The Threat America Is Neglecting in Afghanistan

An Afghan Local Police officer during a weapons training class. Wikimedia Commons/U.S. Navy

Why the Taliban is the strongest it’s been since 2001.

In Washington, the silence is deafening.

Ever since U.S. combat forces left Afghanistan at the end of 2014, relatively little has been heard about America’s longest war. It doesn’t often come up in policy discussions. Elected officials don’t say much about it. Even the think-tank circuit doesn’t cover it very much. And it was invisible on the presidential campaign trail.

It’s as if a fifteen-year-old war that still involves more than eight thousand American troops and claims American lives has simply been forgotten.

And yet this war is bound to worsen. Witness the alarming facts of recent months about Afghanistan’s deteriorating security situation: the Taliban controls more territory than at any time since 2001, civilian casualty figures are the highest they’ve been since these figures were first tracked in 2009, and fatality rates for Afghan soldiers and troops are soaring.

The war could soon reach a dangerous inflection point—but few are paying it any mind.

With such little attention focused on Afghanistan, it’s no surprise the country’s serious political problems get overlooked—and particularly its fragile national unity government (NUG). And yet these political challenges exacerbate an already dire security situation.

The NUG, comprising President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, is the result of an agreement brokered by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014 to resolve an election crisis. Unfortunately, it’s united only in name. Ghani and Abdullah, who faced each other in the 2014 election, have frequently sparred. Ghani’s attempts to centralize power have upset Abdullah, who has good reason to be aggrieved. He lost Afghanistan’s 2009 election amid fraud allegations, and he failed to win the 2014 election amid more fraud allegations and instead ended up as the junior partner in a unity government.

In recent months, tensions have spilled into the open. Last summer, Abdullah publicly accused Ghani of stalling reforms and not meeting with him for three months. He asked the president: “What does your highness spend your time on?”

Another challenge for the NUG has been legitimacy. The NUG’s founding agreement featured a key stipulation: Electoral reforms, parliamentary elections, and changes to the constitution to enable Abdullah to take on the role of prime minister had to take place by September 2016. As the deadline approached and it became clear that the government would not meet it, the NUG became susceptible to accusations that it would no longer be legitimate if it didn’t fulfill the mandate of its founding agreement. To its credit, the NUG rode out the storm, perhaps in part because both Kerry and later Abdullah affirmed that the NUG has a five-year term—the duration of an elected government in Afghanistan—and that it wouldn’t expire once the deadline passed. Additionally, progress with reforms—illustrated, for example, by a new electoral law—is being made.

Still, the NUG remains a powder keg in a country that can ill afford instability at the heart of its governing structure. In the coming months, three powerful Afghan politicians could test the country’s precarious power-sharing arrangement.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a former warlord and leader of the Hezb-e-Islami insurgent group, recently signed a peace deal with Kabul. The Afghan government has publicly welcomed the move. However, Hekmatyar fought against Abdullah’s Northern Alliance movement during the Afghan civil war in the 1990s, has harbored ties to Al Qaeda and even aligned himself with ISIS. He also enjoys close ties to Pakistan, Kabul’s bitter rival. While Hezb-e-Islami has ties to the NUG (one of Abdullah’s top aides has been affiliated with the group), Hekmatyar’s past dangerous liaisons and rivalry with Abdullah highlight the possibility for trouble.

Pages