In Afghanistan, a string of attacks has killed more than 130 people and wounded more than 300 in just over a week. Bombings and gun battles jarred a busy downtown block near a government hospital, an international hotel, a military training academy, and the global charity Save the Children. The attacks aim to drive a wedge between Afghanistan’s government and its people, according to Andrew Wilder, USIP’s vice president for Asia programs and a longtime Afghanistan specialist.

Smoke hangs in the air near the site of a bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan that killed at least 95 people, Jan. 27, 2018
Smoke hangs in the air near the site of a bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan that killed at least 95 people, Jan. 27, 2018 (Andrew Quilty/The New York Times)

Who do you think is behind these attacks and what do they aim to achieve?

The Taliban have claimed responsibility for two of the most recent attacks, and ISIS for the other two, although these claims can’t always be taken at face value.

The U.S. administration has given Gen. John Nicholson, its commander in Afghanistan, increased authority to target the Taliban in Afghanistan and step up U.S. air strikes against them. Given this pressure, it’s not surprising that the Taliban are shifting from more conventional warfare tactics of trying to overrun district and provincial capitals and holding territory, to more asymmetric tactics such as terror attacks and increased use of IEDs.

These terror attacks in major Afghan cities are designed in part to create a wedge between the Kabul government and the people of Afghanistan. Since the number one expectation of citizens is that their leaders will provide basic security to protect them, the Taliban are trying to delegitimize the government in the eyes of the people.

It’s worth noting that, after a major truck-bomb attack in Kabul last year, people not only condemned the Taliban, but there were also anti-government demonstrations — and we may see similar protests after these horrific attacks. 

Why are these attacks so difficult to prevent?

Suicide bombings are effective instruments of terror precisely because they are so difficult to stop — especially if targets are defenseless civilians.

Good intelligence can and has prevented many such attacks in Kabul and elsewhere, but along with the sharp drawdown of international forces during the latter years of the Obama administration, there was also a shifting of many of the intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) assets from Afghanistan to the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.

This had a negative impact on the ability of Afghan and U.S. security agencies to collect intelligence that in the past had helped prevent some terrorist attacks.

With ISIS now posing less of a threat in Iraq and Syria, and the Trump administration’s policy of modestly increasing troop numbers and military assistance to Afghanistan, some of these ISR assets are likely to be redeployed back to Afghanistan. Hopefully this will help reduce the number of these devastating suicide bombings in major urban areas in the future. 

How should the United States and its allies respond?

In the short term, the United States can help prevent attacks by beefing up intelligence efforts and strengthening the capacity of Afghanistan’s intelligence agency, the National Directorate of Security. In the longer-term, however, the Afghan government must also prioritize measures to boost its legitimacy.

At the top of this list are efforts to reduce government corruption, scale back government infighting, improve the security forces, and hold credible parliamentary and presidential elections.

Next year’s presidential elections are particularly crucial. They must be relatively free and fair and result in a legitimate executive branch of government. Precisely because of their importance in legitimizing the Afghan government the Taliban can be expected to do everything they can to prevent them from happening.

Related Publications

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

Youth Protest Movements in Afghanistan

Youth Protest Movements in Afghanistan

Tuesday, February 12, 2019

By: Srinjoy Bose; Nematullah Bizhan; Niamatullah Ibrahimi

The youth-led protest movements that emerged after the 2014 Afghan presidential election added a new dynamic to Afghan politics. Motivated primarily by widespread perceptions of injustice, exclusion and marginalization from governmental policymaking, and rapidly deteriorating...

Youth; Democracy & Governance

Progress in Taliban Talks, But ‘Long Way to Go’, says U.S. Envoy

Progress in Taliban Talks, But ‘Long Way to Go’, says U.S. Envoy

Monday, February 11, 2019

By: Adam Gallagher

Amid a series of positive developments in the Afghan peace process over the last year, a framework for negotiations reached between the U.S. and Taliban has renewed hope that the 17 year-old Afghan conflict could come to a close. Led by Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. has agreed in principle to a conditional withdraw of U.S. and allied troops in exchange for the Taliban pledging to not allow Afghanistan to be a safe haven for transnational terrorists, like al-Qaida, as well as agreeing to talks that include the Afghan government and a cease-fire. Despite this progress, “We are in the early stages of a protracted process,” Ambassador Khalilzad said at the U.S. Institute of Peace on February 8. “We have a long way to go.”

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Peace Processes

How can we negotiate with the Taliban? Afghan women know.

How can we negotiate with the Taliban? Afghan women know.

Thursday, February 7, 2019

By: Palwasha L. Kakar

Afghan political leaders met in Moscow this week with Taliban representatives amid new momentum in diplomatic efforts to end Afghanistan’s war. Like other recent discussions, including those between U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban representatives in Qatar, Afghan women remain almost entirely excluded. Yet mostly unnoticed amid the formal diplomacy, Afghan women at their country’s grass roots already have managed negotiations with local Taliban leaders.

Gender; Peace Processes; Religion

View All Publications