The intervention in Afghanistan in many ways redefined how civilians and military personnel work together in conflict zones. International military forces perceived the provision of aid and economic development as a key part of their ultimate objective of state-building through stabilization. Aid agencies tended to view military efforts as short-term and lacking a true developmental perspective or understanding of  humanitarian principles. For many years these efforts co-existed in a state of tension, or often reluctant cooperation, with neither side fully understanding the others concerns. As international assistance, both military and civilian, begins to decrease in Afghanistan, it is time to ask whether anything has been learned from this decade-long, uneasy cohabitation.

Civil-Military Relations in Afghanistan: Lessons Learned from a Ten Year Engagement

The U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) hosted a panel discussion on Wednesday April 24th from 2:00pm – 3:30pm on the newly published Overseas Development Institute (ODI) report “Search for Common Ground: Civil-Military Relations in Afghanistan, 2002-12” and provided an opportunity to reflect on lessons learned over the past 10 years in Afghanistan with a roundtable of experts stemming from the research, military and NGO communities.  

Panelists

  • John Agoglia – Vice President for Government Services, IDS International
  • Ashley Jackson – Research Fellow, Humanitarian Policy Group
  • Lisa Schirch – Director, 3P Human Security; Research Professor, The Center for Justice and Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University; Policy Adviser, The Alliance for     Peacebuilding
  • Ann Vaughn – Senior Policy Advisor, Mercy Corps
  • Moderated by: Robert  M. Perito – Director, Security Sector Governance Center, U.S. Institute of Peace

Related Publications

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

Breaking, Not Bending: Afghan Elections Require Institutional Reform

Breaking, Not Bending: Afghan Elections Require Institutional Reform

Friday, August 30, 2019

By: Scott Smith; Staffan Darnolf

Afghanistan’s presidential election is scheduled to take place on September 28. In planning the election, the Independent Election Commission (IEC) must overcome a number of practical challenges to avoid repeating the mistakes of the 2018 parliamentary elections—elections that undermined the legitimacy of the state and reduced Afghans’ confidence in democracy as a means for selecting their leaders. Based on a careful analysis of the IEC’s performance during the 2018 elections, this report offers recommendations for creating more resilient electoral institutions in Afghanistan and other postconflict countries.

Type: Special Report

Democracy & Governance

View All Publications