USIP’s Andrew Wilder assesses how the killing of 16 civilians allegedly by a U.S. soldier in Kandahar province will impact U.S. policy on Afghanistan and the prospects for talks with the Taliban.

March 13, 2012

USIP’s Andrew Wilder assesses how the killing of 16 civilians allegedly by a U.S. soldier in Kandahar province will impact U.S. policy on Afghanistan and the prospects for talks with the Taliban. 

 
Coming on the heels of the outrage over the Koran burning, how do events like the tragic ones of this past weekend affect security, politics and U.S.-Afghan relations? 
 
This extremely tragic event will have negative repercussions in Afghanistan, but also in the U.S. The senseless killing of innocent civilians, especially the targeted killing of so many women and children asleep in their homes at night, will rightly outrage many Afghans and non-Afghans alike. 
 
Coming so soon after the Koran burning by U.S. military personnel, which also outraged so many Afghans and Muslims throughout the world, this incident will further erode trust and support for the presence of international forces in Afghanistan, and provides a very easy propaganda victory for the Taliban. 
 
It will also complicate the already very difficult and contentious negotiations with President Karzai and his government for a Strategic Partnership Agreement between the U.S. and Afghanistan regarding the presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan post-2014. 
 
The negative impact will not just be in Afghanistan, but also in the U.S., where more bad news from Afghanistan is strengthening the perception among policymakers and the public alike that the U.S. should exit from Afghanistan as soon as possible. 
 
But it would be a mistake to abruptly change the current U.S. policy and rush to exit based on these kinds of incidents, as there have been terrible incidents in the past, and there will nearly inevitably be more terrible incidents in the future. The current policy is to withdraw most international forces by the end of 2014, and a much hastier exit would be very destabilizing and could plunge Afghanistan back into civil war. This would have tragic humanitarian consequences for Afghans, and also seriously undermine the U.S.’s strategic interest in having a relatively stable Afghanistan that doesn’t once again become a safe haven for transnational terrorist organizations. 
 
While many Afghans no longer have positive feelings toward international forces, exacerbated by events such as the killings in Kandahar, they more fear international forces leaving than staying because of their concern that Afghanistan will once again descend back into civil war and anarchy. Achieving stability and preventing civil war in Afghanistan will be a difficult challenge in the best of circumstances, but a hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces would make it a near impossible objective.
 
Are the Taliban using this to their advantage, and could this make talks with the Taliban more difficult?
 
This incident, as well as the Koran burning incident, have handed the Taliban a propaganda coup on a silver platter. Despite the evidence that the Taliban have been responsible for many more civilian casualties than NATO/ISAF forces, a horrific incident like the killings in Kandahar reinforces the Taliban narrative of U.S. and international forces as an occupation force that kills innocent civilians, is disrespectful of Islam and Afghan culture, and props up a corrupt regime. As illustrated by some of the suicide attacks and targeted killings of U.S. military personnel in the aftermath of the Koran burning incident, the Taliban are adept at manipulating the anger and outrage to incite violence. 
 
In terms of the impact this will have on negotiations with the Taliban to end the conflict peacefully, it’s probably too early to tell. Clearly it weakens the hand of U.S. negotiators in the short term, but I doubt it will fundamentally alter the political calculus that led the Taliban to agree to talks with the U.S. and reverse their long-held position of not negotiating while there were still foreign troops in Afghanistan. It’s also important to remember that the Taliban are not a monolithic group, and that this incident may reinforce the position of some hardline elements, but not necessarily those that are more predisposed to engage in a process of political negotiations.
 
What is the U.S. doing to try to ‘right the ship’ – with this incident and the Koran burning?
 
There are no ‘quick fixes’ to recover from these horrible incidents. Unfortunately, there have been far too many of them, but as a result I think the civilian and military leadership are now much better at responding quickly to mitigate the negative consequences and calm the waters as quickly as possible. The apologies by President Obama and General Allen following the Koran burning incident were the right thing to do, as was the quick announcements that there would be thorough investigations. Afghans need to be reassured that these investigations will be comprehensive, that justice will be served, and that concerted efforts will be made to minimize the risks of more such events. 
 
It’s too early to say what caused the U.S. soldier to go on a killing spree, but hopefully following an investigation there will be more information to guide decision-making about what could be done to prevent this from happening again. Among other things, the Koran burning incident clearly highlights the need for more comprehensive cultural sensitivity training for civilian and military personnel being deployed to places like Afghanistan. There is clearly a problem if, after 10 years of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel are still not aware that burning a Koran will outrage Muslims and nearly undoubtedly provoke a violent response.
 
(Photo: Sgt. 1st Class Lawree Washington)
 

Explore Further

Related Publications

Violent Conflict and Vital Interests: Keeping Focus

Violent Conflict and Vital Interests: Keeping Focus

Thursday, February 16, 2017

By: Fred Strasser

Over the next decade, the United States can expect to face complex foreign challenges from terrorism, insurgencies and internal conflicts fanned by external sponsorship, but the threat of conventional state-on-state wars, including direct assaults on the American homeland, have significantly diminished, according to retired Lt. General Douglas Lute, the former ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Global Policy; Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Civilian-Military Relations

U.S. Leadership and the Challenge of ‘State Fragility’

U.S. Leadership and the Challenge of ‘State Fragility’

Monday, September 12, 2016

By: William J. Burns; Michèle Flournoy; Nancy Lindborg

The new administration, a coming change in leadership at the United Nations, and an emerging global consensus about the fragility challenge make this an opportune moment to recalibrate our approach. The United States cannot and should not try to “fix” every fragile state. Nor can we ignore this challenge; all fragility has the potential to affect U.S. interests to some extent, especially when left to fester. There is simply too much at stake for our interests, our partners, and the global ord...

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism; Economics & Environment; Education & Training; Gender; Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Justice, Security & Rule of Law; Education & Training; Youth; Fragility and Resilience; Global Policy; Human Rights

Deploying Art Against War

Deploying Art Against War

Friday, August 5, 2016

By: Joshua Levkowitz

Artists and peace advocates are using public art to oppose violence, notably in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. The results have varied, advocates say, but the art campaigns have worked to undermine extremists’ calls to violence, and helped communities heal the divisions of war. They have ignited public discussion of local conflicts and even triggered peacebuilding efforts. Art campaigners and peace advocates who have worked across the Middle East and South Asia discussed the uses—and the limits—of public art as a peacebuilding tool, in a recent forum at USIP. 

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism; Non-Violent Movements

Panel Urges New View of Middle East Refugees

Panel Urges New View of Middle East Refugees

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

By: Fred Strasser

The refugee crisis that has spread to Europe and the breakdown of the Middle East’s century-old political order demand new thinking about the economic role of displaced people and a reassessment of donor strategies to rebuild societies in conflict, a working group convened by the U.S. Institute of Peace concluded. The panel’s report, developed under USIP’s Manal Omar and Elie Abouaoun as part of Atlantic Council’s Middle East Strategy Task Force, calls for refugees to be viewed as potential e...

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism; Economics & Environment; Fragility and Resilience; Human Rights

View All Publications