1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 212 September 2008

Special Report

© 2008 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Contents 

Introduction 2

An Opportunity for Reconciliation 3

Challenges to Reconciliation 6

Past Attempts at Reconciliation 9

A Framework for Reconciliation 12

Conclusions and Recommendations 15

About the Report

The analysis and conclusions drawn in this report are based 

on the author’s wide range of discussions with ordinary 

Afghans (men and women), senior government officials, 

and members of the international community working in or 

on Afghanistan. Over the course of years, the author has 

traveled to many places inside Afghanistan and participated 

in numerous meetings and conferences centered on peace, 

stability, and reconstruction. 

A senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace in 

2007–2008, Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai serves as an 

adviser to Afghan president Hamid Karzai and vice chair of 

the Disarmament and Reintegration Commission. He served 

as the minister of telecommunications in Afghanistan’s 

transitional government.

Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai 

Thwarting Afghanistan’s Insurgency

A Pragmatic Approach toward Peace and 

Reconciliation

Summary

•	 Afghanistan is at a crucial stage of transition. The Taliban, with sanctuaries and 

a support base in the tribal areas, has grown stronger, relying on a wide network 

of foreign fighters and Pakistani extremists who operate freely across the AfghanPakistani border. 

•	 Present trends raise serious doubts about whether military solutions alone can defeat 

the insurgency and stem the expansion of terrorism. In short, reconciliation must also 

be a key element of comprehensive stabilization in Afghanistan.

•	 A multitude of factors suggest that the time is ripe for a reconciliatory process.

•	 The Taliban and the Hekmatyar Group will be key challenges to any reconciliation 

process as long as they enjoy sanctuaries and support outside of Afghanistan.

•	 An examination of past attempts at reconciliation with the Taliban reveals that the 

process has lacked consistency. The Afghan government and its international partners 

have offered conflicting messages, and there has been no consensual policy framework through which to pursue reconciliation in a cohesive manner.

•	 The goal of reconciliation in Afghanistan must be to achieve peace and long-term 

stability under the Afghan Constitution with full respect for the rule of law, social 

justice, and human rights. To successfully meet this goal, Afghanistan’s reconciliation 

program must be carefully targeted and guided by a clear set of principles.

•	 A comprehensive and coordinated political reconciliation process must be started. 

At the same time, significant progress must be made on the security front and on 

the international (regional) front. Without security and stability or cooperation from 

Afghanistan’s neighbors, reconciliation will not occur.

United States Institute of Peace www.usip.org
2

Figure 1. Average number of violent incidents per month, 2003–2008

Introduction

Afghanistan is at a crucial stage of transition. The Taliban, with sanctuaries and a support 

base in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), has grown stronger, relying 

on a wide network of foreign fighters and Pakistani extremists who operate freely across 

the Afghan-Pakistani border. As a result, violence in Afghanistan has been escalating for 

the past two years. More than 14,500 people, including hundreds of foreign troops, have 

been killed there since the Taliban began its comeback in 2006. Recent statistics suggest 

that the situation is only getting worse. June 2008 represented the deadliest month for 

foreign troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 fall of the Taliban and the second month in 

which casualties exceeded those in Iraq.

Complicating matters, the insurgency is not a pure, genuine national insurgency that 

is simply fighting against occupying forces or the government, and the Taliban is not the 

only source of violence and unrest. Other groups, including Hizb-i Islami, armed criminals, 

and drug networks linked closely with illegal armed groups, as well as corrupt elements 

inside and outside the government, contribute to the country’s security concerns. Additionally, a record increase in opium production provides up to 40 percent of the Taliban’s 

total financial support and contributes dramatically to corruption. If the current levels of 

violence and poppy production are not contained, both the government and international 

security forces will lose further support among the people, providing more space for the 

insurgents and terrorist groups to operate (see figures 1 and 2). 

To date, the Afghanistan government and the international community have typically 

responded to the violence by being reactive rather than proactive, as evidenced by the 

gradual increase of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in 

response to rising security threats and a general lack of contingency planning. Although 

military and peacekeeping operations are absolutely vital for creating a secure environment conducive to state building and reconstruction, present trends raise serious doubts 

about whether military solutions alone will be able to defeat the insurgency and stem the 

expansion of terrorism. In short, reconciliation must also be a key element of stabilization 

operations in Afghanistan.

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote post-conflict peacebuilding, and increase conflictmanagement tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with 

knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, 

D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chairman), President, ACCION International, Boston, Mass. • Holly J. Burkhalter, Vice President, 

Government Affairs, International Justice Mission, Washington, 

D.C. • Anne H. Cahn, Former Scholar in Residence, American 

University, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. Crocker, James R. 

Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign 

Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 

• Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, Williams and Connolly, Washington, D.C. • Charles Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, 

Washington, D.C. • Kathleen Martinez, Executive Director, 

World Institute on Disability • George E. Moose, Adjunct Professor of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. • Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason 

University, Fairfax, Va. • Ron Silver, Actor, Producer, Director, 

Primparous Productions, Inc. • Judy Van Rest, Executive Vice 

President, International Republican Institute, Washington, D.C. 

Members Ex Officio

David Kramer, Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of 

Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Department of State 

• Christopher “Ryan” Henry, Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Policy, Department of Defense • Richard H. Solomon, 

President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 

• Frances C. Wilson, Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps; 

President, National Defense University.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org

44

90

143

423

562

573

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Average incidents per month

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Sources: Afghanistan’s Ministries of Defense and Interior, the National Directorate of Security, and the UN Department of 

Safety and Security
3

Although the danger that Afghanistan could once again become a failed state is real, 

the chance to stabilize Afghanistan is not lost: broad support is emerging for an effective national reconciliation and negotiation program that will end the bloodshed. But 

what might such a program look like, and how might it succeed when past attempts 

have failed? This report represents an attempt to answer these important questions and 

to provide an approach for encouraging reconciliation among Afghans in the name of 

stabilization and peace. It begins by arguing that an opportunity exists for reconciliation and then explores the various challenges to reconciliation, including Afghanistan’s 

unique sources of conflict and wide spectrum of insurgent, terrorist, and criminal 

groups. Next, it briefly examines the government’s past attempts at reconciliation with 

the Taliban and then offers a pragmatic framework for overcoming the country’s various 

sources of conflict and promoting reconciliation among the conflict’s key actors. The 

report concludes with a series of recommendations for the Afghan government and its 

international partners acting in support of the country’s peace and reconciliation.

An Opportunity for Reconciliation 

Although Afghanistan’s insurgents have proved adept at exploiting local fissures, 

creating horror, and attacking high-value targets, Afghanistan has witnessed positive 

progress on numerous fronts since 2002. At present, multiple factors suggest that the 

time is ripe for a reconciliatory process to begin (see table 1).

First, Afghans are tired of long years of conflict and the majority are willing 

to support a peace process, but they are uncertain and afraid due to past experience. If reassured and mobilized, they will stand firmly and support the current 

democratic process as they did when the Taliban was first ousted. Indeed, Afghans 

prefer the current democratic process over Taliban rule, but they are frustrated by

the government’s corruption and incompetence in delivering basic services, especially 

security, jobs, and justice. 

Second, the Taliban is not enjoying the same level of support that it enjoyed when 

it first emerged as a political and military power. This is partly because of the Taliban’s 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

9000

7000

5000

3000

1000

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Although the danger that 

Afghanistan could once again 

become a failed state is real, the 

chance to stabilize Afghanistan is 

not lost.

Figure 2. Opium poppy cultivation and production levels, 2002–2007

Sources: UN Office of Drugs and Crime and Afghanistan’s Ministry of Counter Narcotics

Production 

(Metric tons)

Cultivation

(hectares)


4

S/No Description 2002 2008 Notes

1 Afghan National Army 1700 

(estimate)

70,000 Field strength of 50,000

2 Afghan National Police 50,000

(estimate)

79,910 In 2002, none were properly trained, 

equipped, or paid. At present, 20,000 

are properly trained and paid, and are 

better equipped but still lagging behind 

the army

3 Afghan Military Forces 100,000 Decommissioned 64,000 ex-combatants reintegrated

4 International Security 

Forces and Provincial 

Reconstruction Teams

1 PRT

4,900 ISAF troops

52,700 ISAF troops

26 PRTs

Deployment has been expanded to all 

regions with 26 PRTs now covering all 

34 provinces

5 Illegal Armed Groups 1,800 groups 

(estimate)

342 groups 

disbanded

64,000 weapons and 27,000 tons of 

ammunition have been collected.

6 Access to Health Care 9% 85% Percentage of the population covered by 

basic services

7 Education 3.7 million 

children enrolled

5.7 million enrolled In 2005 there were almost 11.8 million 

children under the age of 15

8 Rural Development 0 32,000 Number of villages that have benefited 

from development projects

9 Infrastructure 

development 

Mostly destroyed 13,150 km Combined length of roads that have 

been rehabilitated, improved, or built

10 Natural Resources 

Management

13% and 8% 23% and 12% Percentage of population with access 

to safe drinking water and adequate 

sanitation facilities, respectively.

Three million citizens have benefited 

from rural water and sanitation projects. 

Sanitation facilities in urban areas 

are provided by connections to public 

sewers or by household systems. In rural 

areas, pit privies, pour-flush latrines, 

septic tanks, and communal toilets are 

considered adequate.

11 Economy and Trade 70% Percentage increase in income per capita

12 Media and Telecom 5% 75% Percentage of the population that has 

access to communication

1. UNAMA, "International Conference in Support of Afghanistan: Paris, 24 May, 4 June, 12 June 2008," www.

unama-afg.org/news/_londonconf/_factsheet/paris-con-factsheet.pdf.

2. Ibid.

3. Afghanistan: Getting Disarmament Back on Track, Asia Briefing No. 35 (Kabul/Brussels: International Crisis 

Group, February 23, 2005), www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3290.

4. U.S. Department of State, "Afghanistan: Provincial Reconstruction Teams," January 27, 2006, www.state.gov/p/

sca/rls/fs/2006/60031.htm; NATO, “ISAF Regional Commands and PRT Locations,” June 20, 2008, www.nato.int/

isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat.pdf; and Kenneth Katzman, Afghanistan: Current Issues and U.S. Policy, Rep.No. 

RL30588 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, December 3, 2002), available at http://digital.library.

unt.edu/govdocs/crs/.

5. UN News Centre, "Afghanistan: More Illegal Armed Groups Disbanded with UN Help," July 24, 2008, www.

un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsid=27472&cr=afghanistan&cr1=.

6. U.S. Agency for International Development, "USAID Assistance to Afghanistan, 2002–2008," March 27, 2008, 

www.usaid.gov/press/factsheets/2008/fs080327.html.

7. UNAMA, www.unama-afg.org/news/_londonconf/_factsheet/paris-con-factsheet.pdf; and UN Development 

Programme (UNDP), Afghanistan: National Human Development Report 2004—Security With a Human Face. Centre 

for Policy and Human Development (UNDP, 2005), available at www.cphd.af/nhdr/nhdr04/nhdr04.html.

8. UNAMA, www.unama-afg.org/news/_londonconf/_factsheet/paris-con-factsheet.pdf.

9. Ibid.

10. UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), "Annex 3: Progress on Access to Clean Drinking Water, 2002), www.unicef.org/

media/files/progesscleanwater.doc; UNAMA, www.unama-afg.org/news/_londonconf/_factsheet/paris-confactsheet.pdf; Worldwater.org, "Table 4. Access to Sanitation by Country, 1970 to 2002," www.worldwater.org/

data20062007/Table4.pdf; UNICEF, "UNICEF Humanitarian Action Update Afghanistan, 17 January 2008," available at www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwfiles2008.nsf/filesbyrwdocunidfilename/ammf-7axh7n-full_report.pdf/$file/

full_report.pdf.

11. UNAMA. www.unama-afg.org/news/_londonconf/_factsheet/paris-con-factsheet.pdf.

12. Ibid.

Sources:

Table 1. Progress achieved in Afghanistan (2002–2008)
5

increasing indifference to civilian casualties and partly because Afghans are once again 

getting frustrated with its free-market approach to war in which it enlists criminals to 

conduct operations in its name. 

Third, Afghan national institutions, especially the Afghan National Army (ANA), are 

gaining in strength and slowly becoming trusted. If further strengthened, the army has 

the potential to gradually replace ISAF. Such a strategy will put an end to widespread 

speculation about a long-term Western occupation that insurgents presently use to 

advantage in their propaganda.

Fourth, for more than six years Afghanistan’s average annual economic growth rate 

has been above the ten-year annual target of nine percent recommended in the report 

Securing Afghanistan’s Future, which was presented at the 2004 Berlin Conference on 

Afghanistan (see figure 3). This is welcome news given that more than 60 percent of the 

Afghan population is below twenty years old, comprising a generation that lost virtually 

all opportunity for education and risks suffering from massive unemployment.

Fifth, growing regional fears about the threat posed by extremist militants means 

it may now be possible to develop a region-wide consensus for dealing with the 

threat: China is worried about the Uighurs; Uzbekistan about the Islamic Movement of 

Uzbekistan (headed by Namangani); Russia about Chechen rebel groups (all linked with 

al Qaeda); Iran about the Taliban and al Qaeda; and Pakistan about the expansion of 

criminality and insecurity and the further loss of control over its border areas. 

Sixth, although members of Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence 

(ISI) and military continue to support the Taliban and al Qaeda, Pakistan’s recent election represented a vote of no confidence in extremist groups. Indeed, if Pakistan does 

not help stabilize Afghanistan by taming groups in FATA, a collection of seven agencies 

and six “frontier districts” that share 250 miles of mountainous border with Afghanistan, it may ultimately face the same situation that Afghanistan suffers from today. 

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan are increasingly burdened with security challenges 

that divert significant resources and energy from much-needed services and economic 

development initiatives. 

Seventh, it was recently announced that United Front opposition leader and former 

Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabani was in contact with the Taliban and wanted to 

negotiate with it. In the past, United Front leaders were equivocally against any negotiation with insurgents. This announcement demonstrates a growing consensus among 

Afghans to reach out to groups that engage in political violence against the state.

Eighth, the NATO Summit in Bucharest in April 2008 and the Paris donor conference 

in June 2008 highlighted the strong commitment of the international community to 

peace and stability in Afghanistan, sending positive signals and boosting confidence 

and morale inside Afghanistan. 

Sources: Afghanistan’s Ministry of Finance, Afghanistan National Development Strategy, and 

World Bank.

29.40

15.10

8

13.80

7.00

14.25

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

percent

2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08

13.50

(Average)

Figure 3. Annual economic growth rate, 2002–2008 (in percentages)
6

Challenges to Reconciliation

Despite the favorable developments that may make the present an opportune moment for 

reconciliation, the various sources of conflict and the multitude of insurgent and terrorist

groups within Afghanistan will present formidable challenges to any reconciliation process.

Principal Sources of Conflict

Conflict in Afghanistan springs from several sources and can be classified into two broad 

categories, the first of which can be broken down along real-world geographical lines—

regional, national, and local—and the second along the more abstract lines of religion, 

ethnicity, and family. 

Regional Sources of Conflict. Afghanistan is at the center of numerous regional 

disputes, including its territorial dispute with Pakistan over the Durand Line, Pakistan 

and India’s territorial dispute over Kashmir, and potential future water-related disputes 

with neighboring countries. In this complex regional environment, many of Afghanistan’s neighbors are trying to increase their influence in Afghanistan to promote their 

own security and economic interests. In the process, they have abused Afghanistan’s 

ethnic and religious diversity by supporting one group over another for their own ends. 

Pakistan, for example, has used and continues to use the Taliban and the militias in FATA 

as a strategic asset to secure its strategic interests in Afghanistan, to help it reestablish 

its position as the key regional player, and to receive more aid from the United States. 

Similarly, Iran has supported Shia groups in Afghanistan to further its influence there.

National Sources of Conflict. Throughout Afghanistan’s modern history, the conflict 

between modernizers—principally urban, educated elites—and conservatives—principally rural, illiterate villagers led by ulema and tribal leaders—has continually led to 

revolts against the state. In 1929, King Ammanullah was overthrown after embarking on 

a rapid modernization program based on the Turkish model. In 1979, the modernizing 

reforms of Communists provoked widespread revolt, ultimately leading to the overthrow 

of the central authority and collapse of the Communist regime in 1992. And now, today, 

the fundamentalist Taliban, with support from al Qaeda, is revolting against the current 

moderate democratic process and attempts at modernization and development. 

Over the past three decades, separate power bases have emerged in Afghanistan in 

the form of political-military parties and networks of commanders and their followers. 

Fed by the illicit economy and supported by foreign powers, these parties and networks 

have access to vast human support and financial resources, much of which is generated 

by drug trafficking, illegal taxation, and customs fees, and are thus able to maintain 

power outside the state. 

Local Sources of Conflict. Many local disputes in Afghanistan are related to conflicts 

over land and access to water. Such disputes are mainly between displaced persons who 

returned from refugee camps to their places of origin and those who either stayed in the 

area or returned at any earlier period. In some cases, local commanders have claimed the 

lands of those who were displaced; in other cases, local commanders belonging to one 

majority ethnic group have forced villagers belonging to a minority group to flee only to 

redistribute the abandoned land to the remaining population. Such cases have mainly 

been registered in the northern provinces of Takhar, Mazar, and Fariba. Land has also 

been acquired unjustly or sold illegally through the use of fake documents or the abuse 

of government positions.

The destruction of water distribution systems has also led to violent conflict, as have 

disputes over the ownership and use of public property, such as forests and pasturages, 

especially between nomads (Kochies) and other tribes (mainly the Hazara residents of the 

central highlands). In each of the past two years, for example, fighting erupted during the 

seasonal movement of Kochies and their herds toward the central highlands. Fighting was 

over land ownership and grazing rights. Several people were injured, while others were 

Many local disputes in Afghanistan are related to conflicts over 

land and access to water.

The various sources of conflict and 

the multitude of insurgent and 

terrorist groups within Afghanistan 

will present formidable challenges to 

any reconciliation process. 
7

killed. Additionally, homes were burned, and herds were taken by force. Spoilers on both 

sides, principally Kochie and Hazara political leaders, have exaggerated the dispute. 

Religion-Based Sources of Conflict. Islam is the predominant religion in Afghanistan and is mixed with Afghan culture, making it difficult for the majority of illiterate 

people to make distinctions between certain aspects of Islam and their own indigenous 

traditions. Although moderate Islam, in particular, has deep roots in Afghan society and 

is the most important part of belief in the day-to-day life of Afghans, Afghans can be 

deeply angered by incidents that are perceived as contradictory to their Islamic belief. 

An overwhelming majority of Afghans reject the radical version of Islam practiced by 

the Taliban not only because it has caused social strife but also because it contradicts 

their principle understanding of Islam. 

Promoting moderate Islam in Afghanistan will have a significant positive impact on 

the peacebuilding process and help unify and heal the country. The rule of the mullahs 

(traditional clergy) is dominant, particularly in the rural areas of Afghanistan. Their 

network is loose but pervasive throughout the country, and their decisions, in many 

cases, determine people’s decisions and actions. Reaching out to them and using their 

potential for peacebuilding will be an important step that can help offset the extremists’ appropriation of mosques in their propaganda campaign against the government. 

Ethnic Sources of Conflict. Although Afghanistan is not ethnically homogenous and 

its national culture is not uniform, there is a strong collective sense of identity within 

the country. Most ordinary Afghans broadly believe that they will be prosperous only if 

they are united and live in peace with one another under a lawful and just system where 

they equally benefit from services. As Louis Dupree wrote in his book Afghanistan, “In 

Afghanistan, only distinctive tribal and ethnic clothing, language, religion and other 

cultural impediments make the difference. But like the United States, and for a much 

longer period, Afghanistan had been a cultural, as well as physical, melting-pot . . . the 

influences of many empires rose, fell and blended.”1

The ethnic divisions within Afghanistan were deepened during the initial years of 

resistance against the Soviet invasion, when leaders organized jihadi parties and militia 

groups around networks of close friends and relatives, creating new ethnocentric power 

structures. As a result, militia groups on all sides were dominated by geographical location and tribal and ethnic affiliations. When these groups were threatened by a common foreign enemy, they joined together, but when the time came to share power, they 

fought one another with all the means at their disposal and played the "ethnic card" to 

mobilize support and retain power and access to resources.

The individualistic approach of these groups created an environment in which each 

group put its own interests over national interests. During the civil war in Kabul, for 

example, these groups banned the movement of ordinary Afghans and contact between 

Afghans belonging to different ethnic groups. They also tortured members of other 

groups to create hate and dependency and to force people to follow them out of fear. 

None of the ordinary Afghans interviewed by me during the past ten years approved 

of what their respective leaders and commanders had done in the name of ethnicity. 

Hence, Afghans did not necessarily follow the leaders and militia commanders because 

of their inherent ethnic interests or loyalties; rather, they were forced to because of fear 

and a need to protect themselves and their families.

Familial Sources of Conflict. Family disputes and feuds are an additional cause of 

conflict in Afghanistan and mostly involve issues of marriage and shared property. In 

some cases, ISAF has been intentionally misled by locally hired individuals in the middle 

of a personal or familial dispute. For example, such individuals have been known to 

falsely accuse their rivals of having links with al Qaeda, knowing that their homes will 

be searched or that they will be arrested. Such circumstances in which innocent parties 

are treated unjustly or unfairly have the unintended effect of damaging the image of 

the international forces and government in the eyes of Afghans and creating further 

space for the insurgents.

Most ordinary Afghans broadly 

believe that they will be prosperous only if they are united and live 

in peace with one another under a 

lawful and just system where they 

equally benefit from services.

Circumstances in which innocent 

parties are treated unjustly or 

unfairly have the unintended effect 

of damaging the image of the international forces and government in 

the eyes of Afghans and creating 

further space for the insurgents. 
Insurgent, Terrorist, and Criminal Groups

Although the nature and composition of the country’s insurgent and terrorist groups 

change frequently and require continued assessment, the following groups are the ones 

that will likely present a key challenge in any reconciliation process.

The Afghan Taliban. The Afghan Taliban is currently led by two main shuras (councils): 

the Quetta Shura and the Peshawar Shura. The Quetta Shura, also known as the Leadership 

Council, is headed by Mullah Omar and dominated by those from Kandahar, Uruzgan, and 

Helmand. Most council members come from the old leadership of the Taliban. The Peshawar Shura, which is headquartered in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), is 

composed of smaller tribes but lacks a leader with Mullah Omar’s overall authority and 

legitimacy. There are additional differences between the Quetta Shura and the Peshawar 

Shura with regard to status and resources.

As a whole, the Taliban operates in small groups—from three to thirty individuals, most 

of whom are between the ages of seventeen and twenty-six (except for the commanders 

and secret operatives). Although these groups are composed of core madrassa-trained 

Taliban and local recruits, they also include mercenaries—criminals hired for special tasks. 

Each group also generally has foreign fighters and advisers, many of whom are in command 

positions. Support for these groups comes from the drug mafia, which not only provides 

financial resources but also information, linkages, and help in penetrating high-valuetarget areas that are under effective government control.

Of the numerous Taliban groups, one of the strongest and most active is led by Jalaludin Haqani, a member of the Taliban’s Leadership Council and an experienced Afghan 

rebel commander from the Zadran district in southeast Afghanistan. Once trusted by the 

CIA, Haqani was the first Afghan leader to sponsor Arab fighters during the last years 

of the anti-Soviet war, establishing very close relations with wealthy Arab sheikhs and 

Pakistan’s ISI.2 Assisted by his son Sarajudin, he is once again proving himself to be a 

capable organizer, operating as a middleman between al Qaeda and the ISI from his base 

in Waziristan. Sarajudin has recently called for a change in the Quetta Shura leadership, 

arguing that a lack of leadership has led to the killings of some of the Taliban's most 

senior commanders. 

The Hekmatyar Group (Hizb-i Islami). Based mostly in the Dir District of Pakistan’s 

Bajaur Agency along the Afghanistan border (near Kunar and Nuristan), Hizb-i Islami is 

led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a controversial figure who lost much of the credibility among 

Afghans that he had gained during the initial years of the anti-Soviet war. This was largely 

due to his continued rocket attacks on Kabul after the fall of the Communist regime in 

1992, causing serious damage to ordinary Afghans and the new mujahidin government. 

As a result, his group has not been able to mobilize new recruits and instead relies on a 

network of former commanders and followers (some of whom maintain close links with 

their old ISI friends). Many members have already left him, with some joining the government in senior positions. Although they have broken off from the group and separated 

themselves from its current policy of fighting coalition forces, they represent potentially 

important points of contact between the government and Hekmatyar. Indeed, there is a 

growing possibility that Hekmatyar’s group could, at some point, join a reconciliation process at the leadership level, although such a scenario would be very complicated because 

of Hekmatyar’s past actions and because Hekmatyar and his group are on the UN Security 

Council’s terrorist designation list. 

Contractors and Criminals. Large networks of illegal armed groups involved with 

poppy production and drug trafficking exist in Afghanistan. Many young unemployed 

Afghans, particularly some of those who were forcibly returned from Iran, have joined their 

ranks as criminals and addicts. This represents another major threat to security and the 

rule of law and only serves to strengthen the insurgency.

Afghan criminal groups engage in a range of money-generating activities, whether its 

robbing and killing traders, or kidnapping children and foreign aid workers for ransom. 

They are also often contracted by the Taliban to carry out specific acts in return for pay8

There is a growing possibility that 

Hekmatyar’s group could, at some 

point, join a reconciliation process 

at the leadership level.
ment or to provide protection during smuggling or kidnapping operations. Corruption 

in the police force has only added to the problem, further contributing to the country’s 

instability and hurting the government’s image. 

Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan. Following the launch of Operation Enduring Freedom in 

2001, the Taliban and al Qaeda fled to Pakistan. They found sanctuary in FATA, a region 

ruled by old tribal customs that has been the site of major guerrilla and terrorist training camps since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s (many of which were 

established with U.S. and Saudi money under the direct supervision of the ISI). Far from 

Islamabad’s reach, FATA currently serves as a launching pad for terrorist and cross-border 

attacks on Afghan and international security forces. 

Established as an umbrella organization by a shura of forty senior Taliban leaders, the 

Tehrik-I-Taliban Pakistan (PTT) quickly and effectively established itself in FATA, killing 

more than 300 tribal elders. Militia leader Baitullah Mehsud, who once operated under 

Sarajiden Haqani, was appointed as the group’s amir (leader) in 2007, while Mulana Hafiz 

Gul Bahaddur of North Waziristan and Mulana Faqir Muhammad of Bajaur Agency were 

appointed as the second and third in command. 

As a syndicate, the PTT is composed not only of Taliban but also of groups such as 

Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), Tehreek-Maram-Shariya Mohammadyah (TNSM), the Harkatul Mujahideen al-Aalmi (HMAA), the Harkatul Ansaar (HA), the Harkat-i-Jehad-i-Islami(HJI), the 

Ansaru Sunnah (AS), and the Ansarul Muslimoon (AM). These groups have concentrated 

their human and material resources in Waziristan in preparation for renewed attacks on 

international and Afghan security forces. Most of these groups were formed in the late 

1990s by the ISI as a proxy force of jihadists to fight the Indian government in Kashmir. 

Each of these organizations has independent weapons stockpiles, millions of dollars in 

funds, and hundreds of fighters. 

Foreign Fighters and al Qaeda. With its ability to mobilize foreign fighters and its 

access to financial resources, al Qaeda represents one of the most sophisticated networks 

of terrorists capable of attacking targets on a global level. It has played a central role in 

spreading militancy in the region, providing the insurgency with strategic communication 

and planning, financing, and networking opportunities. In addition, it brings recruits to 

Afghanistan not only from Arab countries but also from Chechnya, Uzbekistan, and China’s 

Xinjiang province.

Relations among al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist groups are very complicated. They can be direct or indirect and are characterized by a combination of hostility 

and friendship. They need one another for survival, but sometimes they have conflicts of 

interests. What is clear is that the Taliban and extremist groups need al Qaeda’s money, 

brains, and experienced fighters, while al Qaeda needs safe havens from which it can 

operate worldwide. 

With multiple sources of conflict and numerous destabilizing forces in Afghanistan, it is 

clear that developing a successful reconciliation program and building durable peace will not 

be an easy task. But before a framework to address the problem can be designed, past and 

present attempts at reconciliation must be examined and their shortcomings understood.

Past Attempts at Reconciliation

Following the Taliban’s removal from power by the United States, the Bonn Agreement 

provided an opportunity to not only recreate the State of Afghanistan but also to end 

conflict there by developing a road map for peace. It recognized the need to ensure 

broad representation in the interim arrangement and to include those groups that have 

not been adequately represented at the UN-sponsored talks on Afghanistan. Although 

the Taliban had been defeated, was seeking amnesty and personal safety, and had no 

significant political ambitions, the political environment at the time made it difficult 

to accommodate them, leaving an opportune moment for reconciliation to be lost. As 

9

Al Qaeda has played a central 

role in spreading militancy in the 

region, providing the insurgency 

with strategic communication 

and planning, financing, and networking opportunities. 
10

Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special representative of the secretary-general, publicly stated, “The Bonn talks were dominated by one group and at that time nobody was 

ready to consider the partly defeated side of the conflict; therefore, the Taliban were left 

by themselves, which gave an opportunity to spoilers to regroup.” 

President Hamid Karzai first announced plans for a reconciliation policy in a speech 

before a gathering of ulema in Kabul in April 2003. He stated that “a clear line has to 

be drawn between the ordinary Taliban who are real and honest sons of this country, and 

those who still use the Taliban cover to disturb peace and security in the country. No one 

has the right to harass/persecute any one under the name of Taliban.” He added that all 

those who were active within the ranks of the Taliban—and who were not among those 

known to have committed crimes against the Afghan people—could begin living as normal citizens of Afghanistan by denouncing violence.

In early 2005, the government established the Independent Peace and Reconciliation 

Commission (PTS) to facilitate the reconciliation process. Shortly thereafter, commission 

chairman Hazrat Sebghatullah Mojaddedi announced that the amnesty offer from Karzai 

was being extended to all Taliban leaders, including the regime’s former head Mullah 

Omar. Although the U.S. military supported the Afghan government’s general reconciliation policy and the commission, it stated unequivocally that those guilty of terrorism or 

other serious crimes would not be allowed to join the amnesty. Resistance to such an idea 

came not just from the United States: Mojaddedi’s announcement was in direct contradiction of two UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR 1267 [1999] and 1735 [2006]) that 

sanctioned those very leaders. 

On December 12, 2005, the Afghan Cabinet formally adopted the Action Plan on Peace, 

Justice, and Reconciliation in Afghanistan. The action plan focused mostly on the past 

and not on how to end the current violence. Then, on January 31, 2007, the lower house 

of the Afghanistan National Assembly approved a controversial draft amnesty bill that 

would provide amnesty to war criminals of the past three decades (from 1979 to 2001). 

An amended version, which was approved in March 2008, notes specifically that “the 

law does not include those who are wanted for internal and external charges against the 

security of the country.” It further adds that “[the bill] will not cover those who do not 

accept the constitution of Afghanistan and the present government.” Although the bill 

also recognizes the right of direct victims to appeal for justice, it states that in the interest of “stability and peace,” those who fought against one another for the independence 

of Afghanistan would be granted amnesty.

Aside from these broad national initiatives at reconciliation with the Taliban, attempts 

at outreach and reconciliation on a more local level have been initiated with modest success by a number of actors—namely, the Afghan government, nongovernmental organizations, and the international community. 

The Afghan Government

Although the Afghan government’s primary focus has been on reaching out to individual 

members of the insurgency and to midlevel leaders, the Independent Department of Local 

Governance (IDLG) recently began to reach out to community leaders, commanders, and 

mullahs. It is trying to engage and encourage them to actively improve security in their 

districts. These initiatives are not well coordinated, however, and there is a gap between 

strategic focus and tactical approaches. Further, local insurgent leaders occasionally 

engage with the government to gain its trust and receive compensation only to continue 

with their illicit and antigovernment activities. Making such attempts at reconciliation 

more difficult still is the sheer number of Afghan governmental departments either 

directly or indirectly involved in outreach and reconciliation initiatives: 

•	 the Office of National Security Adviser to the President

•	 the National Department of Security

Local insurgent leaders occasionally 

engage with the government to gain 

its trust and receive compensation 

only to continue with their illicit and 

antigovernment activities. 
11

•	 the Independent Peace and Reconciliation Commission (PTS), which has nine offices 

in the most violent provinces of the south, southeast, and west of the country

•	 the Independent Commission of Human Rights

•	 the Ministry of Interior Departments of Intelligence

•	 the Ministry of Defense Department of Intelligence

•	 the newly established Independent Department of Local Governance

•	 individual members of parliament, provincial councils, and provincial governors 

Nongovernmental Organizations

Recently initiated by the IDLG and the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development 

(MRRD), the Community Based Development Councils are created through the National 

Solidarity Program and tasked with directly supervising and managing the implementation of rural development projects together with the district councils. Their mission is to 

mobilize communities for active participation in local security and stabilization and in the 

disbandment and demobilization of illegal armed groups. 

The Afghan Civil Society Forum and a number of national and international nongovernmental organizations, such as Oxfam, the Tribal Liaison Office, and the Cooperation for 

Peace and Unity in Afghanistan, are also engaged in peacebuilding and conflict resolution 

training and initiatives at community levels. The Afghan National Solidarity Plan (NSP), 

created in 2003 to develop the ability of Afghan communities to identify, plan, manage, 

and monitor their own development projects, provides a unique opportunity for reconciliation at the community level through its wide network of more than 21,000 village 

development councils. However, this capacity is not yet fully utilized at the local level.

Supported by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the Ulema Shura (Council of Islamic 

Scholars) meets on a bimonthly basis with the president to exchange views and advise 

the government on religious matters, but unfortunately the insurgents’ outreach to the 

mullahs is currently more robust than that of the government.

The International Community

The United Nations Assistance Mission Afghanistan (UNAMA) is engaged in political outreach and supports the reconciliation efforts of the PTS and the Afghanistan Independent 

Human Rights Commission (AIHRC). Its mandate is to “provide good offices to support, 

if requested by the Afghan Government, the implementation of Afghan-led reconciliation 

programs, within the framework of the Afghan Constitution and with full respect of the 

implementation of measures introduced by the Security Council in its resolution 1267 

(1999), and other relevant resolutions of the SC.” With eight regional offices and ten provincial offices, UNAMA has significant capacity at the field level, but this capacity needs 

to be more effectively and strategically utilized in support of government-led initiatives.

Diplomatic missions, mostly through the development agencies of major donor and 

troop-contributing countries, generally focus on areas where troops are deployed and on 

supporting PTS, civil society organizations, and AIHRC through financial and technical 

assistance at the local level. Some missions even have their preferred local tribal and 

warlord contacts and use their network to reach out to local members of the insurgency 

to negotiate deals or at least reduce pressures on their military outposts. All forty-seven 

troop-contributing countries have their own small cells of outreach and intelligence.

Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT), set up by the U.S. military and NATO coalition 

forces, reach out to Afghans through the provision of development projects. In cases 

where they work closely with provincial governors, they make better contributions and 

help in improving the reach of local governors.

Through the combined efforts of the government and its partners, especially the PTS, 

some progress has been made to date, but the results have been modest. Due to organizational weakness and the general political climate, the process has never been able to get 

With eight regional offices and 

ten provincial offices, UNAMA 

has significant capacity at the 

field level, but this capacity 

needs to be more effectively and 

strategically utilized in support 

of government-led initiatives.
12

sufficient political or financial support, nor has it been able to make any headway toward 

breaking the insurgency and generating momentum for sustained peace and stability. 

A full review of past efforts at reconciliation with the Taliban reveals that the process 

has lacked consistency. The government and its international partners offer conflicting 

messages, and no agreed-upon policy framework exists to pursue reconciliation in a 

cohesive manner. Additionally, an incomplete understanding of the Taliban and other 

groups engaged in violence further contributes to a lack of serious progress. Nevertheless, 

although attempts at talks have not been successful, experience shows that the Taliban 

can be engaged and, in fact, are willing to engage in negotiations. Experience also shows 

that when the government negotiates from a position of strength and has something to 

offer (e.g., security and economic development), negotiations are more likely to lead to a 

successful outcome. Based on this knowledge and the preceding analyses, one can begin 

to construct a pragmatic framework for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan.

A Framework for Reconciliation

The goal of reconciliation in Afghanistan must be to achieve peace and long-term stability under the Afghan Constitution with full respect for the rule of law, social justice, and 

human rights. To successfully meet this goal, Afghanistan’s reconciliation program needs 

to be carefully targeted and guided by a clear set of principles.

The Targets of Reconciliation

To be all inclusive and comprehensive, reconciliation in Afghanistan must take place on 

the national, community, and individual levels.

The National Level. Reconciliation efforts on the national level should focus on building trust with neighboring countries through active diplomacy and on ending sanctuaries 

and support to the insurgency leadership. They should also focus on providing senior-level 

rebel commanders with an alternative way out of the violence by offering them opportunities to participate in the political system and by guaranteeing them and their families 

safety from harassment by the Taliban and coalition forces and safety from national and 

international prosecution. These efforts will require clarity and dedicated government 

leadership and must be attempted from a position of strength to make them credible. 

They will also require the support of the international community and an active role from 

the United States (under the lead of the Afghan government) and the United Nations in 

fostering regional cooperation, implementing Security Council resolutions, and helping 

end the Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan. 

The Community Level. Promoting community-based peacebuilding initiatives and 

tapping their full potential will be key components of encouraging reconciliation from 

the ground up. Organized communities have a demonstrated ability to pressure insurgents 

into joining a peace process and have already proven to be instrumental in weapons 

collection at the district level and in providing security during elections. For example, 

district councils successfully helped pressure commanders of illegal armed groups to 

cooperate in the disarmament process. This generated positive momentum in more than 

seventy-one districts and resulted in the collection of thousands of weapons and tons of 

ammunition.

There is great potential for further initiatives on the community level, but it is thus 

far largely untapped. The NSP of the MRRD, the IDLG, non-governmental organizations, 

development agencies, members of Afghanistan’s parliament, provincial councils, the 

Ulema Shura, the private sector, women’s groups, and other civil society organizations are 

all involved on the community level but not in a structured and coherent way. They lack 

effective strategic communications and require a framework of support and interaction. 

Thus, positive results are not visible at large. Initiatives at the community level will be 

A full review of past efforts at 

reconciliation with the Taliban 

reveals that the process has 

lacked consistency.

Organized communities have a 

demonstrated ability to pressure 

insurgents into joining a peace process and have already proven to be 

instrumental in weapons collection 

at the district level and in providing 

security during elections.
13

most effective if they are well connected with initiatives on the national and individual 

level through an effective support and monitoring mechanism.

The Individual Level. Reconciliatory efforts in the form of covert negotiations and 

invitations to join the peace process are currently focused on individual and midlevel 

commanders, particularly those who do not want to be part of the neo-Taliban movement but who otherwise fear arrest or harassment. Efforts have also been made by U.S. 

and coalition forces to release certain prisoners so that they can rejoin their families 

and communities. They are provided with amnesty letters by the chairman of the PTS. In 

return, community and tribal elders guarantee that these newly released individuals will 

no longer engage in violence. Included among these released prisoners are some former 

high-ranking Taliban officials: Mullah Zaief, Mullavai Wakil Ahamad Mutawakel (the foreign minister under the Taliban), the director of Radio Sharia, and Mullah Abdul Salaam 

(the current governor of Mossa Qala). Although this initiative represents visible cooperation between the PTS and a number of national and international partners, the program 

requires a full review and redesign and needs to be partnered with broader stabilization 

initiatives. To make it fully effective, greater focus is needed on the political level to 

better guide the process.

Principles of Engagement

Based on the analysis herein and work already being done by members of the Policy 

Action Group (PAG) in Kabul, a group of senior Afghan government officials and representatives from the international community, the following series of principles should guide 

Afghanistan’s reconciliation program: 

Fundamental Principles

Afghan ownership. All reconciliation initiatives must be led by Afghan government 

mechanisms and institutions.

•	 The Afghan government may ask the United Nations and other international actors 

to provide support to Afghan-led reconciliation programs.

•	 International military forces, including ISAF, should respond expeditiously to any 

Afghan government request to suspend military action against specific individuals 

or groups identified as prospective insurgent “reconcilees” for the duration of any 

future reconciliation talks and against those individuals or groups whom the Afghan 

government identifies as reconciled.

•	 The international community should coordinate its efforts and avoid actions that 

discredit the Afghan government in the eyes of its people and damage the process 

of reconciliation.

•	 International military forces, including ISAF, and the Afghan government should 

notify each other, at the earliest possible opportunity, of talks by their representatives or agents with prospective insurgent “reconcilees” to avoid any damage to 

reconciliation proceedings and to link the talks with broader initiatives.

Compliance with national and international law. Reconciliation efforts will be guided by 

(and should be in compliance with) the Afghan Constitution, sharia law, and UNSCR 1267 

(1999), 1735 (2006), and 1820 (2008). The Afghan government will seek international 

agreement for measures that may contradict certain resolutions but have significant 

promise for stabilization and reconciliation.

Control over territory. The Afghan state is one and reconciliation initiatives should not 

allow discussions that call for concessions with regard to control over territory.

Flexibility. The reconciliation process should be tailored to allow some level of flexibility to facilitate reconciliation on a case-by-case basis. 

Renunciation of violence. Reconciliation with individual insurgents or insurgent groups 

contributes to the goal of long-term stability only if prospective interlocutors comply 

with constitutional disarmament requirements and renounce violence.

All reconciliation initiatives must 

be led by Afghan government 

mechanisms and institutions. 
14

Rights of individuals. The rights of individuals who suffered as a direct result of atrocities and criminal acts should be recognized. The existing legal framework, including sharia 

law, provides provisions on the rights of individuals to register criminal cases against 

those who have committed crimes. Although no one has the right of forgiveness (Haquall 

Abde) except the victims, all reconciled individuals should enjoy the full rights and pro- all reconciled individuals should enjoy the full rights and protections of citizens of Afghanistan as ensured by law.

Process-related Principles

Confidentiality. The details of negotiations between the government and insurgents 

should be accessible only to a limited number of responsible people. There should not be 

a release of information too early in the process.

Monitoring and accountability. A mechanism of individual accountability should be put 

in place that allows room to maneuver when prompting reconciliation, but not at the 

cost of the rights of individual victims who may wish to take future legal actions. The 

reconciliation program and reconciled individuals should be carefully monitored to (1) 

verify that the behaviour of individuals who are protected by their reconciled status is in 

line with the Afghan Constitution and the agreed-upon legal framework and (2) ensure 

that reconciled individuals are not harassed by government or international security forces 

without a genuine legal reason and are being fully reintegrated.

Power sharing. Decisions on power sharing should be made on the basis of the constitution and in accordance with the democratic process.

Organizational and Institutional Principles

Organizational arrangement. Based on an initial review of the structure of PTS, the following is needed:

•	 a senior focal point with a small secretariat who presides over a small committee of 

authorized professionals, including senior representatives of the international community, that helps coordinate the range of actors and activities at the highest levels 

of the government and international community; 

•	 new PTS members with strong and respected personalities, skills, and talents and 

credible influence in the local politics of areas under the control of the insurgents;

•	 reorganized PTS operational, managerial, and financial systems.

Strategic coordination. A direct channel of communication should be maintained at all 

times between those engaged in reconciliation and those providing security services. The 

government should also coordinate with all organizations authorized to engage prospective reconcilees. The senior focal point should be responsible for the strategic coordination of reconciliation efforts. This individual should report directly to the president. The 

senior focal point should also be responsible for coordinating between reconciliation 

processing offices and Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF) and international 

military forces and for ensuring that the Afghan government and international community 

avoid any contradictory statements that could destroy dialogue or the credibility of the 

reconciliation process.

The senior focal point should also seek verifiable confirmation that reconciled individuals are contributing to peacebuilding and adhering to the Afghan Constitution. 

Additionally, this individual should also be notified of all reconciliation efforts, including 

those by members of parliament, Afghan national security organizations, the PTS, and 

international partners. This will help avoid confusion and ensure that no individuals or 

organizations engage in any kind of political negotiation with insurgents on behalf of the 

government without proper authorization. 

Strengthen local capacity. The government should support community-based peacebuilding initiatives and strengthen capacity at the subnational level to promote and support reconciliation at the local level, especially to prevent violent conflict over land and 

pasturage disputes and to gain commitments for full disarmament.

The rights of individuals who 

suffered as a direct result of 

atrocities and criminal acts 

should be recognized.

A direct channel of communication should be maintained at all 

times between those engaged in 

reconciliation and those providing 

security services. 
15

Outreach-related Principles

Generate public support. A robust public relations campaign should be implemented that 

works in concert with Afghanistan’s civil-society organizations, ulema, tribal leaders, 

and political groups to establish contacts and mobilize people in support of peace and 

stability. The role of political parties and non-governmental actors at the community level 

will be crucial. Community-based organizations, elders, mullahs, the private sector, and 

women should be effectively utilized and their positive role in promoting reconciliation 

and strengthening democratic principles should be supported.

Outreach. Efforts must be made to communicate with and involve individuals and 

groups engaged in political violence against the state.

Support reconciled individuals. The experience and resources of the Disarmament and 

Reintegration Commission and Afghanistan’s New Beginnings Program are invaluable 

and should be drawn on in developing reintegration and support networks for reconciled 

individuals.

First Steps. While most key actors in Afghanistan would welcome reconciliation, much 

skepticism exists. Some critical questions need to be answered and clarified before moving 

full speed toward reconciliation. Specific questions remain about who should negotiate 

with whom and under what conditions negotiations should occur. First steps should be 

geared toward addressing this skepticism and answering these outstanding questions.

To this end, an advisory team composed of experienced, senior-level international 

and Afghan diplomats and experts should be established with UNAMA support to help 

the government and the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General

develop a precise program document, which would include details on reorganization, 

outreach, reintegration implementation, monitoring, and management support. Such a 

team would undoubtedly be invaluable in devising a strategy geared toward building 

regional consensus, putting an end to the Taliban sanctuaries, promoting reconciliation, and developing trust at the national level. It would require not only the support 

of the Afghan government and the United Nations but also the full support of NATO, 

major donor countries, and the United States. The program document itself must outline a clear division of labor among the key parties and be agreed to by the principles in 

Kabul. The United States Institute of Peace, with its links to Afghanistan and expertise 

in post-conflict stabilization and peacebuilding, could help in the design, training, and 

mentorship of such an initiative.

Conclusions and Recommendations

In order to move forward in Afghanistan, a comprehensive and coordinated political reconciliation process must be started. At the same time, significant progress must be made 

on the security front and on the international (regional) front. Without security, stability, 

and cooperation from Afghanistan’s neighbors, reconciliation will not occur. This report 

outlined the contours of a reconciliation process, but a number of actions will be critical 

to creating an environment conducive to reconciliation.

First, ISAF/NATO should temporarily increase the level of troops, which is justifiable 

since preparation for next year’s election should start now. In the absence of such a surge, 

the cost of security over the long term will be intolerably high. The United States and 

other NATO member countries should act now. 

Second, the Afghan government should accelerate security-sector reform, paying 

particular attention to the Ministry of Interior and police. It should also increase the 

ceiling of the ANA up to at least 220,000. This increase should be in the form of reserve 

or National Guard so that they can replace the international troops after the troop surge 

is over. As soon as the security threats are reduced to a manageable level, the number 

can be brought back to the original ceiling to ensure the sustainability of ANA. 

Efforts must be made to communicate with and involve individuals 

and groups engaged in political 

violence against the state.

Without security, stability, and 

cooperation from Afghanistan’s 

neighbors, reconciliation will 

not occur.
Third, in order to prevent social unrest, political and military measures need to be 

complemented with substantive efforts to accelerate reconstruction, generate good governance, and overcome the food crises. 

Fourth, the time has come for the United Nations and the international community 

to enter into serious discussions with Pakistan about cooperative measures to end Taliban sanctuaries and the cross-border insurgency. The UN Security Council should start 

immediate discussions on improving the implementation of its resolutions and decide 

on additional measures against those who continue to support the Taliban, harbor its 

leadership, or provide it with logistical, training, and planning support. The leadership of 

both Afghanistan and Pakistan should be helped and pressured to put their differences 

aside and cooperate seriously and sincerely with mutual respect for each other’s territorial 

integrity and sovereignty and to work toward improving security for both countries. This 

engagement should build upon the concrete steps agreed to in the Peace Jirgah, which 

was organized jointly by Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2007 to build peace along their 

common border areas.

Fifth, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan should engage in a direct dialogue with the 

United States as mediator in an attempt to end the use of Afghanistan soil as a proxy 

Indo-Pakistani battleground. Although such a dialogue has never been tried before, 

building confidence and providing security guarantees would reduce tensions and help 

stabilize Afghanistan. 

Sixth, the Afghan government and the international community must invest in a state 

that is functional and able to provide basic services so that the Afghans themselves can 

take charge without relying on others. Investment in education, media, and civil society 

is the only way to help overcome extremism. Promoting moderate Islam is a key unifying 

factor. The positive role of Islam in promoting peace and reconciliation must be recognized. Copying models from the outside will not work in Afghanistan. Building functional 

state institutions and ensuring equal social and economic opportunities as well as justice 

are fundamental to building national unity. Such an approach will help transform ethnic 

diversity from threat to asset.

Seventh, the government should intensify its fight against corruption and drug trafficking. Continuation of the status quo will not help rebuild public confidence. 

Eighth, the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones initiative of the United States and 

the decision of the G-8 in Japan to invest in tribal areas on both sides of the AfghanPakistani border represent important steps toward stability in the region. Resources must 

be made available in a timely manner and spent effectively in order to generate results 

that promote peace. This requires a comprehensive program for investment that should be 

developed by a joint team of Afghan, Pakistani, and international experts.

Ninth, the current reactive approach toward the stabilization of Afghanistan has not 

proven productive. Further, hesitation by NATO and other troop-contributing countries to 

address the needs of international field commanders in Afghanistan and restrictions on 

troop deployment undermines the struggle against terrorism, prolongs the mission, and 

ultimately weakens the Afghan government’s position in any reconciliation effort. It is 

very important that ISAF works to lower civilian casualties and avoids any incidents in 

which religious and traditional Afghan values are demeaned. In addition, the international community must now deliver on the commitments it made at the Bucharest and 

Paris conferences.

Notes

1. Louis Dupree, Afghanistan, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 55.

2. Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the 

Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001 (Boston: Penguin, 2004), 201.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.