The effort to end the war in Afghanistan with a political settlement has moved to the forefront of the policy conversation, with all elements of the U.S. government, including the military, increasingly playing a role. As the top American commander in Afghanistan commented this week, “this is not going to be won militarily. This is going to a political solution.”

In support of this effort, USIP is partnering with CENTCOM—the U.S. military command responsible for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Middle East—for a panel on the status of the Afghan peace process and the U.S. military’s potential role. Through the Department of Defense’s Strategic Multilayer Assessment program, CENTCOM has generated five key questions—touching on U.S. strategy toward the peace process, the relationship between top-down and bottom-up peace efforts, and the role of Afghanistan’s neighbors—for a panel of experts with deep experience in this peace effort. Join the conversation on Twitter with #AfghanPeace.

Speakers

Johnny Walsh
Senior Expert, U.S Institute of Peace 

Vikram Singh
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and Southeast Asia, U.S. Department of State, and Senior Advisor to the Asia Program, U.S. Institute of Peace

Laurel Miller
Former Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. Department of State, and Senior Foreign Policy Expert, RAND Corporation

Jason Campbell
Former Country Director for Afghanistan, Office of the Secretary of Defense, and Associate Policy Researcher, RAND Corporation

Orzala Nemat 
Director of the Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, AREU 

Related Publications

What Can Make Displaced People More Vulnerable to Extremism?

What Can Make Displaced People More Vulnerable to Extremism?

Thursday, March 14, 2019

By: Belquis Ahmadi; Rahmatullah Amiri; Sadaf Lakhani

As the international community works to prevent new generations of radicalization in war-torn regions, debate focuses often on the problem of people uprooted from their homes—a population that has reached a record high of 68.5 million people. Public discussion in Europe, the United States and elsewhere includes the notion that displaced peoples are at high risk of being radicalized by extremist groups such as ISIS. Scholars and peacebuilding practitioners have rightly warned against such generalizations, underscoring the need to learn which situations may make uprooted people vulnerable to radicalization. A new USIP study from Afghanistan notes the importance of specific conditions faced by displaced people—and it offers indications suggesting the importance for policy of supporting early interventions to stabilize the living conditions of displaced people after they return home.

Violent Extremism

Afghanistan Talks: No Women, No Peace

Afghanistan Talks: No Women, No Peace

Friday, March 1, 2019

By: Belquis Ahmadi

As talks between the U.S. and the Taliban raise hopes for peace in Afghanistan, the country’s women fear another—and related—possibility: That their hard-won rights to participate in the nation’s political and economic life could again be washed away by the Taliban’s rigid views on gender.

Gender; Peace Processes

Intra-Afghan Peace Negotiations: How Might They Work

Intra-Afghan Peace Negotiations: How Might They Work

Friday, February 22, 2019

By: Sean Kane

Recent positive developments in the Afghan peace process have renewed hopes that the country’s 17-year-old conflict could come to a close. Direct negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban, however, are likely to involve complex constitutional questions. This Special Report provides...

Peace Processes

Can Technology Help Afghanistan Avoid the Resource Curse?

Can Technology Help Afghanistan Avoid the Resource Curse?

Wednesday, February 13, 2019

By: William Byrd; Richard Brittan

Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, roughly estimated at upwards of $1 trillion, is sometimes seen as the country’s potential savior—with prospects to generate large government revenues, exports, and some jobs. On the other hand, international and Afghan experience amply demonstrates the downside risks associated with mineral exploitation—macroeconomic and fiscal distortions; waste, corruption, and poor governance; environmental degradation; and the risk of financing or fomenting violent conflict, thereby undermining peacebuilding. The so-called “resource curse” is not destiny, however, and some countries have managed to avoid it, though Afghanistan faces much greater challenges than most when it comes to beneficially developing its mining sector.

Economics & Environment

View All Publications