted, is a danger to the stabilization and development of Afghanistan. In the interests of Afghans, stability in the region and U.S. hopes for a sustainable peace, this rift in the dialogue on aid needs to be repaired.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Afghan peace talks are damaged, but not yet broken.

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

By: USIP Staff; Andrew Wilder

President Trump’s weekend announcement of a halt to U.S. peace talks with Afghanistan’s Taliban—including a previously unannounced U.S. plan for a Camp David meeting to conclude that process—leaves the future of the Afghanistan peace process unclear. USIP’s Andrew Wilder, a longtime Afghanistan analyst, argues that, rather than declaring an end to the peace process, U.S. negotiators could use the setback as a moment to clarify the strategy, and then urgently get the peace process back on track before too much momentum is lost.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Peace Processes

View All Publications