No Direction
The Afghanistan Papers offer vivid details and sometimes shocking assessments but few surprising insights.

After a three year legal battle, on December 9, the Washington Post released documents comprising over 400 interviews known as the “Afghanistan Papers”. The Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction was formed by the United States Congress to provide much needed oversight into mistakes made or “lessons learned” during the eighteen years of America’s longest war.
The Washington Post’s inquiry to gain access to the documents started with a tip that Micheal Flynn had given in an interview about the war in Afghanistan. The Flynn interview raised questions on enabling corruption, ineffectiveness of policies, a “positivity bias”, lack of understanding of the Afghan people, and the distrust the Afghans had towards the US military which had made their work more difficult. Despite this, each commander who left Afghanistan stated that they had accomplished their mission of “defeating the enemy and protecting the population” only for the next battalion to take over and realize that things were in as bad a shape on the ground as they always were.
The findings in the “Afghanistan Papers” show that the truth was withheld from the American people and they were deliberately fed disinformation. The documents released by the Washington Post also state that large amounts of the aide given was misused and there was no clear indication of what the strategy or objectives to fight the war in Afghanistan were and whether goals were attainable or not. In many cases the American troops did not even know who their enemy was.
The main objectives in Afghanistan to disperse Al-Qaeda and diminish the Taliban were achieved early on. Since 2002 the United States has spent over $2 trillion of the taxpayer’s money. Much of this has never made it either to the government of Afghanistan or its people. An op-ed in the Washington Post on December 11 titled, “The United States’ fatal flaw in Afghanistan? Excluding Afghans” states that, “...as early as 2008, an Oxfam analysis of aid distribution in Afghanistan highlighted endemic exploitation within the American aid industry itself, with two-thirds of aid received bypassing the Afghan government and people completely.” More development and increased trust would have resulted had that money been used to benefit the Afghan people rather than go towards disproportionately hefty salaries of contractors.
The United States has been in talks with the Taliban, even while the democratically-elected government of Afghanistan remains excluded. Will such negotiations prove helpful to the Afghan people for a long term cease-fire and the American masses in reaching overall “success” in the war in Afghanistan? Can the war be deemed successful if the United States allows the Taliban back into a power-sharing scenario?
Blame for a reemergence of the Taliban is often placed on Pakistan. A complaint oft repeated in the Afghanistan Papers is that, “Pakistan was continuing to enable the Taliban…” Included in Lessons Learned project, is an interview with an unnamed Pakistani official in New York who denies supporting the Taliban and has stressed that Pakistan’s civilian government wants a “managed transition” even if it makes reconciliation with the Taliban more difficult.
The Pakistani official has said they too wanted to know whether certain elements in the ISI were supporting the Taliban. If so, there seems to be a clear disconnect between the government policies and the intelligence apparatus or perhaps rogue components that the United States was referring to. The Pakistani official went on to encourage the disarmament of the Taliban and denied support for them.
In an interview, a former White House official had in 2015 stated that the “Obama administration thought that Pakistan would eventually ‘see the light.’” The Kerry-Lugar Bill was supposed to oversee civilian rule over the military and to monitor its funds. After its expiry, it was not renewed as Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif stressed increasing trade with America and not relying on aid.
Still, Senators such as Lindsey Graham have sarcastically stated it would be better that the United States negotiate the peace deal with Pakistan rather than the Taliban, insinuating that the support is officially coming from Islamabad. Has Pakistan been part of the obstacle to peace? Or has the United States used Pakistan as an excuse for its ineffective policies as well? Also, is the current Trump administration making the problem worse by giving more importance to the military than the civilian government just as they are bypassing the Afghan government to negotiate with the Taliban?
Understanding the needs of the populations of both Afghanistan and Pakistan would be a better strategy for peace.
Some of the problems cited other than the external support for the Taliban, was the loss of focus on Afghanistan as attention was diverted to other areas of conflict. At the same time, others have pointed out there are some notable successes too. There are more children in school and women now are seen in prominent positions in government and various other sectors in Afghanistan. That could change if the Taliban are allowed back into power.
How would the Taliban returning to power be better for the national security of the United States? The Taliban are factioned and not a unified entity. This is seen when parts of the Taliban negotiating with the US declare a temporary cease-fire only and do not want to have it translated on the ground.
What would it mean for the US to win the war? Internal Afghan negotiations and peace within are a part of the answer. The United States should take the will of the Afghan people into account and not compromise on the positive steps taken on democracy, women’s rights, and education. Such advances should not be taken back. It would only create the same atmosphere which gave rise to the support of terror in the first place.
Over 2,300 American troops have given the ultimate sacrifice of their lives since the war started and over 8,000 Afghan civilians have been killed just this past year. The focus must be on the security of the Afghan people too along with that of the United States and the international community.
Development and strengthening the institutions are vital for a more prosperous and peaceful region and better policies. While President Trump may want to leave Afghanistan in a hurry in time for the next elections, as the Afghanistan Papers suggest, if the lessons are to be learned and not ignored, the US must not leave Afghanistan and the region only for it to become a bigger mess. For Al-Qaeda not to reemerge, a deeper and better understanding, clearer goals, and better trust between the Afghan people and the United States is necessary, along with a strong Afghan government.![]()
The author is a columnist and former contributor to Al-Jazeera America. She has a Masters degree in Political Science and can be reached at |
|
Cover Story
|
|
Interview
|
|
Lifetime Achiever
|
|
Tribute
|
|
News Buzz
|
Update |


Leave a Reply