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

Scott Worden on Afghan Elections and the Peace Process

Scott Worden on Afghan Elections and the Peace Process

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

By: Scott Worden

A week and a half after Afghan presidential polls, the results remain unclear. But, we do know that turnout was historically low, largely due to dire security conditions. Meanwhile, with the peace process stalled, USIP’s Scott Worden says the upsurge in U.S. military operations against the Taliban is a “pressure tactic, not a victory strategy.”

Electoral Violence; Democracy & Governance; Peace Processes

Loya Jirgas and Political Crisis Management in Afghanistan: Drawing on the Bank of Tradition

Loya Jirgas and Political Crisis Management in Afghanistan: Drawing on the Bank of Tradition

Monday, September 30, 2019

Many times over the past century, Afghan political elites have utilized a loya jirga, or grand national assembly, when they have needed to demonstrate national consensus. Based on traditional village jirgas convened to resolve local disputes, loya jirgas have been used to debate and ratify constitutions, endorse the country's position and alliances in times of war, and discuss how and when to engage the Taliban in peace talks. In light of the growing political uncertainty in Afghanistan, this report examines the strengths and weaknesses of the loya jirga as an institution for resolving national crises.

Type: Special Report

Democracy & Governance

How to push Taliban for compromise? Ask the women doing it.

How to push Taliban for compromise? Ask the women doing it.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

By: Palwasha L. Kakar

The halt in the U.S.-Taliban dialogue, plus Afghanistan’s September election, has forced a hiatus in formal peace efforts in the Afghan war—and that creates an opening to strengthen them. A year of preliminary talks has not yet laid a solid foundation for the broad political settlement that can end the bloodshed. While talks so far have mainly excluded Afghan women, youth and civil society, the sudden pause in formal peacemaking offers a chance to forge a more inclusive, and thus reliable, process. Even better, a little-noted encounter in Qatar between women and Taliban leaders signals that a broader process is doable.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Gender; Peace Processes

What to Watch for in Afghanistan’s Presidential Election

What to Watch for in Afghanistan’s Presidential Election

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

By: Scott Worden; Colin Cookman

After several delays, Afghans will finally head to the polls on Saturday to elect their next president. The election comes amid an indefinite stall in the year-long U.S.-Taliban negotiations following the cancellation of a high-level summit earlier in the month. There has been a debate over the sequencing of elections and the peace process for months, but the vote will move ahead this weekend. As with all post-2001 Afghan elections, security risks and the potential for fraud and abuse loom over these polls. USIP’s Scott Worden and Colin Cookman look at how insecurity will impact the legitimacy of the vote and what measures have been taken to combat electoral mismanagement and fraud.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Electoral Violence; Democracy & Governance

View All Publications