Sigar 23 05 Ip

WHY THE AFGHAN
GOVERNMENT COLLAPSED
November 2022
SIGAR
November 2022
Why the Afghan Government Collapsed
SIGAR 23-05-IP EVALUATION REPORT

Special Inspector General for
WHAT SIGAR FOUND
Afghanistan Reconstruction
SIGAR identified six factors that contributed to the collapse of the
WHAT SIGAR REVIEWED Afghan government in August 2021.
As of June 30, 2021, the United States had First, the Afghan government failed to recognize that the United
appropriated $145.0 billion for the States would actually leave. Over nearly 20 years and three U.S.
reconstruction of Afghanistan. Of that presidencies, the United States had vacillated on the issue of
amount, $36.3 billion was appropriated for military withdrawal. Even as the United States officially expressed its
governance and social and economic desire to exit Afghanistan in the years leading up to its departure,
development. A key U.S. goal was to contradictory messaging by U.S. officials undermined efforts to
develop a stable, representative, and convey the seriousness of U.S. intentions to Afghan officials who
democratic government in Afghanistan. optimistically believed that alternative scenarios were possible. The
result was that the Afghan government was fundamentally
In August 2021, the Government of the
unprepared to manage the fight against the Taliban as the United
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (also
States military and its contractors withdrew.
referred to in this report as the “Afghan
government” or “the Republic”) collapsed Second, the exclusion of the Afghan government from U.S.-Taliban
when President Ghani fled and the Taliban talks weakened and undermined it. Before the Afghan government’s
took control of Kabul. Remaining U.S. collapse in August 2021, the primary U.S. goal in Afghanistan was
military and civilian personnel were achieving a sustainable political settlement that would bring lasting
evacuated, and the United States has no peace and stability. The Taliban’s refusal to talk to the Afghan
official presence in the country as of the government without first negotiating with the United States was an
date of this report. obstacle to that goal. The United States sought to circumvent this by
dealing first with the Taliban in the hopes it could set the stage for
Following the collapse of the Republic, the
an intra-Afghan peace process and possibly an Afghan political
U.S. House of Representatives Committee
settlement. But the U.S.-Taliban agreement did not have that effect.
on Oversight and Reform directed SIGAR to
Instead, the Taliban reinvigorated its battlefield campaign against
examine the factors that contributed to the
the Afghan government, which was weakened by its exclusion from
dissolution of the Afghan government and
U.S.-Taliban talks and the perception that the United States was
the relative success or failure of U.S.
withdrawing its support.
reconstruction efforts to build and sustain
Afghan governing institutions since 2002. Third, despite its weakened position, the Afghan government insisted
that the Taliban be effectively integrated into the Republic, making
To answer these directives, the objectives
progress on peace negotiations difficult. When intra-Afghan talks
of this evaluation were to determine (1) the
started in September 2020, security conditions were poor, with
factors that contributed to the dissolution of
Taliban attacks “above seasonal norms,” according to the U.S.
the Government of Afghanistan in August
military. At the same time, political instability had increased after the
2021, and (2) the extent to which U.S.
highly contested September 2019 presidential election, which was
reconstruction efforts achieved their stated
marred by allegations of fraud. Exclusion from U.S.-Taliban talks and
goals and objectives to build and sustain
the subsequent signing of the February 2020 agreement were further
Afghan governing institutions.
blows to the credibility of the Afghan government. Despite these
developments, rather than explore an entirely new constitutional
framework, the Afghan government insisted during intra-Afghan
negotiations that the Taliban be integrated into the Republic. This
rendered a political settlement more difficult to achieve.
Fourth, the Taliban were unwilling to compromise. The U.S.-Taliban
agreement emboldened the insurgent group. From that point
For more information, contact SIGAR Public Affairs at (703) 545-5974 or [email protected].
onward, the insurgency increasingly focused on defeating the Afghan government on the battlefield. An uptick in
Taliban attacks coincided with the onset of intra-Afghan negotiations, undermining the nascent peace talks, and
prompting U.S. officials to claim that the Taliban was not upholding its commitment to reduce violence. By April
2021, a U.S. intelligence community assessment had concluded that “the Taliban is confident it can achieve
military victory.” Over the next 2 months, the Taliban’s offensive accelerated as the insurgency rapidly gained
control of half of Afghanistan’s 419 districts. On August 15, 2021, Kabul fell.
Fifth, former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani governed through a highly selective, narrow circle of loyalists,
destabilizing the government at a critical juncture. Even at the outset of his first term in 2014, Ghani—a former
World Bank official and a favorite of many in the international community—adopted an assertive and undiplomatic
approach to dealing with perceived rivals. The president’s political and social isolation appears to have been a
function of both his personality, and his desire to centralize and micromanage policy implementation. The extent to
which Ghani’s isolation and tendency toward micromanagement actually caused the collapse of his government is
difficult to discern in a complex political environment. However, it appears to have destabilized the Republic by (1)
undermining support for the administration among slighted powerbrokers and constituencies; and (2) limiting the
president’s visibility of critical information, hampering effective decision-making. The net effect was a leader who
was largely ignorant of the reality confronting the country he led, particularly just prior to the Republic’s collapse.
Finally, the Afghan government’s high level of centralization, endemic corruption, and struggle to attain legitimacy
were long-term contributors to its eventual collapse. The Bonn Conference, convened in late 2001, established a
process for the construction of a new political order in Afghanistan that involved the adoption of a new constitution
and democratic elections. Forged between various factions of the Afghan polity, the agreement that emerged from
Bonn centralized power in the Afghan presidency. By investing so much power in the executive, Afghanistan’s
political system raised the stakes for political competition and reignited long-running tensions between an urban
elite eager to modernize and conservative rural populations distrustful of central governance. The electoral process
was a poor antidote. The credibility of Afghanistan’s democratic elections had long been on a downward trend,
culminating in a final election for which voter turnout was estimated at only 10 percent. In contrast, the Taliban had
a simple rallying message that the government could not claim: They were fighting the foreign occupiers, they were
less corrupt than the government, and their legitimacy was grounded in religion. Endemic corruption, including
persistent electoral fraud and predatory behavior by government officials, fundamentally undermined the Afghan
state. Ultimately, the Afghan government’s degree of centralization, in interaction with its fragile and corrupt nature,
compounded its legitimacy problem and contributed to its demise.
SIGAR also identified four findings surrounding the question of whether U.S. governance objectives were achieved.
First, the United States sought—but failed—to achieve its goal of building stable, democratic, representative, gender-
sensitive, and accountable Afghan governance institutions. The Taliban’s decisive political defeat of the Afghan
government, despite approximately $145.0 billion in U.S. appropriations, including more than $36.2 billion to
support governance and economic development, provides unambiguous evidence of this failure.
Second, several significant shortcomings of the U.S. effort to establish viable governance institutions contributed to
this overarching failure. The United States did not resolve the issue of corruption, in part because fighting corruption
required the cooperation of Afghan elites whose power relied on the very structures that anticorruption efforts
sought to dismantle. The United States also failed to legitimize the Afghan government through democratic
elections, which were consistently marred by fraud, or through economic and social development, such as education
and healthcare service delivery. The latter did not achieve the desired effect of materially increasing support for the
government for a variety of reasons, not least of which was that the Taliban themselves benefitted from them, took
credit for their successes, or both. The United States also failed to adequately monitor and evaluate the outcomes
and impacts of its efforts, and did not appreciate the complexity of Afghanistan’s political economy.
Third, at least some progress towards achieving U.S. governance objectives was made before the collapse of the
Afghan government. For example, the United States and its international partners made concerted efforts to
develop the human capital and institutional capacity of various Afghan government organizations. In both the public
and private sectors, the combination of available opportunities and the training and education provided by the
United States and its international partners led to increased human capital and institutional capacity. Capacity
building was imperfect, but did yield some results.
Finally, residual elements of the Afghan government still exist and are functioning, although their sustainability is
uncertain. For example, although the Taliban have dissolved several ministries of the former government, the
Afghan ministries of finance, health, and economy, as well as the country’s central bank, have continued to execute
some basic functions. Moreover, although the Taliban have installed their own members in many leadership
positions, they have largely kept lower-ranking civil servants in their jobs.
SIGAR provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD), and U.S. Agency
for International Development (USAID) for review and comment. SIGAR received official written comments from
State, which are reproduced in appendix II. USAID and DOD did not submit any comments.
November 15, 2022
The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney The Honorable James Comer

Chairwoman Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform Committee on Oversight and Reform
United States House of Representatives United States House of Representatives
The Honorable Stephen F. Lynch The Honorable Glenn Grothman

Chairman Ranking Member
Subcommittee on National Security Subcommittee on National Security
Committee on Oversight and Reform Committee on Oversight and Reform
United States House of Representatives United States House of Representatives
This evaluation responds to a directive from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform concerning the
collapse of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in August 2021. SIGAR’s evaluation
answered two objectives contained in this directive: (1) determine the factors that contributed to the dissolution
of the Government of Afghanistan in August 2021, and (2) determine the extent to which U.S. reconstruction
efforts achieved their stated goals and objectives to build and sustain Afghan governing institutions.
We identified six factors that contributed to the collapse of the Afghan government in August 2021. First, the
Afghan government did not believe that the United States would actually leave Afghanistan, rendering it
unprepared for the U.S. withdrawal. Second, the exclusion of the Afghan government from U.S.-Taliban talks
weakened and undermined the government. Third, despite its weakened position, the Afghan government
insisted during intra-Afghan negotiations that the Taliban be effectively integrated into the Republic, hindering
progress in the peace talks. Fourth, the Taliban were unwilling to compromise, which further obstructed the
potential for a negotiated political settlement. Fifth, President Ashraf Ghani governed through a highly
selective, narrow circle of loyalists, destabilizing the government at a critical juncture. Finally, the Afghan
government’s high level of centralization, endemic corruption, and struggle to attain legitimacy were long-term
contributors to its eventual collapse.
We also identified four findings surrounding the question of whether U.S. governance objectives were
achieved. First, the United States sought—but failed—to achieve its goal of building stable democratic,
representative, gender-sensitive, and accountable Afghan governance institutions. Second, several significant
shortcomings of the U.S. effort to establish viable governance institutions contributed to this overarching
failure, including U.S. failures to resolve corruption, to legitimize the Afghan government through democratic
elections and service delivery, to adequately monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of its efforts, and
to appreciate the complexity of Afghanistan’s political economy. Third, at least some progress towards
achievement of U.S. governance objectives was made before the collapse of the Afghan government; for
example, capacity building was imperfect, but it yielded some results. Finally, residual elements of the Afghan
government still exist and are functioning, although their sustainability is uncertain.
We are not making any recommendations in this report.
We provided a draft of this report to State, USAID, and DOD for review and comment. State provided official
comments, which are reproduced in appendix II. USAID and DOD did not submit any comments.
SIGAR conducted this work under the authority of Public Law 110‐181, as amended, and the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as amended; and the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation, published by the
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
John F. Sopko
Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Six Factors Contributed to the Collapse of the Afghan Government, Including Its Failure to
Acknowlege the Reality of the Impending U.S. Withdrawal ....................................................................................... 4
The United States Failed to Achieve Its Overarching Governance Objectives in Afghanistan, But
There Were Some Successes Along the Way and Residual Elements of the Republic Remain ........................... 26
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................................. 50
Agency Comments ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix I - Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix II - Comments from the Department of State .......................................................................................... 56
Appendix III - Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 59
SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page vi

ABBREVIATIONS
ANDSF Afghan National Defense and Security Forces
DOD Department of Defense
ICS Integrated Country Strategy

ISAF International Security Assistance Force
OIG Office of Inspector General
SIGACT Significant Activity

SRAP Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
State Department of State
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USFOR-A United States Forces–Afghanistan
USIP United States Institute of Peace
SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page vii

The precipitous collapse of the U.S.-supported government in Afghanistan took less than 4 months, beginning
in April 2021 and ending in August 2021 with the Taliban takeover of Kabul. 1 This catastrophe happened
despite nearly 20 years of U.S. support, including approximately $145.0 billion in funds appropriated or
otherwise made available for Afghanistan reconstruction. 2
On September 10, 2021, the chair and ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform,
and the chair and ranking member of its Subcommittee on National Security directed SIGAR to examine (1) the
factors that contributed to the dissolution of the government of Afghanistan, and any chronic weaknesses that
undermined the government’s authority or legitimacy since 2002; and (2) the relative success or failure of U.S.
reconstruction efforts to build and sustain Afghan governing institutions since 2002.
To accomplish the first objective, we first analyzed and summarized the factors that consistently undermined
the Afghan government’s authority and legitimacy from 2002 to 2021. The documentary evidence for this
analysis and summary consisted primarily of SIGAR’s previous audits, lessons learned reports, and quarterly
reports, as well as various other works published from 2006 through 2021 that we determined could provide
insight into the dynamics of the Afghan government, the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and, more broadly,
Afghanistan’s history. Factors that undermined the Afghan government’s authority and legitimacy were
considered potential contributors to the Afghan government’s eventual collapse. We then compared the results
of our documentary evidence analysis against the testimonial evidence we gathered from interviews to
determine the major factors which contributed to the collapse. In total, we conducted more than 80 interviews
with former Islamic Republic officials, current and former U.S. government officials, and various experts, such
as area specialists and academics. In order to clarify interviewees’ views and seek further information, we also
sent follow-up questions to some individuals, and received written responses. Where we determined it was
appropriate, we supplemented our analysis with other sources, including media reporting.
To accomplish the evaluation’s objectives, we began by identifying the U.S. government’s strategic governance
goals in Afghanistan. To do so, we used judgmental sampling to select eight U.S. strategic documents that
articulated interagency goals. For example, we referred to the 2002 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, the U.S.
Department of State (State) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Strategic Plan for Fiscal
Years 2004–2009, the 2012 U.S. Civil-Military Strategic Framework, and the 2014 and 2020 Integrated
Country Strategies. Using the governance goals presented in these documents as criteria, we examined the
body of literature identified above to determine what goals, if any, were achieved, again comparing the results
against the views and observations of interviewees.
We conducted our work for this report in Arlington, Virginia, and via virtual telecommunication methods from
October 2021 through September 2022, in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and
Evaluation, published by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Appendix I has a
more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.
BACKGROUND
The collapse of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (also referred to in this report as the
“Afghan government” or “the Republic”) on August 15, 2021, marked the end of two decades of U.S. efforts to
build governance institutions in that country. The endeavor began on December 5, 2001, in Bonn, Germany,
when Afghan and international stakeholders agreed on a process to establish a new government in
Afghanistan. It was a victors’ conference that excluded the Taliban. The Bonn Agreement, as it came to be
known, resulted in the appointment of Hamid Karzai as head of the country’s interim administration and,
1SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2021-QR-4, October 30, 2021, pp. i, 3.
2SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2021-QR-3, July 30, 2021, pp. 25, 167; SIGAR, Quarterly
Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2008-QR-4, October 30, 2008, p. 21. Roughly one quarter of this total was
appropriated or otherwise made available for governance and development.
SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 1

eventually, in a constitution that established a highly centralized presidential system of government in a
multiethnic country with a vast chasm between urban and rural populations, and no history of a centralized
democratic system. 3
In 2004, Afghanistan held its first democratic presidential election, which Karzai won, notwithstanding
allegations from his opponents that the election result was fraudulent. 4 Statements of U.S. ambitions for
Afghanistan—the establishment of a government that upheld the rule of law, protected human rights and civil
liberties, supported democratic governance, and relied on the free market—were not matched by actual
funding. Afghanistan received about $67 in annual per capita assistance in the first 2 years of post-conflict
U.S. aid (2002–2003); by comparison, Bosnia—another recent post-conflict setting—received $249 in annual
per capita assistance in a 2-year period following the hostilities there (1995–1997). 5
During Karzai’s presidency, government corruption was a significant issue. In 2009, General Stanley
McChrystal summarized the problem by saying that Afghans were “frustrated and weary,” and that “progress
[was] hindered by the dual threat of a resilient insurgency and a crisis of confidence in the government and the
international coalition.” 6 Election fraud allegations undermined the legitimacy of the government as well.
Karzai won a second term that same year, but the results were again disputed. 7 Meanwhile, the Taliban had
reconstituted and violence levels were rising. President Barack Obama authorized a surge of U.S. combat
forces shortly after taking office in 2009, but deep-seated governance issues remained, as corruption was
exacerbated by a flood of money from U.S. and international contracts and assistance. 8
The September 2014 election of Ashraf Ghani did not increase public confidence in the electoral process:
Abdullah Abdullah, the runner-up, challenged the results and threw the government into crisis. A government
collapse was averted only by last-minute negotiations led by then-Secretary of State John Kerry and personal
intervention by President Barack Obama. The result was the creation of a National Unity Government and a
power-sharing arrangement in which Ghani served as President and Abdullah as chief executive. 9
Sixteen years into reconstruction, the Afghan government still struggled to accrue legitimacy. In 2018, the U.S.
Department of Justice described the situation in Afghanistan as “consistent with a largely lawless, weak, and
dysfunctional government.” 10 Voter turnout had trended downward since Afghanistan’s first election in 2004,
when an estimated 68 percent of eligible voters showed up to the polls. By the 2019 presidential election,
eligible voter turnout was estimated at just under 10 percent. When Ghani was again declared the winner that
year, Abdullah again disputed the results. A second power-sharing arrangement brokered by the United States
3 UN, “Agreement on Provisional Arrangements in Afghanistan Pending the Re-Establishment of Permanent Government
Institutions,” pp. 3–4, 12; Kofi A. Annan, “Letter dated 5 December 2001 from the Secretary-General addressed to the
President of the Security Council,” December 5, 2001; Thomas Barfield, Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), pp. 7–8, 283, 340, 344; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2008-QR-4, pp.
13, 52; Carter Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2021), epp. 87.
4 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2008-QR-4, p. 13; Council on Foreign Relations, “October 9, 2004: A New President for
Afghanistan,” in The U.S. War in Afghanistan 1999–2021, accessed June 18, 2022, https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-
afghanistan.
5 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-327, 22 U.S.C. § 7511–7513 (2002); George W. Bush and
Hamid Karzai, “Joint Declaration of the United States-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership,” May 23, 2005; U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Afghanistan Reconstruction: Deteriorating Security and Limited Resources Have Impeded Progress;
Improvements in U.S. Strategy Needed, GAO-04-403, June 2, 2004, p. 50.
6 General Stanley McChrystal commanded the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan from 2009–2010.
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), “Commander’s Initial Assessment,” August 30, 2009, pp. 1-2, 1-4.
7 SIGAR, Elections: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan, SIGAR 21-16-LL, February 1, 2021, p. 10.
8 SIGAR, Stabilization: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan, SIGAR 18-48-LL, May 24, 2018, pp. 20, 25, 34,
64; James Dobbins, Michele A. Poole, Austin Long, and Benjamin Runkle, After the War: Nation-Building from FDR to
George W. Bush (Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation, 2008), p. 103.
9 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2014-QR-4, October 30, 2014, pp. 65, 127.
10 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2018-QR-3, July 30, 2018, p. ii.

again narrowly averted the prospect of a government collapse. 11 However, structural state weakness and
corruption remained, even if the issue of who was to be president was resolved. 12
In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed an agreement that provided for the withdrawal of
all U.S. troops and personnel from Afghanistan within 14 months. In exchange, the Taliban were to prevent
their members from using Afghan soil “to threaten the security of the United States or its allies,” enter into
negotiations with the Afghan government to determine a ceasefire, and reach “agreement over the future
political roadmap of Afghanistan.” 13
Peace talks between the Taliban and the Ghani government began in September 2020 amid high levels of
insurgent-initiated attacks that were above seasonal norms. U.S. officials criticized the Taliban for not meeting
commitments stipulated in or broadly part of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, particularly those surrounding
counterterrorism guarantees and violence reduction—the importance of which U.S. officials had repeatedly
stressed. 14 On April 14, 2021, after deliberations among his national security team, President Biden
announced that the United States would withdraw all U.S. military and contractors by September 11, 2021, on
the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the September 11th attacks. By July 2, 2021, the United States
completed its withdrawal from Bagram Air Base. 15 Two days later, the Taliban seized more than a dozen
districts in northern Afghanistan. By August 1, they controlled more than half the country. 16
Meanwhile, intra-Afghan talks had failed to gain traction. On July 15, 2021, an Afghan government negotiator
described the previous months’ talks as a limited number of “informal” meetings that failed to discuss serious
issues such as ending the war or a peaceful settlement for a shared future. 17 On July 30—approximately 2
weeks before its collapse—we reported that the Afghan government still had not officially shared a unified
peace plan with the Taliban. 18
On August 6, 2021, the Taliban seized Zaranj, the capital of Nimroz Province, on the border with Iran; this was
the first provincial capital to fall. Media reporting indicated that it was captured without a fight. Over the next 3
days, five more provincial capitals fell: Shibirghan, Kunduz City, Taluqan, Sar-e Pul, and Aibak. The final
disintegration of the Afghan security forces began the night of August 12 to August 13, when the Taliban
captured the major cities Kandahar and Herat, and seven other provincial capitals. On August 15, Taliban forces
took control of Kabul and Ghani fled to Uzbekistan, marking the dissolution of the Afghan government. The final
stage of the collapse took just 10 days. U.S. involvement on the ground in Afghanistan officially ended on
August 30, following the evacuation of U.S. and allied personnel and tens of thousands of Afghans by the U.S.
military and international partners. The U.S. Embassy suspended all operations in the country on August 31. 19
11 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, pp. 15, 23–24.

12 SIGAR, 2019 High-Risk List, SIGAR-19-25-HRL, March 28, 2019, p. 2; SIGAR, 2021 High-Risk List, SIGAR-21-22-HRL,
March 10, 2021, p. 2.
13 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2020-QR-2, April 30, 2020, p. 61.
14 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2020-QR-4, October 30, 2020, p. 69.
15 SIGAR, Collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces: An Assessment of the Factors That Led to Its
Demise, interim report, SIGAR 22-22-IP, May 12, 2022, p. 4.

16 DOD Office of Inspector General, “Operation Freedom’s Sentinel: Lead Inspector General Report to the United States
Congress, July 1, 2021–September 30, 2021,” November 16, 2021, p. 6.

17 Ruchi Kumar, “Afghan government denies Taliban offered ceasefire plan,” The National, July 15, 2021.
18 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, 2021-QR-3, p. 84.
19 DOD Office of Inspector General, “Operation Freedom’s Sentinel… July 1, 2021–September 30, 2021,” pp. 6–7, 15;
SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-4, pp. 69–71.

SIX FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE AFGHAN
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING ITS FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEGE THE REALITY OF THE
IMPENDING U.S. WITHDRAWAL
We identified six factors that contributed to the collapse of the Afghan government in August 2021. First, the
Afghan government failed to recognize that the United States was actually leaving, rendering it unprepared for
the U.S. withdrawal. Second, the exclusion of the Afghan government from U.S.-Taliban talks weakened and
undermined it, encouraging an emboldened Taliban to seek a military victory. Third, despite its weakened
position, the Afghan government insisted during intra-Afghan negotiations that the Taliban be integrated into
the Republic, hindering progress in the peace talks. Fourth, the Taliban were unwilling to compromise, which
further obstructed the potential for a negotiated political settlement. Fifth, President Ashraf Ghani governed
through a highly selective, narrow circle of loyalists, destabilizing the government at a critical juncture. Finally,
the Afghan government’s high level of centralization, struggle to attain legitimacy, and endemic corruption
were long-term contributors to its eventual collapse, setting the stage for the Republic’s final chapter.
The Afghan Government Did Not Believe the United States Would Actually Leave,
Rendering the Country Unprepared for the U.S. Withdrawal
A history of U.S. vacillation on the issue of withdrawal, each instance of which ended with the United States still
in Afghanistan, led to a belief among Afghan government officials that the United States was not serious about
actually leaving. As early as October 2001, President George W. Bush expressed a desire to quickly exit
Afghanistan by putting the United Nations in charge of Afghanistan’s administration. However, deteriorating
security, particularly between 2005 and 2006, caused the nature of the U.S. and international mission to shift
away from peacekeeping. 20 By the end of his presidency, President Bush was contemplating the
implementation of a fully resourced counterinsurgency campaign in the face of spiking violence—a decision
that he left to his successor, President Barack Obama. During his presidential campaign, Obama had
repeatedly called for a renewed focus on the “just war.” 21 But President Obama’s commitment to stabilizing
Afghanistan had limits. In December 2009, he announced a time-bound, 18-month surge of 30,000 additional
troops to Afghanistan, after which, he stated, “our troops will begin to come home.” 22 Nearly 6 years later, in
October 2015, President Obama announced that the United States would halt its military withdrawal from
Afghanistan and keep thousands of forces in the country through the end of his term. 23 Before he was elected
president, candidate Donald Trump publicly expressed in no uncertain terms his opposition to remaining in
Afghanistan. Yet in August 2017, he increased troop levels and expanded the U.S. military’s ability to conduct
operations and support the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF). 24
Several analysts interviewed by SIGAR expressed a view that was best captured by Antonio Giustozzi, senior
research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, who told us that middle-class Afghans and elites alike
believed “America had sunk so much into Afghanistan, they would never leave.” 25 The fact that the United
20 Dobbins et al., After the War, pp. 91, 103.

21 SIGAR, Stabilization, SIGAR-18-48-LL, pp. 21, 23.
22 White House, Office of Press Secretary, “Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in
Afghanistan and Pakistan,” December 1, 2009.

23 SIGAR, What We Need to Learn: Lessons from Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction, SIGAR 21-46-LL, August 16,
2021, p. 35.
24 SIGAR, Collapse of Afghan National Defense and Security Forces: An Assessment of the Factors That Led to Its Demise
(Interim Report), SIGAR 22-22-IP, May 12, 2022, p. 27.

25 The Royal United Services Institute is a United Kingdom-based organization that focuses on defense and security policy
research. Antonio Giustozzi, Senior Research Fellow, Royal United Service Institute, SIGAR interview, January 28, 2022;
Andrew Watkins, Senior Afghanistan Expert, U.S. Institute of Peace, SIGAR interview, January 4, 2022; Ben Connable,
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council, SIGAR interview, December 28, 2021; Laurel Miller, former Acting Special

States had supported Afghanistan for 20 years and that Afghanistan had been highly dependent on external
support for much of its modern history, made it all the harder for Afghan politicians and leaders to envision a
future without such support. Their inability to imagine that scenario prevented the Afghan government from
preparing for a U.S. withdrawal, former Acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan (SRAP)
Laurel Miller suggested. Miller described this phenomenon as “the unfathomability of ‘what do we do when the
Americans leave?’” 26
Contradictory Messaging by U.S. Officials Undermined Efforts to Convey the Seriousness of U.S. Intentions
to Afghan Government Officials
Because of tensions within the U.S. government surrounding the issue of whether full withdrawal was the right
policy, Afghan officials heard what they considered to be contradictory messages about whether a U.S.
withdrawal would actually happen. That made it possible for Afghan officials to listen only to those “who were
giving them more optimistic scenarios,” Miller said. 27 One U.S. official close to negotiations described to us
continual friction between Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad’s team and
State country teams in Doha, Qatar, and Kabul throughout the U.S.-Taliban negotiation process. This U.S.
official believed that the root of this friction was that some U.S. Embassy Kabul staff did not fully accept the
withdrawal of U.S. military forces and the potential of the Taliban exercising meaningful political power in a
post-withdrawal Afghanistan. This official cited examples of U.S. government officials, including senior officials,
who accepted that U.S. forces were leaving—and took steps to implement presidential intent—who were socially
sanctioned by other U.S. government officials at the embassy who disagreed with this policy. This official also
told SIGAR that some U.S. officials based their opposition to the withdrawal decision on an idealized vision of
advancing the rights of Afghan women. According to the official, this group interacted with a small number of
women’s rights advocates who were not representative of the overall population. 28 According to a United
States Institute of Peace report authored by Steve Brooking, who served as a special advisor on peace and
reconciliation for the UN, gaps between Khalilzad’s team and the U.S. Embassy in Kabul persisted during intra-
Afghan negotiations. 29
The Afghan government also received mixed messages from U.S. policymakers and others in Washington.
President Ghani maintained a back channel to U.S. members of Congress and former U.S. military and civilian
officials. 30 In the view of Barnett Rubin, a former senior adviser to the Special Representative for Afghanistan
and Pakistan, these U.S. government officials—working during both the Obama and Trump administrations—
assured Ghani that “the U.S. would never withdraw its troops” and that “this [withdrawal] is just a bluff.” 31
Another former senior U.S. official told SIGAR that Ghani appeared to have gotten the impression “that the
[United States] was not altogether on the same page on full withdrawal,” which may have led President Ghani
to interpret discussions surrounding withdrawal as “an attempt by the United States to shape his behavior.”
This former senior State official stated, “I tried to plead with [Ghani], saying that I know he’s very well-
connected, but in our system, the President ultimately decides, and [Ghani] should take this seriously not to
Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, SIGAR interview, January 21, 2022; Charlotte Bellis, former journalist for Al
Jazeera, SIGAR interview, December 23, 2021; Thomas Barfield, Afghanistan expert and professor at Boston University,
SIGAR interview, February 9, 2022.
26 Miller, SIGAR interview, January 21, 2022.
28 U.S. government official close to the negotiations, SIGAR interview, February 2, 2022.
29 Steve Brooking, Why Was a Negotiated Peace Always Out of Reach in Afghanistan: Opportunities and Obstacles, 2001-
21, USIP Peaceworks, August 2022, p. 21.

30 Steve Coll and Adam Entous, “The Secret History of the U.S. Diplomatic Failure in Afghanistan,” New Yorker, December
10, 2021, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/20/the-secret-history-of-the-us-diplomatic-failure-in-

afghanistan.
31 Barnett Rubin, former senior advisor to the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, SIGAR interview,
January 13, 2022.

miscalculate.” 32 According to Hekmat Karzai, a former deputy minister of foreign affairs for the Afghan
government, one of President Ghani’s “great miscalculations [was] that he thought he knew Washington…. Yet,
at the end of the day, he couldn’t read the most basic signals that Washington had for him.” 33
Inconsistent U.S. Policies Amplified the Confusion

Even after the U.S. officially transitioned to a non-combat role in 2014, the U.S. military found itself pulled back
into the fighting between the insurgency and Afghan security forces. When the provincial capital of Kunduz
Province fell to the Taliban in 2015, for example, U.S. forces provided close-air support to Afghan security
forces clearing the city. 34 According to Thomas Barfield, a professor at Boston University and expert on
Afghanistan, this might have given President Ghani the false impression that the United States would
ultimately step in if the Afghan government encountered “a real test.” 35
Early actions by the Trump administration may have reinforced such an impression. In August 2017, as the
security situation in Afghanistan continued to deteriorate rapidly, President Trump announced a new
Afghanistan strategy, promising that henceforth “conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables” would
guide U.S. strategy. 36 As part of this strategy, he authorized U.S. troop increases, as well as additional funding,
and expanded authorities for American commanders on the ground so that they could more effectively target
terrorists and insurgents. Subsequent increases in American air strikes showed that U.S. forces were taking a
more active combat role. 37 Recalling former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster’s first trip to Afghanistan
representing the Trump administration, former Acting SRAP Miller stated, “Ghani and his team were just over
the moon excited. Now they were going to be saved again by the Americans. And I and others thought, be
careful, this is not going to happen. This is not sustainable.” 38 Speaking to the UN General Assembly a month
after President Trump’s announcement, President Ghani said, “We welcome this strategy, which has now set
us on a pathway to certainty. The Afghan people have looked to the United States for this type of resolve for
years.” 39
But U.S. policy changed again—this time, dramatically. In February 2020, the Trump administration signed a
peace agreement with the Taliban, without the Afghan government’s participation. The agreement stipulated,
“The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States, its allies,
and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers,
advisors, and supporting services personnel.” 40 At the same time, however, as covered in detail in our April
2020 quarterly report to the U.S. Congress, the United States issued a joint declaration with the Afghan
government that reaffirmed U.S. support for Afghan security forces and for continued military cooperation
against international terrorist groups. 41
Both the language of the U.S.-Taliban agreement and statements by senior U.S. officials left open the
possibility that the United States would not leave Afghanistan until all the agreement’s conditions were met.
For example, at the signing ceremony for the agreement in February 2020, then-Secretary of State Michael
32 Senior U.S. government official, SIGAR interview.

33 Hekmat Karzai, Former Deputy Foreign Minister, Government of Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, January 10, 2022.
35 Barfield, SIGAR interview, February 9, 2022.
36 SIGAR, What We Need to Learn, SIGAR 21-46-LL, p. 35.
37 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2017-QR-4, October 30, 2017, pp. 97–98.
39 Radio Free Europe, “Afghanistan’s Ghani Welcomes New U.S. ‘Resolve’ To Win War in UN Address,” REF/RL, September
20, 2017.
40 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2020-QR-2, p. 97; “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic
Emirate of Afghanistan Which Is Not Recognized by the United States as a State and Is Known as the Taliban and the
United States of America,” February 29, 2020.
41 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2020-QR-2, p. 97.

Pompeo described the planned U.S. troop withdrawal as “conditions-based,” and stated that such a withdrawal
would occur only “if the Taliban abide by their promises.” Similarly, Ambassador Khalilzad, at a September
hearing, told the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform that the U.S. troop withdrawal would be
“determined based on conditions on the ground and delivery by the Taliban on their commitments.” 42 One
senior U.S. official told SIGAR that even though “President Trump was quite clear that he wants to withdraw
completely from Afghanistan,” a scenario the U.S. deliberated was, “if there was an agreement among
Afghans, that if the new government in Afghanistan was agreeable, then we would be open to maintaining
some residual force for monitoring and implementing counter terrorism objectives and also helping, if the new
government wanted to, the Afghan security forces.” 43 Former Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah
Mohib told SIGAR that “our understanding [of the agreement] was the conditionality part of it.” 44 In an August
25, 2022, interview with PBS, President Ghani stated that “the U.S. was of two minds,” despite President
Trump’s apparent promise to withdraw from Afghanistan. 45 James Dobbins, a former SRAP, told us,
U.S. officials held out that hope [that the Biden administration would reverse President Trump’s
withdrawal decision], I mean they said it was condition-based, and they alluded somewhat vaguely to
the conditions, but I think they created the expectation that if there was no progress in [intra-Afghan]
negotiations, no progress towards a reduction of violence, … [the agreement] would be a dead letter. 46
President Biden’s April 2021 Announcement Made U.S Intentions to Complete a Full Withdrawal Clearer
Two days after President Biden’s inauguration, the White House announced it would review the U.S.-Taliban
agreement. The review was to include an assessment of whether the Taliban were living up to their
commitments. 47 At this point in time, it was unclear how the withdrawal process would proceed, and whether
U.S. policy towards Afghanistan would shift again. According to the U.S.-Taliban agreement, a full withdrawal of
U.S. troops was supposed to take place by May 2021. 48 However, completion of the withdrawal was, per the
agreement, to be conditions-based. 49 In February 2021, the congressionally commissioned Afghanistan Study
Group released a report concluding that “the Taliban [had] fallen short of their commitments” to not cooperate
with groups and individuals threatening the security of the United States. The report also questioned whether
the Taliban were seriously committed to a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan government. 50 It
recommended that the United States “reinforce the conditionality of a final U.S. troop withdrawal,” and noted
that the Biden administration had the option of “continuing to maintain military pressure on the Taliban.” 51
According to reporting from Steve Coll and Adam Entous writing for The New Yorker in December 2021, during
the policy review period, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General
42 Secretary Michael R. Pompeo at a Press Availability After the Afghanistan Signing Ceremony, Remarks to the Press, State
Department press release, February 29, 2020; U.S. House of Representatives, “Examining The Trump Administration’s
Afghanistan Strategy, Part 2,” Hearing before the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Oversight and
Reform, 116th Second Session, September 22, 2020, p. 5.
43 Senior U.S. government official, SIGAR interview.
44 Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan’s former National Security Advisor, email correspondence with SIGAR, September 20,
2022.
45 PBS News Hour, “Afghanistan’s former President Ashraf Ghani on the U.S. withdrawal and Taliban takeover,” August 25,
2022.
46 James Dobbins, former Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, SIGAR interview, December 20, 2022.
47 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2021-QR-2, April 30, 2021, pp. 55, 92.
48 Afghanistan Study Group, Afghanistan Study Group Final Report, February 2021, p. 11.
49 “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Which Is Not Recognized by
the United States as a State and Is Known as the Taliban and the United States of America,” February 29, 2020, p. II.
50 The Afghanistan Study Group was created by Congress through the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.
According to its enabling legislation, the purpose of the group was to “consider the implications of a peace settlement, or
the failure to reach a settlement, on U.S. policy, resources, and commitments in Afghanistan.” Afghanistan Study Group,
Afghanistan Study Group Final Report, pp. 8–9, 60.
51 Afghanistan Study Group, Afghanistan Study Group Final Report, pp. 47, 56.

Mark Milley proposed keeping 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for up to 1 year, with the hopes that the
Taliban would take intra-Afghan talks more seriously. 52 Meanwhile, as the Biden administration considered its
options, intra-Afghan peace talks were making little progress. 53 The Wall Street Journal reported that
negotiations did not meaningfully advance “as both sides waited to see what policy the Biden administration
would adopt.” 54 Former senior advisor to Afghanistan’s State Ministry for Peace Shoaib Rahim told SIGAR that
during this period the intra-Afghan negotiations were in “limbo,” and that “everyone was doing backdoor
negotiations and lobbying in DC.” 55
On April 14, 2021, President Biden announced that it was “time to end America’s longest war,” and declared
that his administration would continue his predecessor’s withdrawal policy, although he moved the date from
May to September 2021. 56 At the same time, President Biden promised that the U.S. would continue funding
the Afghan security forces and provide humanitarian and diplomatic support. 57 He subsequently requested
$3.33 billion in funding for Afghan security forces for fiscal year 2022, a $280.2 million increase over the prior
year’s appropriation. 58
State told SIGAR, “in communications with the government of then-Afghan President Ghani, high-level officials
in the Biden administration made clear that the United States was preparing for a full withdrawal of forces from
Afghanistan.” 59 Hamdullah Mohib affirmed to SIGAR that the April announcement made U.S. intentions clearer
to the Afghan government. 60 However, he added that the Afghan government was surprised by the
announcement and contrasted it with his impression of prior U.S. messaging surrounding the U.S.-Taliban
agreement:
We were caught off guard by President Biden’s decision to withdraw completely without conditions
being met in the U.S.’s agreement with the Taliban. That April announcement was a shock to us
because prior to that, throughout our partnership with the [United States], U.S. officials had
consistently—at every opportunity—assured the Afghan government that they were committed to a
“independent and democratic Afghanistan at peace with itself and its neighbors,” and they refuted
profusely any argument that their negotiations with the Taliban and their subsequent deal with the
Taliban was essentially a guise to withdraw all of their troops. 61
Despite the apparent clarity provided by President Biden’s announcement, it is unclear whether the Afghan
government as a whole, and particularly President Ghani, fully grasped the implications of the impending U.S.
withdrawal. In June 2021, President Ghani, accompanied by senior Afghan government officials, visited
Washington to meet with President Biden. 62 During this visit, President Ghani also separately met with various
experts and former U.S. officials. 63 One of those officials, former International Security Assistance Force
commander General David Petraeus, detected what he called “a degree of denial” in President Ghani’s
thinking. According to Petraeus, although there was some acceptance that the withdrawal was occurring, there
52 Coll and Entous, “The Secret History of the U.S. Diplomatic Failure in Afghanistan.”
53 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-2, pp. 90–91, 93.
54 Sune Engel Rasmussen and Jessica Donati, “U.S. Plan to Withdraw Troops From Afghanistan Hampers Peace Talks With
Taliban,” Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2021.

55 Shoaib Rahim, former senior advisor to the State Ministry for Peace, SIGAR interview, August 3, 2022.
56 The White House, “Remarks by President Biden On the Way Forward in Afghanistan,” April 14, 2021.
57 The White House, “Remarks by President Biden.”
58 SIGAR, What We Need to Learn, SIGAR 21-46-LL, p. 36; White House, “Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal
Year 2022,” May 28, 2021, p. 261.

59 State, correspondence with SIGAR, August 24, 2022.
60 Mohib, correspondence with SIGAR, April 13, 2022.
62 Coll and Entous, “The Secret History of the U.S. Diplomatic Failure in Afghanistan”; The White House, “Readout of
President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Meeting with President Ghani and Chairman Abdullah of Afghanistan,” June 15, 2021.
63 Jack Detsch and Robbie Gramer, “U.S. Questioned …,” Foreign Policy, June 30, 2021.

was also, “right up to the last meeting, I think there was a sense of, you know, they’re really not going to do
this. … They’re going to peer into the abyss and they're going to say, ‘Oh, you know, not a good idea.’” 64 At the
same gathering, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann recalled speaking with President
Ghani briefly about Ghani’s desire that the United States appoint “a sort of czar for the military cooperative”
who could “do things like order the dispatch of more helicopters, [and] make decisions on procurement.”
Neumann told Ghani that this would not work in the American system, and commented, “he heard me politely,
but I’m sure he went right ahead and asked the president the next day for a czar.” 65
On July 2, 2021, the New York Times reported that, according to “officials and security experts,” the causes of
“the current breakdown within Mr. Ghani’s administration” included “the delusion of security provided by the
Americans, whose determination to leave was never fully believed by civilian or military leadership.” 66 On
August 1, still seemingly unaware of the increasing security crisis, President Ghani announced that the Afghan
government had a “new plan” to turn around the security situation within 6 months. 67 Two weeks later, the
Republic collapsed. 68 “The [Afghan] government seems to have been caught in a surreal bubble,” the
Afghanistan Analysts Network reported on the day of the collapse. “While the Taliban were advancing, senior
government officials were still releasing statements about donor-driven ceremonies and meetings,” it added. 69
The Exclusion of the Afghan Government from U.S.-Taliban Talks Weakened and
Undermined It
Before the collapse of the Afghan government in August 2021, the primary U.S. goal in Afghanistan was to
achieve a sustainable political settlement that would bring lasting peace and stability. The Taliban’s refusal to
talk to the Afghan government without first negotiating with the United States was an obstacle to that goal. The
United States sought to circumvent this by first dealing with the Taliban in the hopes of setting the stage for an
intra-Afghan peace process, and possibly an Afghan political settlement. 70 However, the U.S.-Taliban talks
excluded the Afghan government, making it appear weak and abandoned by its primary ally, while bolstering
the legitimacy of the Taliban.
The Afghan Government Made Overtures to the Taliban in Early 2018 with Limited Success
In February 2018, President Ghani offered to negotiate with the Taliban if they would halt their ties with
terrorism and respect the Afghanistan constitution. He raised the possibility that the Taliban could become a
political party and proposed a ceasefire as a way of creating a pathway for further talks. 71 The Taliban did not
respond to President Ghani’s offer and proceeded to launch their spring offensive. A grassroots peace
64 General David Petraeus, former commander of U.S. and international military forces in Afghanistan, SIGAR interview,
January 14, 2022.
65 We do not necessarily interpret Ambassador Neumann’s comment to mean that President Ghani literally asked President
Biden for a military czar. Rather, we believe the exchange described by the ambassador suggests that President Ghani was
still trying to feel out the limits of U.S. military cooperation even after President Biden’s April 2021 withdrawal
announcement. In follow-up correspondence with SIGAR, Ambassador Neumann explained, “quite apart from how much
interest [the United States] had in Afghanistan, [Ghani’s] request was bureaucratically impossible,” which Ghani did not
appear to understand. Ambassador Ronald Neumann, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, February 1,
2022; Neumann, email correspondence with SIGAR, September 20, 2022.
66 Adam Nossiter, “As Afghan Forces Crumble, an Air of Unreality Grips the Capital,” New York Times, July 2, 2021 (updated
July 22, 2021).

67 SIGAR, Collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, SIGAR 22-22-IP, p. 4.
69 Martine van Bijlert, “Is This How It Ends? With the Taleban closing in on Kabul, President Ghani faces tough decision,”
Afghanistan Analysts Network, August 15, 2021.

70 SIGAR, Reintegration of Ex-Combatants: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan, SIGAR-19-58-LL, September
19, 2019, p. 77.

71 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2018-QR-2, April 30, 2018, p. 119.

movement began to take hold over the following months, culminating with a meeting of more than 2,000
clerics from around the country in June 2018. Following this meeting—which was interrupted by a suicide
bombing—the Taliban unexpectedly reciprocated the earlier ceasefire offer by declaring a truce during the
three days of the Eid holidays that year, which began on June 15. An estimated 30,000 Taliban fighters
participated, celebrating peacefully with civilians and Afghan security forces. 72
Hamdullah Mohib, former national security advisor to President Ghani, cited these developments as reasons to
be optimistic at the time about an eventual peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government.
The Ghani government’s expectation, he said, was that negotiations would eventually result in the Taliban
emerging as a political group within the existing framework of the Republic that would participate in
elections. 73 In early 2018, State and DOD mobilized to coordinate peace efforts, with State creating an action
group to synchronize efforts across various agencies and provide weekly updates to Washington. The UN
Secretary General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan told the UN Security Council that “the possibility of
a negotiated end to the conflict has never been more real” since 2001. 74 According to State, the 3-day
overlapping ceasefires created hope that a peace process was imminent. However, the Taliban did not respond
to either President Ghani’s June 16 offer to extend the 3-day ceasefire or his August 19 call for a joint
ceasefire starting over Eid al-Adha. 75
In October 2018, the United States Began Direct Talks with the Taliban, Excluding the Afghan Government
In fall 2018, with the path to peace talks stalled and the Taliban publicly demanding direct negotiations with
the United States, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad met with
representatives of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates in Abu Dhabi. According
to Khalilzad, the United States’ main goal was an intra-Afghan peace agreement that would ensure that
international terrorist organizations could never use Afghan territory against the United States and
international community. 76
However, the U.S. direct negotiations with the Taliban excluded the Afghan government, weakening the
negotiating position of the Ghani government and strengthening the Taliban. Mohib said, “A lot changed
toward the end of 2018 when the United States appointed a peace envoy and began negotiating their own
agreement with the Taliban. It completely changed the dynamics.” 77 Mohib’s assessment was echoed by a
former Afghan member of parliament who blamed the U.S. negotiations with the Taliban for bringing about the
collapse of the Afghan republic’s governing institutions. 78 In December 2018, Reuters reported that a member
of the Taliban’s leadership council had rejected an Afghan government proposal for talks in Saudi Arabia in
January 2019. The unnamed Taliban official said they would meet with U.S. officials, but not representatives of
the Afghan government. 79 As Hugo Llorens, former U.S. special chargé d’affaires for Afghanistan, summarized,
“Just talking to the Taliban alone and excluding our allies proved the Taliban’s point: The Afghan government
were our puppets, you didn’t need to talk to them. You only need to talk to the Americans.” 80
72 SIGAR, Reintegration of Ex-Combatants, SIGAR-19-58-LL, pp. 78-79.

74 SIGAR, Reintegration of Ex-Combatants, SIGAR-19-58-LL, pp. 78–79.
76 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2019-QR-1, January 30, 2019, pp. 65–66.
78 Fawzia Koofi, SIGAR Interview, December 27, 2021.
80 In a discussion with SIGAR on September 19, 2022, Ambassador Llorens emphasized that, in using the term “puppets,”
he was characterizing the Taliban’s view of the Afghan government, not his own. Ambassador Llorens stated in no
uncertain terms that he did not view the Afghan government as “puppets” of the United States. Hugo Llorens, former U.S.
special chargé d’affaires for Afghanistan, SIGAR Interview, February 2, 2022; Llorens, telephone conversation with SIGAR,
September 19, 2022.

During the talks, Taliban negotiators secured several major concessions from the United States, starting with
the October 2018 release of Abdul Ghani Baradar by Pakistani authorities. 81 Baradar was a cofounder of the
Taliban movement and a senior leader who led a council of prominent Taliban members in the insurgency prior
to his arrest. The United States also agreed to the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners held by the Afghan
government, in exchange for a Taliban pledge to reduce the level of violence during intra-Afghan talks. The
Taliban also agreed to release 1,000 prisoners. 82
U.S. and Taliban Negotiators Signed an Agreement

The U.S.-Taliban agreement, also known as the “Doha Agreement,” was announced on February 29, 2020. At
the same time, U.S. and Afghan government negotiators issued a joint declaration reaffirming the U.S.
partnership with the Afghan government, including U.S. support for Afghan security forces and continued
military partnership against international terrorist groups. The U.S.-Taliban agreement provided for the
withdrawal of all U.S. troops and personnel from Afghanistan within 14 months, provided that the Taliban
committed to preventing the use of Afghan soil “to threaten the security of the United States or its allies,” and
its promise to enter into negotiations with the Afghan government to determine both a ceasefire and to reach
“agreement over the future political roadmap of Afghanistan.” 83
However, the U.S.-Taliban agreement appears to have emboldened the Taliban. According to the Long War
Journal, “Shortly after the Trump administration signed its accord with the Taliban on February 29, Taliban
leader Haibatullah Akhundzada declared ‘victory’ on behalf ‘of the entire Muslim and Mujahid nation.’” 84 Lisa
Curtis, a senior director for South and Central Asia on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2021, told
SIGAR, “It was a U.S. withdrawal process.… all the Taliban really did was agree not to attack U.S. forces on their
way out.” 85 As a result, the agreement likely led Taliban leaders to seek a resolution to its conflict with the
Afghan government on the battlefield rather than through peace talks. In March 2020, following the signing of
the agreement, the Taliban increased attacks against the ANDSF to levels above seasonal norms and the
frequency of attacks continued to climb. 86
The U.S.-Taliban Agreement Created the Perception of a Weak Afghan Government Abandoned by Its Main
Ally
The exclusion of the Afghan government from direct talks between the United States and Taliban undercut the
government’s credibility. As we reported in our May 2021 interim evaluation report on the causes of the
ANDSF’s collapse, the Afghan government bore the greatest costs of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, which served
to legitimate the Taliban. 87 Lt. Gen. David Barno, former senior American commander of U.S. and coalition
forces in Afghanistan, told SIGAR that some observers characterized the U.S.-Taliban deal as a “surrender
agreement.” In his view, the agreement had only one objective: facilitating a U.S. withdrawal. 88 “The public
started to see the Taliban as a kind of ‘government-in-waiting’ and the Republic as abandoned by its main ally,”
said Mohib, who added that this perception made it seem that the “U.S. was ushering in a Taliban regime,” and
took away “a fighting chance for the Republic’s survival.” 89 At the same time, according to Mohib, Taliban
propaganda campaigns sought to portray the Taliban as a new and improved version of its former self, and the
81 SIGAR, Reintegration of Ex-Combatants, SIGAR-19-58-LL, p. 133.

83 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2020-QR-2, pp. 67, 97.
84 Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio, “Analysis: Taliban leader declares victory after U.S. agrees to withdrawal deal,” Long
War Journal, March 3, 2020.

85 Lisa Curtis, SIGAR Interview, February 17, 2022.
88 Lt. Gen. David Barno, former commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, April 21, 2022.

Afghan government as “irreparably corrupt and weak.” 90 Afghan leaders observed the United States making a
deal with the Taliban, he stated, and rushed to secure their own arrangements. 91
The sense that the United States had sold out the Afghan government caused some Afghan leaders to also
abandon their support for the ANDSF. Some even acted as mediators between Taliban and ANDSF
commanders seeking an agreement to avoid more fighting. 92 Former Afghan corps commander General Sami
Sadat told us that the agreement’s psychological impact was so great that the average Afghan soldier switched
to survival mode and became susceptible to accepting other offers and deals. 93 As Curtis told SIGAR, “The
Doha agreement … did not demand enough of the Taliban, undermined the confidence of the Afghan
government,” and “undermined the morale of the Afghan security forces.” 94
Despite its Weakened Position, the Afghan Government Insisted that the Taliban be
Integrated into the Republic, Making Progress on Peace Negotiations Difficult
When intra-Afghan talks started in September 2020, security conditions were poor. Average daily enemy-
initiated attacks were 50 percent higher from July through September 2020, compared to April through June
2020. 95 This prompted the then-NATO Resolute Support and United States Forces–Afghanistan (USFOR-A)
commander General Austin Scott Miller to comment that the Taliban’s increased violence “is not consistent
with the U.S.-Taliban agreement and undermines the ongoing Afghan peace talks.” 96 At the same time, political
instability increased after the highly contested September 2019 Afghan presidential election, which was
marred by allegations of fraud. 97
Exclusion from U.S.-Taliban talks and the subsequent signing of the February 2020 agreement was a blow to
the credibility of the Afghan government. Despite these developments, the Afghan government insisted during
intra-Afghan negotiations that the Taliban be integrated into the Republic. 98 As Fatima Gailani, a member of the
Republic’s negotiating team told SIGAR, after 6 months of negotiations, it was clear to her that not everyone, but
most people close to President Ghani, were delusional because they were unwilling to compromise. 99
As part of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, the United States agreed to withdraw its forces in exchange for the
Taliban’s pledge not to host terrorist groups and to engage in good faith negotiations with the Afghan
government. 100 Also as part of the agreement, the United States agreed to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners,
another Taliban condition before they would participate in the intra-Afghan negotiations. 101 Under intense
pressure from the United States, including a threat to withhold aid, President Ghani ultimately agreed. 102 Shortly
after, on September 12, 2020, the Afghan government’s negotiating team travelled to Doha, Qatar, to begin
direct talks with the Taliban. 103 However, progress was slow due to a lack of interest in negotiations on both

94 Curtis, SIGAR Interview, February 17, 2022.
97 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR-21-16-LL, pp. 15, 91–92.
98 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR 2020-QR-4, p. 109.
99 Fatima Gailani, member of the Afghan government’s negotiating team, SIGAR interview, March 18, 2022.
101 “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan Which Is Not Recognized by
the United States as a State and Is Known as the Taliban and the United States of America,” February 29, 2020; Coll and
Entous, “The Secret History of the U.S. Diplomatic Failure in Afghanistan.”
102 SIGAR, Collapse of Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, SIGAR 22-22-IP, p. 6.

sides, according to Steve Brooking. The Taliban did not have an incentive to negotiate now that they had a date
for the U.S. withdrawal. Meanwhile, President Ghani waited for U.S. presidential election results, likely hoping for
a U.S. policy change under the new administration, including Khalilzad’s departure, Brooking writes. 104
The two teams finally drafted, and verbally agreed on, a proposed agenda for the intra-Afghan talks in
December, after 3 months of discussion on the rules and procedures for the talks themselves. According to the
Afghanistan Analysts Network, given the increased violence in the months leading to the talks, the number one
item proposed for discussion by the Afghan government’s negotiating team was a comprehensive ceasefire
and mechanisms for monitoring it. For the Taliban, a ceasefire was at the bottom of the priority list. Instead,
they focused on issues associated with Afghanistan’s future political order, including a discussion on the
establishment of an “Islamic government,” what type that would be, and who would lead it. 105
While the two negotiating teams continued to meet in Doha in early 2021, no substantive negotiations took
place. To break the stalemate, U.S. officials formulated a plan. 106 On March 7, 2021, Afghan media released
what they claimed were items of correspondence from Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to President Ghani.
The letter called for a high-level conference in Turkey and included an eight-page outline of a peace plan. 107
This ambitious plan, which Ambassador Khalilzad had helped draft, proposed a new constitution, the
framework for a transitional government that would essentially end President Ghani’s term, an expanded
parliament, a ceasefire, and the establishment of a new body, the High Council for Islamic Jurisprudence.
Khalilzad believed that President Ghani had to give up power for a transitional government that included the
Taliban, according to Coll and Entous. 108 Brooking writes that efforts by Khalilzad to replace President Ghani
with an interim administration soured the relationship between the two. 109
President Ghani rejected this U.S. peace plan and later announced a plan of his own—a three-part peace
process in which he proposed an early presidential election, on the condition that the Taliban agree to a
ceasefire. Other components of Ghani’s peace plan included a political agreement between the Afghan
government and the Taliban to be endorsed by a Loya Jirga, and principles for forming a “government of
peacebuilding.” 110
President Ghani’s insistence on another presidential election was based on his conviction that it was the only
way to preserve the Republic, Masoom Stanekzai, head of the Afghan government’s negotiating team, told
SIGAR. 111 “Only the Afghan people will determine their future leader,” President Ghani told a conference in
April. “No one can designate the future leader of Afghanistan from outside. This is our right and the principle of
our constitution and the desire of our nation.” 112
104 Brooking, Why Was a Negotiated Peace Always Out of Reach in Afghanistan, p. 21.
105 Ali Yawar Adili, “Intra-Afghan Talks (1): Rules of procedure agreed, but still no agenda as talks resume,” Afghanistan
Analysts Network, January 3, 2021; SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2021-QR-1, January 30,
2021, p. 83.
106 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-2, p. 90; Coll and Entous, “The Secret History of the U.S. Diplomatic Failure in
Afghanistan.”
107 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-2, p. 93; Coll and Entous, “The Secret History of the U.S. Diplomatic Failure in
Afghanistan.”
110 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-2, p. 93; Hamid Shalizi, “Exclusive: Afghan president, rejecting U.S. peace
plan, to offer election in six months, officials say,” Reuters, March 23, 2021. According to a 2019 USIP report, loya jirgas
are “rooted in traditional Afghan practices,” but “are essentially modern political institutions that are convened to address
problems of great national importance.” The gatherings include representatives from across Afghanistan, including
religious and spiritual leaders, judges, intellectuals, and national elites. Scott Smith, Loya Jirgas and Political Crisis
Management in Afghanistan: Drawing on the Bank of Tradition, USIP, pp. 1, 8.
111 Masoom Stanekzai, head of the Afghan government negotiating team, SIGAR interview, April 27, 2022.

Even as high levels of Taliban violence demonstrated the insurgency’s strength, the Afghan government
continued to imagine a political order in which the Taliban were to be integrated under the umbrella of the
Republic. 113 For example, in May 2021, as the U.S. intelligence community assessed that Afghan government
forces “remain tied down in defensive missions and have struggled to hold recaptured territory,” President
Ghani said that a “political settlement and the integration of the Taliban into society and government was the
only way forward.” 114 Hekmat Karzai, the former deputy foreign minister, told SIGAR that “on both sides, there
was this enormous amount of push to absorb each other.” 115 Former Afghan National Army Corps commander
Lt. Gen. Sami Sadat told us that from what he had heard, “the negotiations were meant not to replace the
Afghan government, but actually include the Taliban within the current government.” He added, “We were
mentally preparing to accept some Taliban in [our] rank and file …. There were some good fighters amongst the
Taliban, [and] I definitely wish[ed] to … train them and use them in the Afghan army.” 116 Hamdullah Mohib
stated that until the week leading up to the collapse, the government considered itself to be the dominant
party. 117
Mohib told SIGAR that the Afghan government’s “insistence on elections as the mode of determining
leadership never changed, but later, as the U.S.-led process advanced and the prospects for peace got worse,
the government was prepared to accept an interim agreement, endorsed by a Loya Jirga.” According to Mohib,
the Afghan government had already made significant concessions by releasing prisoners, and felt frustrated as
Khalilzad asked for more concessions. “Khalilzad only pressed Ghani relentlessly,” Mohib said. “We never felt
that he had applied the same pressure to the Taliban.” 118 Khalilzad, meanwhile, has said he considered his
biggest mistake to be not putting more pressure on President Ghani to give up power to allow for the formation
of a transition government. 119 To some extent, this latter point of view was echoed by a senior member of the
Afghan negotiating team, Fatima Gailani, who was of the opinion that Khalilzad had the power and influence to
put pressure on Ghani to reach a political settlement but failed to use it. 120
President Ghani refused to relinquish power even at the last hour. Habiba Sarabi, another member of the
Afghan negotiating team, told SIGAR that “President Ghani never, never, ever thought that he [would] lose his
power.” 121 According to Afghanistan expert Thomas Barfield, “Once the Americans recognized him [Ghani—after
the highly contested 2019 presidential election], he became more entrenched in terms of refusing to
negotiate, refusing to do anything.” Barfield added, “His belief was that if it really got bad, the Americans would
step in and fix it.” 122
President Ghani’s inflexibility frustrated the Afghan government’s negotiating team. Gailani told SIGAR that
President Ghani was waiting for another U.S. government to come and undo President Trump’s withdrawal
policy. Referring to months of stalled talks with the Taliban, she stated, “Three months we wasted because
they [Ghani and his inner circle] were 100 percent sure that Mr. Biden will come and will say what Mr. Trump
did was a disaster. ‘Goodbye, no talks, no agreement—the Doha Agreement—let’s start from the beginning.’
And the big Republic family will start all over again.” 123

114 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR 2021-QR-3, p. 84; Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Annual Threat
Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, April 9, 2021, p. 25.
115 Karzai, SIGAR interview, January 10, 2022.
116 Sami Sadat, former Afghan Army Corps commander, SIGAR interview, November 26, 2021.
117 Mohib, correspondence with SIGAR, September 20, 2022.
120 Gailani, SIGAR interview, March 18, 2022.
121 Habiba Sarabi, member of the Afghan government’s negotiating team, SIGAR interview, January 6, 2022.
123 Gailani, SIGAR interview, January 15, 2022.

Observers also found President Ghani and his team to be out of touch with reality and uninformed about the
security situation around the country. “It was almost like they were running Kabulistan,” Charlotte Bellis, a
former Al-Jazeera correspondent, told SIGAR. According to some of the Afghan government negotiators that
spoke to Bellis, President Ghani “hid in the clouds, clutching to power, poorly informed.” Even when they
received bad news reports, Bellis stated, “I don’t think they paid much attention to them, because they were so
determined to live in this kind of world where everything was fine.” 124 Mohib blamed President Ghani’s trusted
advisors and security officials for “giving rosy assessments to the President,” which were “hard to reject
because [they] came with such confidence.” 125
On July 29, 2021, at the insistence of the Biden administration, President Ghani announced a new action plan
that was supposed to improve security within 6 months. 126 By this time, the Taliban were in control of about
half the districts in Afghanistan, at least six international border crossings with revenue-generating customs
posts, and long stretches of highways throughout the country. Despite some U.S. air strikes launched in
support of the Afghan security forces, the ANDSF continued to lose ground. 127 Afghan government officials,
however, continued to sell a narrative that they could contain the Taliban. Bellis said that government
propaganda was widespread. “I was surprised how much fake information came out from official government
sources,” she told SIGAR. 128 According to Hekmat Karzai, the Afghan team approached the negotiations as if
there were a battlefield stalemate and did not change their strategy even as Afghan security force casualties
mounted. “There were days when we lost 150 security forces a day,” he told SIGAR. 129
In early August 2021, Secretary Blinken urged President Ghani to send representatives to Doha to discuss an
orderly transfer of power with the Taliban. The 13-member team included Abdullah, the chair of the High
Council for National Reconciliation, and former President Hamid Karzai. 130 Gailani told SIGAR that Mohib was
also on the list, at President Ghani’s insistence. The Taliban did not agree to Mohib’s presence and the dispute
delayed the delegation’s departure for Doha. 131
As the Taliban entered the outskirts of Kabul on August 14, 2021, President Ghani dropped his demand for an
election, yet still insisted on a Loya Jirga to endorse the transfer of power. 132 In the meantime, Gailani and
other negotiating team members in Doha were making headway with the Taliban, who had reportedly agreed to
a small-scale Loya Jirga. By this time, President Ghani had lost whatever trust he had in Khalilzad or the
Taliban. According to some Afghan negotiators, if President Ghani had stayed and had agreed to step down,
some elements of the Republic would have endured. There was a possibility that with the U.S. mediation, some
form of a transition government in which both the Afghan government and the Taliban participated could have
been formed and some elements of the constitution would have been preserved. 133 Khalilzad informed
President Ghani about a U.S. plan to arrange a 2-week ceasefire and an orderly transfer of power in Kabul, to
be endorsed by a small Loya Jirga gathering. However, Ghani fled the country on August 15. 134
124 Bellis, SIGAR interview, December 23, 2021.

125 Mohib, correspondence with SIGAR, September 20, 2022.
126 Martine van Bijlert, “Is This How It Ends? With the Taleban closing in on Kabul, President Ghani faces tough decision,”
Afghanistan Analysts Network, August 15, 2021, p. 3.

127 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR 2021-QR-4 p. 68.
131 Gailani, SIGAR interview, March 18, 2022.
133 Sarabi, SIGAR interview, April 14, 2021; Gailani, SIGAR interview, March 18, 2022; Mohammad Nateqi, member of
Afghan government negotiating team, SIGAR interview, April 26, 2022.

134 Coll and Entous, “The Secret History of the U.S. Diplomatic Failure in Afghanistan”; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR
2021-QR-4, p. 3.

The Taliban Were Unwilling to Compromise
Notwithstanding this notional, last-minute agreement, given the withdrawal of international military forces, and
the success of their military campaign, the Taliban were generally unwilling to negotiate or compromise. The
Taliban viewed the Afghan government as illegitimate and in their eyes, joining it constituted a disavowal of the
very reason they fought. As discussed in detail in our 2019 report on reintegration of ex-combatants, the
Taliban viewed their insurgency as a “lawful jihadic struggle,” and had repeatedly justified their fight against
the U.S. forces and the Afghan government as a “legal, religious, and national obligation.” 135
The U.S.-Taliban agreement and the subsequent April withdrawal announcement gave the Taliban its core
demand: the complete withdrawal of U.S. and coalition troops, as well as contractors. 136 According to a report
from the International Crisis Group, following the signing of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, Taliban statements
suggested that the agreement “was, in effect, a framework for bringing the movement back to power.” 137 Given
the impending withdrawal, the insurgency had little incentive not to go about defeating the Afghan government
on the battlefield. As we reported in our May 2022 report on the collapse of the ANDSF, lowering U.S. troop
levels was intended to stimulate Afghan peace negotiations, but it also created a major gap in military
capabilities against the Taliban. 138 An uptick in Taliban attacks coincided with the onset of intra-Afghan
negotiations, undermining the nascent peace talks and prompting U.S. officials to claim that the Taliban were
not upholding their commitment to reduce violence. 139 By April 2021, a U.S. intelligence community
assessment concluded that “the Taliban is confident it can achieve military victory.” 140 Over the next 2 months,
the Taliban’s offensive accelerated as the insurgency rapidly gained control of half of Afghanistan’s 419
districts. 141 On August 15, 2021, Kabul fell. 142
USAID-funded monitoring of the Taliban’s public communications found the Taliban’s tone to be resoundingly
triumphant in April and May following the announced withdrawal of U.S. military forces. 143 They consistently
rejected a comprehensive ceasefire, which, they said, could only happen after discussion and agreements over
a political settlement. They also refused to participate in a high-level conference in Turkey, stating that they “will
not participate in any conference that shall make decisions about Afghanistan” until “all foreign forces
completely withdraw” from Afghanistan. 144
Despite public statements that they did not want a monopoly on power and were in favor of forming an
inclusive government, the Taliban focused on achieving a military victory. On July 23, 2021, Taliban
spokesperson Suhail Shaheen told the Associated Press, “I want to make it clear that we do not believe in the
monopoly of power because any governments who (sought) to monopolize power in Afghanistan in the past,
were not successful governments.” This statement was made when the Taliban had captured more than half of
Afghanistan’s districts and major border crossings. 145 “I think the military victory was plan A for [the Taliban].
135 SIGAR, Reintegration of Ex-Combatants, SIGAR-19-58-LL, p. 86.

136 SIGAR, Collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, SIGAR 22-22-IP, p. 6; Brooking, Why Was a
Negotiated Peace Always Out of Reach in Afghanistan, p. 25.
137 International Crisis Group, What Future for Afghanistan Peace Talks under a Biden Administration?, January 13, 2021,
p. 7.
141 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR 2021-QR-3, p. ii.
145 Kathy Gannon, “To reach a peace deal, Taliban say Afghan president must go,” Associated Press News, July 23, 2021;
SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-4, p. 68.

The negotiations were plan B,” Kate Clark, co-director of the Afghanistan Analyst Network, told SIGAR. 146 The
U.S. approach to peace talks with the Taliban was based on a “fantasy” that the Taliban wanted peace;
attempts to create the conditions for this illusory goal undermined the Afghan government by cutting it out, she
added. The Taliban continued to view the Afghan government as illegitimate and un-Islamic, and that a
governance system based on Islam was “the only system for making everything perfect,” Sarabi told us. 147
According to Laurel Miller, the Taliban “were very successful at maintaining their cohesion, and they were very
consistent [with] just one main goal: to get the foreigners out.” 148 This goal of fighting the occupation put the
Taliban at an “advantage in morale,” according to Carter Malkasian, former special assistant for strategy to the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, because it was something “deeply tied to the Afghan identify.” The
Taliban’s claim of stronger ties to Islam made it easier for them to justify their cause and to “inspire its forces
to go the extra mile.” 149 By contrast, Bellis said, “The Afghan government side came across as lost and
frustrated, and bound by President Ghani, and then turning to U.S. negotiators for help.” 150
In his United States Institute of Peace report, Steve Brooking succinctly describes the Taliban’s unchanging
perspective on reconciliation since an earlier round of direct negotiations in the 2010–2013 period:
It is remarkable that over the next decade [2012–21], the Taliban never significantly deviated from
these lines: their message in talks was that the problem lay with the United States. The standard
Taliban propaganda lines were that the United States had invaded and overthrown the legitimate
Islamic Emirate government; the 2004 constitution was created under the shadow of B-52 bombers
and so was unacceptable; and therefore the Taliban needed to resolve their problems only with the
United States, not with what they viewed as the puppet government in Kabul. 151
Brooking’s analysis mirrors what Mohammad Nateqi, one of the Afghan government’s negotiators, told SIGAR.
Nateqi recounted a conversation he had with Abbas Stanekzai, a senior member of the Taliban’s negotiating
team. “We don’t accept that puppet government in Afghanistan,” the Taliban negotiator told him. “You don’t
understand. We are the superpower of Afghanistan. We are the superpower in the world.’” 152
President Ghani Governed through a Highly Selective, Narrow Circle of Loyalists,

Destabilizing the Government at a Critical Juncture
Ghani was isolated from voices and opinions beyond his handpicked inner circle of confidants. Eventually, this
circumstance contributed to the unraveling of Afghanistan’s loosely knit government. The president’s political
and social isolation appears to have been a function of both his personality and his desire to centralize and
micromanage policy implementation. Consequently, Ghani made decisions without a diversity of contrasting
perspectives or contextual information, which undermined the effectiveness of the government institutions
that he led. At the same time, the gulf between the president’s inner circle and reality outside the palace walls
meant that Afghanistan’s most senior powerbrokers were unable to effectively respond to security
developments.
Even at the outset of his first term in 2014, Ghani—a former World Bank official and a favorite of many in the
international community—adopted an assertive and undiplomatic approach to dealing with perceived rivals.
146 Kate Clark, Co-Director, Afghan Analyst Network, SIGAR interview, January 7, 2022.
147 Sarabi, SIGAR interview, January 6, 2022.
149 Carter Malkasian, former Special Assistant for Strategy to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, SIGAR interview, December
14, 2021.
152 Nateqi, SIGAR interview, April 26, 2022. According to Nateqi, Abbas Stanekzai pretended what he said was a joke.
However, Nateqi interpreted it as serious because Stanekzai had made similar remarks in a public speech.

Fawzia Koofi, former Afghan lawmaker and member of the Republic’s negotiating team, told us that she
believes the seeds of the government’s collapse were laid in 2014. 153 At that time, she added, Ghani pursued
a policy of centralizing power and promoting his political allies, despite the fact that his term had begun with a
contested election and a power-sharing agreement with his opponent, Abdullah. 154 Likewise, former
Ambassador Michael McKinley, who was deputy ambassador in Afghanistan during the 2014 election, told
SIGAR he believed that Ghani “profoundly rejected” the idea that Abdullah should be seen “as anything
approaching a coequal.” 155 McKinley added that Ghani often attempted to exclude Abdullah from meetings
with senior visiting dignitaries, American cabinet secretaries, and American officials during a visit to
Washington in March 2015. 156 Former acting SRAP Laurel Miller told us there are many accounts of how
Ghani’s style of governing meant that he “had more enemies than friends.” 157 In Miller’s view, the 2014
election was an inflection point in the deterioration of Afghanistan’s political stability, which was helped along
by Ghani’s recalcitrance toward implementing the power-sharing agreement with Abdullah. 158
Even as Ghani sought to sideline his political rivals within his National Unity Government, he also attempted to
marginalize local and regional leaders, including northern power brokers, according to Barfield and
Murtazashvili. 159 While this may have been part of an overall centralization strategy, Ghani’s sometimes
abrasive personality also tended to alienate even those whose cooperation he needed. One former Afghan
official told SIGAR that Ghani seemed unable to form effective political alliances. 160 Khalid Payenda, former
Acting Minister of Finance, recalled being personally and publicly berated by Ghani, which precipitated
Payenda’s resignation. 161 According to reporting from the New York Times in July 2021, several former aides of
the president “noted that cabinet members were afraid to contradict him because of his tendency to yell at
them.” 162 Ghani’s reputation was well known. Former SRAP James Dobbins told us that Ghani was a
“notoriously scratchy person” who was fired as minister of finance under President Karzai because he
“couldn’t get along with anybody,” and “annoyed all of his colleagues.” 163
As Ghani cultivated political enemies within and without the Afghan government, he also attempted to route an
increasing number of decisions through a shrinking group of confidants. Although the small size of his inner
circle may reflect the alienation of potential allies, it also seems clear that the president made a conscious
choice to consolidate decision-making within his administration. For example, one of Ghani’s first initiatives
after his election in 2014 was to centralize Afghanistan’s procurement system around his newly established
National Procurement Authority, through which the president personally reviewed Afghan government
construction and procurement contracts. 164 A September 2016 Washington Post article noted, “One persistent
complaint is that Ghani has hamstrung government agencies and ministers by taking centralized oversight to
153 Koofi, SIGAR interview, December 27, 2021.

155 Michael McKinley, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022.
156 McKinley, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022; McKinley, email correspondence with SIGAR, September 21, 2022.
157 Miller, SIGAR interview, April 26, 2022.
159 Barfield, SIGAR interview, February 9, 2022; Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili, governance expert and professor at the
University of Pittsburgh, SIGAR interview, December 9, 2021.

160 Abdullah Azada Khenjani, former Deputy Minister of Coordination, Strategy and Policy in Afghanistan's State Ministry for
Peace, SIGAR interview, January 10, 2022.

161 Khalid Payenda, former acting Minister of Finance, SIGAR interview, March 22, 2022.
162 Adam Nossiter, “As Afghanistan Forces Crumble, an Air of Unreality Grips the Capital,” New York Times, July 2, 2021.
163 Dobbins, SIGAR interview, April 20, 2022.
164 International Crisis Group, Afghanistan: The Future of the National Unity Government, Asia Report No. 285, April 10,
2017, pp. 2, 4; SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2017-QR-1, January 30, 2017, p. ii.

absurd extremes.” 165 In Murtazashvili’s view, President Ghani “centralized control in order to speedily realize his
vision of reform. But by doing so, the president alienated almost everyone around him, including the people.” 166
Under Ghani, only a handful of advisors wielded any real power, according to former officials. For example,
Hekmat Karzai told SIGAR that “the entire government of Afghanistan was run by six people.” 167 Bashir Fatehi,
the former head of Afghanistan’s Anti-Corruption Commission, stated that ministers could not make their own
decisions. Instead, every decision had to be routed through two of Ghani’s closest advisors. 168 Scott
Guggenheim, former senior advisor to President Ghani, told SIGAR, “Ashraf [Ghani] wanted to be his own chief
of staff; he wanted to be his own finance minister, his own defense minister.” 169
The coterie of officials who Ghani did allow into his inner circle were loyalists unwilling to deliver unvarnished
opinions at odds with what the Afghan president wanted to hear, Karzai and Payenda said. The former told
SIGAR that Ghani “sidelined actors that would tell him the truth.” 170 Payenda stated that Ghani surrounded
himself with men who were intimidated by him and unwilling to provide the sort of frank assessments that
ultimately would have benefited decision-making. 171 He described Ghani as isolated and alone. 172 Abdullah
Azada Khenjani, former Deputy Minister of Coordination, Strategy and Policy in Afghanistan's State Ministry for
Peace, told SIGAR that Ghani was not open to criticism or advice, “he was thinking everyone is conspiring
against him.” 173
The net effect was a leader who was largely ignorant of the reality confronting the country he led. Journalist
Charlotte Bellis, who was present in Kabul at the time of the collapse in August 2021 and who had contact
with a range of Afghan officials, described a culture of obliviousness within the Ghani administration. 174 Some
officials were hosting parties in the weeks prior to the collapse, unaware of what was unfolding around them,
Bellis told SIGAR. 175 Meanwhile, Ghani seemed to be conducting business as usual. Hekmat Karzai told SIGAR,
“For God’s sake, we had provinces falling, and [Ghani] would still bloody hold National Procurement Council
meetings for 4 hours. He would hold urban planning meetings while we had districts falling. I mean, the guy
had completely wrong priorities on so many different levels.” 176 Another interviewee observed that as late as
July, the presidential palace was still holding meetings on a law concerning nongovernmental organizations,
despite an increasingly dire security environment. 177 As Vicki Aken, the International Rescue Committee’s
Afghanistan Country Director, told us, it was “like Nero fiddling while Rome is burning.” 178
Ghani’s obliviousness to the troubling realities confronting his country was a problem even in the early days of
his administration. Ambassador McKinley told SIGAR that the Afghan president consistently suggested
165 Pamela Constable, “Afghanistan has many problems. Its president may be one of them,” Washington Post, September
2, 2016.
166 Jennifer Brick Murtazashvili, “The Collapse of Afghanistan,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 33, no. 1 (2022), p. 49.
167 Karzai, SIGAR interview, January 10, 2022; Payenda, SIGAR interview, April 19, 2022; Barfield, SIGAR interview,
February 9, 2022.
168 Bashir Fatehi, former head of the Afghanistan Anti-Corruption Commission, SIGAR interview, August 5, 2022.
169 Scott Guggenheim, former senior advisor to President Ghani, SIGAR interview, April 20, 2022. Guggenheim added that
Ghani inherited “a bad hand” coming to power in the midst of economic, security, and governance crises—an environment
which “played into his natural paranoia and micromanagement and just made it worse.” In addition to the “dog’s
breakfast” that Ghani inherited, U.S. missteps also “worsened some of the Ghani administration’s personal and structural
flaws,” Guggenheim told SIGAR.
171 Payenda, SIGAR interview, March 22, 2022.
172 Payenda, SIGAR interview, March 22, 2022.
173 Khenjani, SIGAR interview, January 10, 2022.
177 Vicki Aken, Afghanistan Country Director, International Rescue Committee, SIGAR interview, December 16, 2021.
178 Aken, SIGAR interview, December 16, 2021.

development goals that were “completely off the charts,” and that his apparent “separation from Afghan
reality” was concerning. 179 Ghani was “living in fantasyland,” McKinley said. 180 For example, according to Ajmal
Shams, a former deputy minister in the National Unity Government, when Ghani took power he “claimed his
government would generate more electric power during the coming few years than the combined production
throughout the nation’s history. But 7 years down the road, the government [was] unable to properly manage
even the imported electricity,” due to poor security, technical issues, and late payments to suppliers. 181
Ghani’s drive to centralize decision-making coupled with his disconnection from reality had serious
consequences in the management of his security forces. According to Fawzia Koofi, senior members of his
administration appointed Afghan National Police commanders down to the district level, across 365 districts,
even though they were reportedly unfamiliar with some of the areas in question. 182 Likewise, Ghani inserted
himself into command decisions, personally appointing every commander with the rank of brigadier general
and above a former Afghan Army Corps commander, Sami Sadat, told us. 183 In the process, Barfield remarked,
Ghani often sidelined competent generals who he feared might stage a coup. 184 According to former U.S.
Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann, the turnover in Afghan military leadership was particularly acute
during the final year of the administration. Neumann told us that when he was in Kabul in 2021, about 6
weeks before that city’s fall to the Taliban, “Everybody was talking about how all these command changes have
taken place directed by Ghani, influenced by Mohib, and the result was that none of these commanders had
time to even [prove] if they were good. Most of them had not had time to get ahold of their unit.” 185
The extent to which Ghani’s isolation, obliviousness, and tendency toward micromanagement actually caused
the collapse of his government is difficult to discern in a complex political environment. The president’s
isolation, either through deliberate centralization or by virtue of an abrasive personality, appears to have
destabilized the Afghan government in two ways: (1) by undermining support for the administration among
slighted powerbrokers and constituencies; and (2) by limiting the president’s awareness of critical information,
thereby hampering effective decision-making. The consensus among a range of American and Afghan officials
and subject matter experts with direct knowledge of people and events is that Ghani’s personality and
leadership style were significant contributing factors to the government’s August 2021 collapse.
The Afghan Government’s High Level of Centralization, Endemic Corruption, and

Struggle to Attain Legitimacy Were Long-Term Contributors to its Eventual Collapse
From the outset of the U.S. reconstruction effort until its ultimate collapse in August 2021, the Republic
struggled to attain legitimacy. 186 The Afghan government’s high degree of centralization, combined with its
fragile and corrupt nature, compounded its legitimacy problem and ultimately contributed to its demise.
179 McKinley, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022.

181 Ajmal Shams, “Ghani’s Unrealistic Targets Not Helping Afghanistan’s Cause,” Arab News, May 4, 2021.
183 Sadat, SIGAR interview, November 26, 2021.
185 Neumann, SIGAR interview, February 1, 2022.
186 According to U.S. Army Field Manual 3-07 for Stability Operations, legitimacy is central to building trust and confidence
among the people and derives from both the supremacy of the law and the foundation upon which the law was developed:
the collective will of the people. A legitimate, effective state—one of the goals of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan—upholds
basic human rights, is responsive to its citizens, exercises effective sovereignty, and limits the reach of government by
protecting the institutions of civil society. Department of the Army, Stability Operations, Field Manual No. 3-07, October 6,
2008, pp. 1–7.

The Highly Centralized Structures Instituted at the Bonn Conference, Combined with the Republic’s
Fragility, Sowed the Seeds of Failure
The Bonn Conference, convened in late 2001, established a process for the construction of a new political
order in Afghanistan. That order involved the adoption of a new constitution and democratic elections. Forged
between various factions of the Afghan polity, the agreement that emerged from Bonn relied on the 1964
constitution as an interim legal framework, but modified provisions relating to the country’s former monarchy
by fusing the powers of the monarch and the premier into a powerful president. 187 The 2004 constitution,
ratified by a Loya Jirga, similarly endowed power in a strong executive. Proponents of a centralized system
argued that this approach mitigated the risk of fracture along ethnic and regional lines. 188 They were also
looking for a way to empower an executive with unity of command that could “without a lot of checks on that
authority, just do things quickly,” governance expert and professor at the University of Pittsburgh, Dr. Jennifer
Brick Murtazashvili, told SIGAR. She added, “The idea that you’re building state capacity, without building
constraints on state authority, was the biggest mistake.” 189 Ultimately, the re-centralization of power in the
executive interacted corrosively with the Afghan state’s fragility, perceived illegitimacy, and corruption.
According to some historians and a number of experts on Afghanistan social systems we interviewed,
centralization, while rooted in historical precedent, was no longer a viable option. The result of the 2004
constitution, notes Barfield, was a government “barely distinguishable from the centralized monarchies and
dictatorships that had characterized earlier regimes.” Afghanistan in 2004, however, was no longer the same
country it had been when dynastic autocrats ruled. Preceding conflicts—specifically, the 1978 coup and the
Afghan-Soviet war of the 1980s—politically and militarily empowered a multitude of ethnic and regional groups
who could challenge the central authority. By contrast, past challenges to Afghan regimes had been confined to
either the dynastic elite or outside invaders. The result, writes Barfield, was that the body politic was now
“afflicted with an autoimmune disorder in which the antibodies of resistance threatened to destroy any state
structure, regardless of who controlled it or its ideology.” 190
The goal of the Bonn Conference had been to foster representative democracy. But the design of the new
political order established in Bonn worked against that objective. By investing so much power in the executive,
some observers noted, the newly created system instead raised the stakes for political competition by limiting
the channels through which diverse constituencies could be represented in government. 191 As Colin Jackson,
former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, wrote in 2017, “Whereas
Western powers and Afghan modernizers assumed that political participation would release pressure and
stabilize the system, such mobilization proved to be a catalyst for a broader and more violent competition for
power.” 192 The result was the re-emergence of historical tensions between the center and the periphery.
Several analysts have noted that much of the century preceding the U.S. intervention was characterized by
conflict between autocratic urban elites eager to modernize and centralize, and conservative, rural egalitarian
populations that were distrustful of the government. 193 By backing the urban elites in this contest, the United
States “became the underwriter of a renewed war between the center and the periphery,” writes Jackson. 194
187 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2008-QR-4, pp. 13, 65; Murtazashvili, “The Collapse of Afghanistan,” p. 43.
188 Barfield, Afghanistan, p. 8.
189 Murtazashvili, SIGAR interview, December 9, 2021.
190 Barfield, Afghanistan, pp. 4, 6–7, 293.
191 Alex Thier, “The Nature of the Afghan State: Centralization vs. Decentralization,” Afghan Peace Process Issues Paper,
USIP, November 2020, p. 2; Mohammad Qadam Shah, “Centralization Is at the Core of Afghanistan's Problems,” The
Diplomat, August 24, 2021.
192 Colin Jackson, “U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: A Tragedy in Five Acts,” in Our Latest Longest War: Losing Hearts and
Minds in Afghanistan, ed. Aaron B. O’Connell (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2017), p. 107.
193 Jackson, “U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan,” pp. 72, 107; Barfield, Afghanistan, p. 339; Thier, “The Nature of the Afghan
State: Centralization vs. Decentralization,” p. 1.

194 Jackson, “U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan,” p. 72.

“[C]ontempt for the people in the countryside” was a long-running and dangerous phenomenon, Barfield told
SIGAR. 195 Outsiders and the Afghan elites thought of people in rural Afghanistan as “[needing] to be brought
out from the Stone Ages,” Murtazashvili told us. But what they failed to realize is that the governance systems
already in place “[weren’t] so backwards or so Stone Age.” 196 Extending the reach of the central government, a
key tenet of the U.S. stabilization strategy, proved difficult in part because “[t]rading autonomy and established
social structures for the possibility of services, education, social upheaval, and government control never
appealed to more than a fraction of rural elites,” according to Jackson. 197
Extending the Afghan government’s control into rural tribal areas required it to achieve a monopoly over the
use of force in order to “provide enough basic security to allow the people to stand with the government and
against the Taliban,” in the words of Aaron MacLean, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies who served as an infantry officer in Afghanistan. 198 But the Republic could not exercise that
degree of control on its own. Following the conclusion of the 13-year NATO combat mission in Afghanistan in
December 2014—U.S. and international troops having drawn down from a peak of 130,000 to just 12,000—
the percentage of districts controlled or influenced by the Afghan government declined from 72% in November
2015 to 57% one year later. 199 As MacLean wrote in 2017, the Republic maintained “control of Kabul and a
few other productive centers but lack[ed] authority throughout the country.” 200 Afghan security forces were
generally successful in defending heavily populated urban areas, but only with significant assistance from the
United States, which again began taking a more active combat role in 2017 by substantially increasing
airstrikes. 201 As the DOD Inspector General reported in 2018, even areas that were nominally under Afghan
government control were not necessarily “secure and free from violence.” For example, as the DOD IG stated,
Kabul was controlled by the government, yet “frequent violence result[ed] in hundreds of deaths in the capital
each year.” 202 These circumstances raised questions about whether the government could exert sufficient
control to secure the country.
Autocracy previously worked in Afghanistan, according to Barfield, because “traditional systems of elite
dynastic rule” were historically able to provide “security of life and property in exchange for obedience.” 203 The
father of centralization in Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman, consolidated power by destroying his political rivals,
earning him the title of “Iron Emir.” 204 By contrast, the Afghan state after 2001 was not only unable to provide
security of life and property, but had abdicated the responsibility of providing security—a central pillar of the
social contract—to foreign invaders “by allowing,” as MacLean describes, “an international force of thousands
of its non-Muslim backers to move unimpeded throughout the country.” 205
Indeed, that the United States was not an Islamic country appears to have influenced perceptions of the
Republic and its leaders. For example, as former Combined Security Transition Command–Afghanistan
commander Lt. Gen. Dan Bolger put it, the Taliban were able to leverage the narrative that “Hamid Karzai and

198 Aaron MacLean, “Liberalism Does Its Thing,” in Our Latest Longest War: Losing Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan, ed.
Aaron B. O’Connell (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2017), p. 228.

199 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2015-QR-1, January 30, 2015, pp. 91–92; SIGAR,
Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2017-QR-4, p. 107.

200 MacLean, “Liberalism Does Its Thing,” p. 227.
201 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly: Monitoring and Evaluation of Reconstruction Contracting in
Afghanistan, SIGAR 21-41-LL, July 14, 2021, pp. 152–153; SIGAR, 2021 High-Risk List, SIGAR 21-22-HRL, pp. 2, 10;
SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2017-QR-4, p. 98.
202 DOD Office of Inspector General, “Operation Freedom's Sentinel Report to the United States Congress, January 1,
2018–March 31, 2018,” May 21, 2018, p. 17.

204 Barfield, Afghanistan, pp. 5, 11, 12, 341.
205 MacLean, “Liberalism Does Its Thing,” p. 231.

his clique in Kabul were damaged goods, forever stained by their reliance on the infidels.” 206 In contrast to the
Afghan government, the Taliban derived legitimacy from their religious credentials. Malkasian told SIGAR, “The
Taliban had a stronger ability to claim, whether it’s correct or not, that they had a stronger tie to Islam …. And
that meant it was easier for the Taliban to inspire its forces to go to the extra mile.” 207 They had a simple
rallying message that the government could not claim: they were fighting the foreign occupiers, they were less
corrupt than the government, and their legitimacy came from God. 208 Former acting SRAP Laurel Miller told
SIGAR that this “very clear and simplified narrative” was one reason why the Taliban were successful at
maintaining cohesion. 209
The United States was trying to transform a deeply conservative country in which religion played “a
determinative role in culture and politics,” notes Barfield. 210 As we highlighted in our 2021 lessons-learned
report, Support for Gender Equality, restrictive patriarchal norms informed by religious and cultural beliefs
predated and transcended the Taliban, and were not confined solely to rural parts of the country. 211
Conservative views were evident even in Kabul. Reflecting on the brutal murder of Farkhunda Malikzada, an
Afghan woman who was driven over by a car and set on fire in Kabul after being falsely accused of burning the
Koran, Malkasian writes, “I am hard-pressed to find incidents when the menfolk of Kabul spontaneously beat a
suspected Taliban to death.” 212 Ambassador Michael McKinley told SIGAR,
It wasn’t that everyone, including conservative rural populations, didn’t appreciate services, having
elementary schools, having some clinics. And certainly in the cities a lot more. But that didn’t seem to
change their views to embrace, in its totality, what we thought was being constructed, which was a
representative democracy that allowed for a more modern, liberal Afghanistan to emerge.
“This idea that many had that we had transformed a country,” McKinley explained, “because there was
education for girls, women could work, particularly in cities, that there [were] elements of rule of law surfacing,
that there was a parliament that debated issues, that there was a free press, masked what I felt was the reality
when I was there: That Afghanistan remains profoundly conservative.” 213
Endemic Corruption, Including Persistent Electoral Fraud, and Predatory Behavior by Government Officials,
Fundamentally Undermined the Afghan State
What the United States attempted to construct in Afghanistan was ambitious. Former President Bush
characterized it as “the ultimate nation building mission,” one that involved “helping the Afghan people build a
free society.” 214 The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 declared that U.S. policy should support the
establishment of a new Afghan government that would be democratic, “broad-based, multiethnic, gender-
sensitive, and fully representative.” 215 Initially, the Afghan government’s legitimacy derived from the Loya Jirga
that had approved it; subsequently, its legitimacy was to be based on the electoral process. 216 However, the
Republic generally did not offer Afghans credible elections free of fraud, corruption, or accusations of U.S.
interference. In late 2009, U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that as a
206 Daniel P. Bolger, Why We Lost: A General’s Inside Account of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars (New York: Houghton
Mifflin Harcourt, 2014), p. 88–89.

207 Malkasian, SIGAR interview, December 14, 2021.
208 Ali Jalali, former Afghanistan Minister of Interior, SIGAR interview, April 15, 2022.
210 Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, ep. 415; Barfield, Afghanistan, p. 9.
211 SIGAR, Support for Gender Equality: Lessons from U.S. Experience in Afghanistan, SIGAR-21-18-LL, February 17, 2021,
p. 3.
212 Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, epp. 414–415.
214 George W. Bush, Decision Points (New York: Crown Publishers, 2010), p. 205.
215 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-327, 22 U.S.C. § 7501 (2002).

result of the Afghan government’s failure to prosecute electoral fraud, the Afghan government’s legitimacy “is,
at best, in question right now and, at worst, doesn’t exist.” 217 Habiba Sarabi told SIGAR that the belief that the
United States made decisions about who was in power in Afghanistan became widespread, adding, “Especially
after 2014, [Afghans] didn’t believe in democracy [or] election.” 218 Ali Jalali, former Afghanistan Minister of
Interior, told SIGAR that the failure of the international community to hold the Afghan government accountable
for electoral fraud gave the “wrong impression that legitimacy in Afghanistan is based on support from the
international community.” 219
That support was substantial. Donor grants totaling at least $8.6 billion per year, covering both security and
civilian assistance, financed more than half of the Afghan government’s budget—but nearly 80 percent of
Afghanistan’s $11 billion in total public expenditures when off-budget assistance was counted along with on-
budget aid. 220 The largest financial outlay by far went to training, equipping, and sustaining Afghan security
forces. For fiscal year 2021, DOD estimated Afghanistan’s security funding requirement at approximately
$4.29 billion, for which the United States appropriated $3.05 billion. The Afghan government planned to
contribute just $610 million. 221 Beyond financial assistance, Afghan security forces remained heavily
dependent on the United States for resource management, maintenance, and leadership support until the very
end. 222 Despite promises from the Biden Administration of continued funding and non-military aid following the
withdrawal of U.S. forces, the cessation of direct support via a continued troop presence and in-country
equipment maintenance from the United States and its allies contributed to a feeling among Afghans that they
were being abandoned. 223
As Afghanistan’s current economic crisis demonstrates, the Afghan economy, too, was unsustainably
dependent on international funding. A 2015 study of the Afghan private sector by the Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute concluded, “The significant amount of aid and vast international military spending
post-2001 has re-ingrained a culture of aid-rentierism: the Afghan elite competes internally for political rents
from the international community.” 224 Murtazashvili has argued that the volume of foreign aid, combined with
a central government that was unaccountable to its people and “beholden only to international donors,”
delegitimized the Republic in the eyes of the Afghan people and contributed to its collapse. “Money cannot win
hearts and minds,” she writes. 225
As we reported in our 2016 lessons-learned report Corruption in Conflict, the Taliban derived its legitimacy in
part by opposing those corrupt strongmen with histories of human rights abuses who constituted much of the
post-Bonn Conference political order. In the 1990s, the Taliban partly drew popular support because of their
goal of restoring order, and ending corruption and predation. As the insurgency gained steam in the 2000s, the
Taliban again employed this rallying cry against the Karzai administration, and the strongmen and
commanders associated with it. 226 By including leaders of the major Afghan resistance factions in the process
that emerged out of the Bonn Agreement, its organizers hoped to prevent a return to civil war among the
217 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, p. 91.

219 Jalali, SIGAR interview, April 15, 2022.
220 On-budget assistance encompasses donor funds that are aligned with Afghan government plans, included in Afghan
government budget documents, and included in the budget approved by the parliament and managed by the Afghan
treasury system. Off-budget assistance encompasses donor funds that are excluded from the Afghan national budget and
not managed through Afghan government systems. SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-2, pp. 96, 131.
221 SIGAR, 2021 High-Risk List, SIGAR 21-22-HRL, p. 10.
223 White House, “Remarks by President Biden on the Drawdown of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan,” July 8, 2021; Lt. Gen. Daniel
Bolger, former Combined Security Transition Command–Afghanistan Commander, SIGAR interview, September 8, 2021.
224 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2016-QR-1, January 30, 2016, p. 5.
225 Murtazashvili, “The Collapse of Afghanistan,” pp. 40–54.
226 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan, SIGAR 16-58-LL, September 14, 2016,
p. 18.

victors and create buy-in to the political reconstruction project. 227 But efforts to build Western-style governance
institutions and populate them with the heads of preexisting patronage networks simply empowered malign
actors, some of whom had been deposed by the Taliban in the 1990s to widespread cheers. 228
This challenged the legitimacy of the liberal democratic project. According to corruption expert Sarah Chayes,
U.S. officials were aware of the “abusive, predatory nature” of the local Afghan strongmen, who had grown “like
cancerous tumors, out of control” during the Soviet occupation and ensuing civil war; yet, the United States still
chose to work with them in the years following the 2001 invasion. 229 At a time when Afghans were looking to
the United States for protection against these men, the United States legitimized them with political and
financial support, helping to lay a foundation for continued impunity, weak rule of law, and the growth of
corruption. 230 Ambassador McKinley explained the effect this had on the perception of the international
intervention: “My impressionistic sense was that there was great dissatisfaction among younger Afghans
asking, ‘What was the international community doing, working with this leadership that had, at least part of it,
been responsible for the civil war and the rise of the Taliban in the first place, in the nineties?’” 231 Dr.
Mohammad Qadam Shah, assistant professor of global development at Seattle Pacific University, told SIGAR,
“The actors that the [United States] I think trusted [were] one of the factors that really caused the failure of the
Afghan state.” 232
Similarly, Hamdullah Mohib told SIGAR that putting human rights violators in charge of governance at local and
national levels turned people against the state and gave rise to the Taliban again:
This is where the challenges for the Republic started, as its righteousness was directly drawn into
question by the people when they saw these figures elevated again. The crimes committed by the
strongmen-turned-officials in Helmand, Kandahar, Faryab, Balkh, Jowzjan, Nangarhar, Uruzgan, and
other places gave rise to the Taliban and attracted sympathies from the public. 233
The continued employment of government officials who reportedly committed acts of child sexual abuse and
exploited their positions to extract resources from the population contributed to a perception of the Afghan
government as abusive and predatory.
So too did the behavior of the security forces. As we reported in our 2017 lessons-learned report on
reconstructing the ANDSF, Afghan Local Police—auxiliary police units organized under the Ministry of Interior—
reinforced the legitimization of corrupt, criminal, warlord-loyal militias, and reportedly engaged in human rights
abuses. 234 Similarly, a human rights report issued by State in 2015 described the Afghan National Police as a
major predatory actor, noting that accountability for “torture and abuse was weak, not transparent, and rarely
enforced.” 235 As Barfield describes, “The [Afghan] government had supplied little or nothing to rural areas,
where it was associated primarily with predatory police, the conscription of young men, and greedy government
officials who demanded bribes.” 236 Murtazashvili told SIGAR, “What people wanted more than anything else was

228 SIGAR, What We Need to Learn, SIGAR 21-46-LL, p. 73; Sarah Chayes, Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After
the Taliban (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), p. 73.
229 Chayes, Punishment of Virtue, p. 170; SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 16–17.
230 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, p. 19.
232 Mohammad Qadam Shah, assistant professor of global development at Seattle Pacific University, SIGAR interview,
December 23, 2021.

233 Mohib, email correspondence with SIGAR, April 13, 2022 and September 20, 2022.
234 SIGAR, Reconstructing the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in
Afghanistan, SIGAR-17-62-LL, September 21, 2017, pp. 102, 104, 125, 127.
235 State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Afghanistan 2015 Human Rights Report, Spring 2016, p. 9.
236 Barfield, Afghanistan, pp. 281–282.

to be treated with dignity and respect” instead of being subjected to corruption and predatory behavior. The
Taliban picked up on this grievance “beautifully,” she said, and used it to gain a foothold in communities. 237
In the absence of a strong central government backed by a national army, Colin Jackson notes, loyalties
engendered by financial patronage formed the fragile connective tissue uniting the country. 238 To overcome
weakness in the central government, former President Karzai fell back on a patrimonial model of redistributing
resources on a personal basis to consolidate control. 239 The state’s high degree of centralization meant that
the executive went largely unchecked by the judicial or legislative branches, facilitating systemic corruption,
which went largely unaddressed. As Executive Director of Integrity Watch Afghanistan Ikram Afzali told SIGAR,
rather than becoming a vehicle for service delivery, state institutions instead became “engines of facilitating
corruption and ensuring elite interests.” 240
The erosion of state legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan public weakened the government’s ability to enlist
popular support against the insurgency. In Corruption in Conflict, we reported that corruption was fueling the
insurgency by financing insurgent groups and reinforcing grievances that led to greater popular support of the
groups. 241 Former SRAP Richard Holbrooke noted in 2009 that corruption was undermining the government
and serving as a “huge recruiting opportunity for the Taliban.” 242 Corruption also undercut the viability of the
state itself, as government officials not only exploited their positions to extract resources from the population
and foreign presence, but repurposed state institutions to engage in organized crime. 243 As the population
became disenfranchised with successive Afghan governments unable or unwilling to hold state actors
accountable for corruption, the state lost support of the people, Afzali told SIGAR. 244 Similarly, Giustozzi
described the Republic as “a state that lacked legitimacy, not a state you would want to die for—unless you
were [someone] who was directly benefitting from it.” 245
THE UNITED STATES FAILED TO ACHIEVE ITS OVERARCHING GOVERNANCE

OBJECTIVES IN AFGHANISTAN, BUT THERE WERE SOME SUCCESSES ALONG
THE WAY AND RESIDUAL ELEMENTS OF THE REPUBLIC REMAIN
The United States failed to achieve its goal of building stable, democratic, representative, gender-sensitive, and
accountable Afghan governance institutions. The Taliban’s decisive political defeat of the Afghan government—
even after approximately $145.0 billion in U.S. appropriations, including more than $36.2 billion to support
governance and economic development—evidences this failure. 246
Several significant shortcomings of the U.S. effort to establish viable governance institutions contributed to this
overarching failure. The United States did not resolve the issue of corruption, in part because fighting
corruption required the cooperation of Afghan elites whose power relied on the very structures that
anticorruption efforts sought to dismantle. The United States also failed to establish a representative and
legitimate Afghan government through the mechanism of democratic elections, which were consistently

239 Jackson, “U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan,” p. 81; Barfield, Afghanistan, p. 272.
240 Ikram Afzali, Executive Director of Integrity Watch Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, April 1, 2022.
241 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 10, 31, 36.
242 White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Press Briefing by Bruce Riedel, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, and
Michele Flournoy on the New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan,” March 27, 2009.
243 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 10, 31, 36.
244 Afzali, SIGAR interview, April 1, 2022.
245 Giustozzi, SIGAR interview, December 28, 2021.
246 The appropriations figures presented here include funds otherwise made available for reconstruction and related
activities in Afghanistan through June 30, 2021.

marred by allegations of fraud, or through economic and social development, such as education and health
care service delivery. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the Taliban themselves benefitted from or
took credit for the latter, such services did not materially increase support for the government. Furthermore,
the United States failed to adequately monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of its efforts, and did
not appreciate the complexity of Afghanistan’s political economy.
However, the United States made at least some progress toward achieving U.S. governance objectives prior to
the collapse of the Afghan government. For example, the United States and its international partners made
concerted efforts to develop the human capital and institutional capacity of various Afghan government
organizations. Capacity building was imperfect, but it yielded some positive results. Additionally, residual
elements of the Afghan government still exist and are functioning, although their sustainability is uncertain. For
example, although the Taliban have dissolved several ministries of the former government, the ministries of
finance and health, as well as the country’s central bank, have continued to execute some basic functions.
Moreover, although the Taliban installed their own members in many leadership positions, they have largely
kept lower-ranking civil servants in their jobs.
The United States Failed to Build Stable, Democratic, Representative, Gender-

Sensitive, and Accountable Afghan Governance Institutions
The United States aspired to build stable, democratic, representative, gender-sensitive, and accountable
Afghan governance institutions. 247 However, aspirations to realize this objective collapsed with the Afghan
government on August 15, 2021. As former Acting Minister of Defense Masoom Stanekzai told SIGAR, “we are
returning to square one.” 248
The 2002 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act Established the U.S. Overarching Governance Objective in
Afghanistan; Over Two Decades, That Objective Did Not Materially Change
The 2002 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act called on the United States and the international community to
support the establishment of a new democratic, “broad-based, multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully
representative government.” 249 The basic substance of this objective was repeated in subsequent U.S. strategic
documents. 250 For example, the State/USAID Strategic Plan for 2004–2009 stated that the U.S. should create
“a stable and democratic Afghanistan,” in part by working “to establish a stable, effective, and broadly
representative central government.” 251 Similarly, the State/USAID Strategic Plan for 2007–2012 committed the
United States to standing “with those courageous leaders and citizens who are striving to ensure that
democracy, tolerance, and the rule of law succeed.” In addition, core objectives, such as fostering democracy,
“respect for women” and “tolerance” remained mostly constant. However, the language of the State/USAID
Strategic Plan for 2007–2012 also emphasized extending the “reach of the elected government.” 252
In 2009, the Obama administration authorized a surge force of 30,000 U.S. troops to counter an increasingly
resurgent Taliban and dramatically increased reconstruction funding levels. For example, from 2009 through
2014, USAID stabilization programming resources increased nearly 800 percent compared to the 6 years
247 The U.S. overarching strategic objective in Afghanistan was to defeat al-Qaeda and prevent terrorists from using Afghan
territory to facilitate future attacks against the United States. However, the congressional request initiating this report
required SIGAR to examine the collapse of the government in Afghanistan. Therefore, in this section, we identify and assess
U.S. objectives in Afghanistan only as they relate to governance.
248 Stanekzai, SIGAR interview, April 18, 2022.
249 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-327, 22 U.S.C. § 7501 (2002).
250 SIGAR selected these U.S. strategic documents for analysis in order to achieve maximum time coverage of strategic
governance goals over the 20-year intervention, with priority given to joint documents capturing the goals and objectives of
multiple agencies.
251 State and USAID, Publication 11084, Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2004–2009 (Washington, DC: August 2003), p. 3.
252 State and USAID, Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2007–2012 (Washington, DC: May 7, 2007), pp. 5, 18, 52.

prior. 253 This large increase in spending over a short period of time without adequate oversight led to rampant
corruption, with U.S. funding diverted to the Taliban and other insurgent groups. From 2008 to 2010, the
United States formed a number of interagency anticorruption groups and issued new anticorruption strategies
in a push for greater accountability. 254 In line with these efforts, the 2011 Civil-Military Strategic Framework for
Afghanistan, which provided strategic guidance for all American civilian and military personnel, included sub-
objectives for both countering corruption and electoral reform in order to create a more legitimate electoral
process. However, the framework also generally conformed to the overarching governance goals articulated in
previous strategies. For instance, it included a cross-cutting goal of “improving the status of women,” including
their access to “the political system,” which is similar, if not identical to, creating a “gender-sensitive”
government. 255
The Civil-Military Strategic Framework was regularly revised to reflect policy updates and changing conditions
on the ground. The 2013 iteration of the framework stated the governance goal was “to empower government
and its institutions to be representative, accountable, responsive, constitutionally legitimate, and capable of
performing key functions.” The United States was to achieve this goal by “supporting an inclusive, credible, and
transparent election in 2014.” The framework contended that this was “an essential step of consolidating a
viable and legitimate system of governance in Afghanistan that empowers both men and women.” 256 These
tenets continued to form the core of the United States’ governance objectives until the end of U.S. military
involvement in Afghanistan in 2021. State’s 2020 Integrated Country Strategy articulated the goal of “an
Afghan government that is more stable, democratic, responsive, and increasingly capable of performing key
functions,” and included a separate sub-objective that emphasized upholding “the rights of women and
minorities.” 257
Our review of these strategic documents demonstrates that, overall, the U.S. goal of building stable,
democratic, representative, gender-sensitive, and accountable Afghan governance institutions did not
materially change over two decades.
The United States Did Not Achieve its Governance-Related Objectives in Afghanistan
When the United States and its allies invaded Afghanistan in late 2001, they embarked on an ambitious effort
to encourage broad reforms that touched essentially all aspects of Afghan society, especially governance.
Before the collapse of the Afghan government, progress was made in areas such as health care, maternal
health, and education. 258 However, in the aggregate, Afghan governance institutions consistently failed to meet
the standards established by U.S. objectives. For example, Afghan elections were regularly subject to fraud and
manipulation through bribes and threats. 259 State’s 2020 Integrated Country Strategy acknowledged that poor
and ill-resourced governance and weak political institutions exacerbated Afghanistan’s challenges, and also
noted that the “Afghan public was increasingly skeptical of the government's commitment to respect the rule of
law, address corruption, and appoint senior level officials based on merit rather than personal allegiance.” 260
In February 2020, the United States and the Taliban finalized an agreement that created a schedule for a
complete U.S. withdrawal in exchange for counterterrorism assurances from the Taliban and their commitment
253 SIGAR, Stabilization, SIGAR 18-48-LL, pp. 34, 56.

254 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 13-14.
255 U.S. Embassy Kabul and USFOR-A, United States Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to
Afghanistan (Kabul, February 2011), p. 6.

256 U.S. Embassy Kabul and USFOR-A, United States Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to
Afghanistan (Kabul: August 2013), p. 3.

257 State, Integrated Country Strategy (Reviewed and Updated: November 15, 2020), p. 5.
258 SIGAR, What We Need to Learn, SIGAR 21-46-LL, pp. vii, 79.
259 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, p. 166.
260 State, Integrated Country Strategy (Reviewed and Updated: November 15, 2020), pp. 2–3.

to negotiate with the Afghan government on the future of the country. 261 In August 2021, the United States
completed a withdrawal of all military and civilian personnel as the Taliban seized Kabul and the Afghan
government collapsed. The resultant Taliban government was not inclusive, accountable, or democratic. After
the takeover, the Taliban’s original 33-person cabinet did not include any non-Taliban members, figures from
the past government, or women. Some of the cabinet members were sanctioned by the UN, and others are
wanted by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation for facilitating terrorist attacks. 262 Furthermore, the Taliban
have made it known that they oppose democracy. 263
Numerous Afghanistan experts agree that the Taliban’s decisive political defeat of the Afghan government—
after approximately $145 billion in U.S. appropriations, including $36.3 billion to support governance and
economic development—reflects more than anything the failure of the United States to achieve its governance
objectives in Afghanistan. 264 As Ben Connable, nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and former
political scientist at the RAND Corporation, told SIGAR, “Given the complete strategic victory of the Taliban and
the Haqqani Network, and the complete destruction of the U.S.‐backed Afghan government, it is only possible
to conclude that the United States failed to ensure that the government of Afghanistan is more stable,
democratic, and accountable.” 265 Chris Mason, associate professor of national security at the U.S. Army War
College, asserted, “U.S. efforts to build and sustain Afghanistan’s governing institutions were a total, epic,
predestined failure on par with the same efforts and outcome in the Vietnam war, and for the same
reasons.” 266 Omar Sadr, a former assistant professor at the American University of Afghanistan, remarked,
“The [United States] did not achieve any positive outcome towards creating a stable, democratic, and
accountable government.” 267 General Mark Milley echoed this sentiment, albeit more euphemistically, during
his testimony to Congress following the collapse of the Afghan government, stating, “It is obvious to all of us
that the war in Afghanistan did not end on the terms that we wanted, with the Taliban now in power in Kabul...
The war was a strategic failure.” 268 Former SRAP Dobbins put it simply when asked if he believed the United
States achieved its goal to ensure the government in Afghanistan is more stable, democratic, and accountable:
“The answer is clearly ‘no’ in light of history.” 269
The United States Failed to Resolve Corruption, to Create a Legitimate Democratic

System, to Perform Adequate Monitoring and Evaluation, and to Understand the
Operating Environment
Several significant shortcomings of the U.S. effort to establish viable governance institutions contributed to the
overarching failure described in the previous section. The United States did not resolve corruption, in part
because fighting corruption required the cooperation of Afghan elites whose power relied on the very structures
that anticorruption efforts sought to dismantle. The United States also failed to establish a representative and
legitimate Afghan government through the mechanism of democratic elections, which were consistently
marred by fraud, or through economic and social development, such as education and health care service
delivery. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the Taliban themselves benefitted from or took credit
for the latter, such services did not materially increase support for the government. Furthermore, the United

262 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-4, pp. iv, 96.
263 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2022-QR-1, January 30, 2022, p. 95.
264 SIGAR, Quarterly Report SIGAR-2021-QR-3, p. 25.
265 The Haqqani Network is a designated terrorist organization allied with the Taliban. Ben Connable, email correspondence
with SIGAR, April 8, 2022.

266 Chris Mason, email correspondence with SIGAR, April 8, 2022.
267 Omar Sadr, email correspondence with SIGAR, April 9, 2022.

States failed to adequately monitor and evaluate the outcomes and impacts of its efforts and did not
appreciate the complexity of Afghanistan’s political economy. Collectively, these failures made it less likely that
overarching U.S. governance objectives would be achieved.
U.S. Actions Did Not Resolve Corruption

Corruption—the abuse of entrusted authority for private gain—undermined U.S. efforts from the start. In
Afghanistan, corruption took many different forms, some more harmful than others. Small-scale, petty
corruption, such as bribery for basic services plagued citizens at a personal level, while powerful individuals
destabilized the state with large-scale acts of embezzlement, fraud, nepotism, and extortion that enriched their
own patronage networks. 270 Part of the problem was that in pursuit of its counterterror objectives, the United
States had empowered strongmen who were known human rights abusers. 271 Lt. General David Barno, the
senior American commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005, told SIGAR he
simply assumed that
of the Afghans I was interacting with … a large number of them, typically those that would have been
characterized as warlords, had dirty hands in some way, shape, or form. They were involved with [the]
drug trade. They had been involved with atrocities in previous Afghan wars. They were doing things
that were probably human rights violations in terms of how they were running their particular
province. 272
These strongmen, many of whom attained high-level government positions, gained significant political power in
the nascent Afghan state. 273
With awareness came the realization of the critical need to address this problem. Former U.S. Deputy
Ambassador to Afghanistan Earl Anthony Wayne concluded by 2009 that “[unless] we somehow got a better
hand on managing corruption, not eliminating it, but managing it, the government we were working with would
not be seen as legitimate” over the long haul. 274 A U.S. Embassy Kabul cable reiterated this concern in early
2013, stating that “corruption remains arguably the most formidable obstacle to a stable Afghanistan,
especially as the country moves past transition and into the post-2014 era.” 275
Yet, as we stated in our 2016 lessons-learned report Corruption in Conflict, the U.S. government did not view
anticorruption as a top priority during the first 7 years of the reconstruction effort. Security, political stability,
and immediate reconstruction needs took priority over the slow, iterative work of building good governance and
establishing the rule of law. The latter goal consisted largely of building a functional court system and a trusted
civilian police force, neither of which were ultimately willing or able to address any of the kinds of corruption
that most affected ordinary Afghans. 276
As stated in SIGAR’s corruption report, the low priority given to addressing corruption was partly a function of
the Bush administration’s focus on counterterrorism and immediate humanitarian needs, as well as an
aversion to nation-building. Instead, the Bush administration looked to the United Nations and other donors to
take on the responsibility of shaping a new post-Taliban social order and public institutions. 277 In many ways,
the initial years of reconstruction bore the resemblance of success. Malkasian writes, “In December 2001,

271 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 16–17.
272 Barno, SIGAR interview, January 11, 2022.
274 Earl Anthony Wayne, former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, December 21, 2021.
275 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 49, 115.
276 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, p. 28; SIGAR, Police in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in
Afghanistan, SIGAR 22-13-LL, June 1, 2022, p. 1.


Afghanistan’s two decades of civil war appeared to have been a passing nightmare.” 278 When he left
Afghanistan in the spring of 2005, after the first Afghan presidential election in 2004, Lt. General Barno said
he felt
This is on a success trajectory here. We’ve made great progress. We had an extremely successful
presidential election, probably the most non-corrupt election they’d had in the last twenty years in
Afghanistan. And the population is euphoric about this. They are very much onboard. We’re seeing an
economic rebound, we’re seeing [a] very limited amount of Taliban activity. The warlords have been
demobilized and many re-integrated into the government. So, there were a huge number of success
factors. 279
Other observers, however, described the early years less optimistically. “I was there in 2001, [and] the
corruption was visible from day one, the private contractors paying off convoys,” Scott Guggenheim, a
development expert and former advisor to President Ghani, told us. “We knew within 6 months what was going
on. The extent to which people were buying positions, that happened pretty quickly.” 280
U.S. policymakers did make some efforts at combating corruption in those early years. For example, the
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 authorized programs “designed to combat corruption and other
programs for the promotion of good governance.” 281 But actual implementation was slow. It was several years
before USAID produced the Afghanistan Strategic Plan 2005–2010, which for the first time articulated the
agency’s approach to corruption. It identified ongoing measures to combat corruption, and noted these would
“ultimately weaken warlords, leading to increased security in the regions.” However, the plan did not contain
any policies specifically addressing problems in procurement and contracting, and failed to address the need
to improve oversight over those activities. It also failed to consider the extent to which technical anticorruption
efforts could succeed if the Afghan government itself did not cooperate. 282
The international donor community’s anticorruption efforts in the early years centered on helping the Afghan
government build a legal and institutional framework for anticorruption, but such efforts on the Afghan end
usually had limited substantive impact. For instance, President Hamid Karzai established the General
Independent Administration for Anticorruption in late 2003. But the agency had no clear mandate, political
support, or institutional capacity. It dissolved in 2006, after Karzai appointed a director who had been
convicted in the United States on drug charges, and international donors insisted on his removal. 283 By 2006,
the Afghan government and donor community were locked into a cycle: Donors would pressure the Karzai
administration to address the problem, the administration would respond by agreeing to reforms on paper,
those reforms would not actually be put into effect or would fail to meet any meaningful benchmarks—and the
cycle would then repeat. 284 Over the following decade, the percentage of Afghans who described corruption as
a major problem in their daily life trended steadily upward, from 42.1% in 2006 to 61.1% in 2015. 285
278 Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, ep. 14.

279 Barno, SIGAR interview, January 11, 2022.
280 Guggenheim, SIGAR interview, April 20, 2022.
282 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, p. 23-24.
284 This cycle persisted through the Ghani administration, and can be observed in SIGAR’s audits of Afghanistan’s anti-
Corruption efforts. In 2018, we reported, “The Afghan government has begun to implement an anti-corruption strategy, but
significant problems must be addressed.” Similarly, in 2019, we reported, “The Afghan government made progress in
meeting its anti-corruption strategy benchmarks, but serious challenges remain to fighting corruption.” SIGAR,
Afghanistan’s Anti-Corruption Efforts: The Afghan Government has Begun to Implement an Anti-Corruption Strategy, but
Significant Problems Must be Addressed, SIGAR-18-51-AR, May 31, 2018, p. i; SIGAR, Afghanistan’s Anti-Corruption
Efforts: The Afghan Government Made Progress in Meeting its Anti-Corruption Strategy Benchmarks, but Serious
Challenges Remain to Fighting Corruption, SIGAR-20-06-AR, November 1, 2019, ep. 2.
285 This data is drawn from The Asia Foundation’s annual Survey of the Afghan People. While some flaws have been
identified regarding accuracy in insecure areas and social desirability bias, a data quality assessment conducted for the UK

In short, fighting corruption presented a conundrum: it required the cooperation of Afghan elites who had the
most to lose by its elimination. The result was a government of elites intent on their own interests and survival,
and a citizenry whose trust in that government was steadily eroding. These elites included warlords, returned
members of the Afghan diaspora, and other power brokers whose cooperation was needed by the United
States to achieve its security and stability goals. 286 A 2009 assessment by International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) Commander General Stanley McChrystal stated, “Widespread corruption and abuse of power
exacerbate the popular crisis of confidence in the government and reinforce a culture of impunity.” He added,
“ISAF can no longer ignore or tacitly accept abuse of power, corruption, or marginalization.” Such
pronouncements had little effect. The next year, Afghan National Security Advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta told
senior U.S. officials, “Corruption is not just a problem for the system of governance in Afghanistan; it is the
system of governance.” 287
The integration of former warlords into the Afghan government ultimately became a significant source of
corruption. When the Karzai government appointed former warlords to positions of authority, those warlords
began to consolidate their power bases by rewarding their followers with government positions, and gaining
access to lucrative contracts connected to the military and international aid agencies. They dealt with enemies
via illegal land grabs, economic marginalization, and outright human rights violations. Protected by their
connections to the central government, warlords were further empowered by the risk that their removal would
destabilize the regions they controlled. 288
The United States thus found itself strengthening corrupt actors at the same time it sought to control them.
Ambassador Wayne told us, “Part of the challenge was that a number of people that the U.S. government and
NATO were relying on to fight the Taliban effectively were corrupt.” 289 The violations committed by these actors
were pervasive and diverse, ranging from financial fraud to credible allegations of rape, torture, and murder. 290
Several senior military and State officials expressed that working with known human rights abusers was
problematic, but they felt they were locked into a structure with no other options. 291
One example of this dilemma was the U.S. military’s relationship with General Abdul Raziq, who emerged as a
key regional opponent to the Taliban after 2002. Raziq commanded a tribal militia that had near total control
of the Chaman-Spin Boldak border crossing in Kandahar, the lucrative gateway for all supplies coming into
southern Afghanistan from Pakistan. Raziq’s semiofficial title became chief of staff of the provincial border
police. Then-President Karzai promoted him to Kandahar’s chief of police in May 2011. U.S. military officials
acknowledged that Raziq was deeply involved in the narcotics trade and took a significant cut of customs
revenue at the border crossing. Systemic torture, forced disappearances, and summary executions of civilian
detainees were well documented, and as Raziq gained more power, the U.S. military stopped transferring
Department for International Development concluded that trend-line information was valid. SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict,
SIGAR 16-58-LL, p. 93; SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, p. 32.
287 Commander of ISAF, Commander’s Initial Assessment, August 30, 2009, pp. 2-9–2-10; SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict,
SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 4, 36.

289 Wayne, SIGAR interview, December 21, 2021.
290 Ambassador McKinley listed Atta Noor, Ismail Khan, Asadullah Khalid, General Abdul Raziq, and Vice President Rashid
Dostum as individuals deemed acceptable for the United States to work with, despite substantive allegations of significant
human rights abuses. He was especially critical of Dostum, whom he described as violent and unbalanced, and unfit to be
vice-president. McKinley, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022; McKinley, email correspondence with SIGAR, September 21,
2022; SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 16–17.
291 Barno, SIGAR interview, January 11, 2022; Hugo Llorens, SIGAR interview, April 29, 2022; Douglas Lute, former U.S.
Ambassador to NATO, SIGAR interview, January 13, 2022; McKinley, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022.

detainees to his custody. 292 Ambassador McKinley included Raziq in a list of abusive and corrupt individuals
with whom the United States worked. 293
On the other hand, Raziq’s ruthlessness kept Kandahar Province relatively secure. As former Combined
Security Transition Command–Afghanistan commander Lt. Gen. Dan Bolger noted, “Where Raziq was in
charge, there was absolute security, because he killed anyone who crossed him. … That’s the guy to get stuff
done in Afghanistan.” 294 Reflecting this, the Karzai administration blocked efforts to prosecute him for human
rights abuses, and the U.S. military continued to fund his police force while acknowledging credible allegations
of torture. 295 One Afghan interviewee who lived in Kandahar during Raziq’s tenure acknowledged his
reputation for violence and murder, but also admiringly described him as “the king of southern Afghanistan. He
was ruling by his own rulebook.” 296
The immense scale of Afghan government enmeshment with corruption became clear in 2010 with the near
collapse of Kabul Bank, Afghanistan’s largest private bank. Bank Chairman Sherkhan Farnood admitted that
the bank operated as a massive pyramid scheme: Hundreds of millions of dollars had been fraudulently lent to
fictitious companies in transactions that benefitted politically connected Afghan shareholders who never paid
back those loans. U.S. government funds for Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police salaries
regularly moved through the bank, which used the money to cover customers’ withdrawals, concealing the
bank’s steadily diminishing reserves. Meanwhile, deposits by ordinary Afghan citizens were used to fund the
fraudulent loans. Two of the principal beneficiaries of the fraudulent loans were Mahmoud Karzai and Haseen
Fahim—the brothers of President Karzai and Vice President Marshall Mohammed Fahim, respectively.
Ultimately, the extent of the theft was estimated to be roughly $982 million. 297
In 2013, Farnood and Khalilullah Ferozi, another senior officer of the bank, were sentenced to 5 years in
prison for “breach of trust,” but were not convicted of the more serious crimes of money laundering,
embezzlement, and forgery, which would have carried sentences up to 20 years and provided a basis for
orders to confiscate their assets. Farnood died in prison; Ferozi was resentenced to 10 years in prison, but was
transferred to house arrest in 2019 and, as a condition of this arrangement, agreed to return $68.6 million
within 6 months to the Kabul Bank Receivership (KBR). At the time of his transfer to house arrest, Ferozi had
returned only $14.5 million in cash, and less than half of the nearly billion-dollar fraudulent loan portfolio had
been recovered by the KBR from Ferozi and other politically connected Afghans. A SIGAR audit of Afghanistan’s
anti-corruption strategy published shortly after the Afghan government collapsed noted that as of March 2021,
Ferozi had made no more cash repayments after his release from prison, in violation of his repayment
agreement, and had been fined an additional $1.8 million. 298
The pervasiveness of corruption in the Afghan government was also reflected in the phenomenon of “ghost
soldiers,” personnel invented by government officials, and military and police commanders in order to pocket
their salaries. 299 Journalist Charlotte Bellis told us of one senior government official who was “astounded and
confused and shocked” to learn shortly before the collapse that there were only 700 police officers defending
292 SIGAR, Police in Conflict, SIGAR 22-13-LL, pp. 178–180.

294 Bolger, SIGAR interview, September 8, 2021.
295 SIGAR, Police in Conflict, SIGAR 22-13-LL, pp. 180–181.
296 Pashtana Durrani, Afghan human rights activist, SIGAR interview, January 12, 2021.
297 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 44–45.
298 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, p. 54; SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-
2019-QR-4, October 30, 2019, pp. 143–144; SIGAR, Afghanistan’s Anti-Corruption Efforts: Corruption Remained a Serious
Problem in the Afghan Government and More Tangible Action was Required to Root It Out, SIGAR-21-27-AR, August 31,
2021, p. 17.
299 For example, see: SIGAR, Collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, SIGAR 22-22-IP, p. 32; SIGAR,
Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-1, pp. 60, 98. 126; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-3, p. 62.

Kandahar City—not the 14,000 he had believed. 300 This phenomenon was not limited to military personnel;
one former Afghan government official lamented to us, “The ghost soldiers, the ghost police … the ghost
students, so many ghosts!” 301 In the final months of the Afghan government, mounting political instability
created incentives for even honest government officials to line their own pockets, according to former acting
Minister of Finance Khalid Payenda. Payenda told us that officials watching the Taliban’s steady advance were
likely to think, “If [the system collapses] there [are] no records, there is nothing, why not steal?” 302
In our 2016 Corruption in Conflict report, we reported that corruption, if unchecked, could ultimately subvert
U.S. reconstruction aims, not just by lining the pockets of those who were able to game the system, but by
insidiously eroding the average Afghan citizen’s trust in government. As former USFOR-A commander General
David Petraeus told us, “We never, never did enough to reduce the corruption that made the lives of ordinary
Afghans increasingly frustrating and challenging.” 303
The United States Failed to Legitimize the Afghan Government through Democratic Elections
U.S. strategy documents consistently linked democracy, elections, and popular representation to the
overarching goal of a stable and legitimate Afghan government. 304 But the attempt to create a legitimate
government through the mechanism of democratic elections was not successful. Up to the Taliban takeover on
August 15, 2021, Afghanistan’s electoral institutions, such as they were, tended to undermine both the
country’s nascent democratic process and the citizenry’s belief that their voting had any impact on the
government. As USAID summarized in 2018, “Elections are not yet perceived by the public as an effective way
to influence public policy.” 305 With the possible exception of the first presidential election in 2004, the U.S.-
supported Afghan government did not experience a single election free of significant fraud and corruption.
The U.S. democracy project in Afghanistan began with great ambitions. One former U.S. government official and
governance expert described significant excitement surrounding the 2004 Afghan presidential election, an
event that brought roughly two-thirds of the country’s eligible voters to the polls, and that former SRAP James
Dobbins described as “the only presidential election that was completely unchallenged.” 306 Afghanistan scholar
Thomas Barfield described that election as “the high point of the constitutional process.” 307 Former senior
American commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan Lt. Gen. David Barno described the period
following the 2004 Afghan presidential election as the “high-water mark” of the U.S. goal to foster democratic

302 Payenda, SIGAR interview, April 19, 2022.
303 Petraeus, SIGAR interview, January 14, 2022.
304 The 2002 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act states, “The United States and the international community should support
efforts that advance the development of democratic civil authorities and institutions in Afghanistan and the establishment
of a new broad-based, multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully representative government in Afghanistan.” The
State/USAID Strategic Plan for 2004–2009 repeats this, setting “establish a stable, effective, and broadly representative
central governance” as an objective subordinate to “helping Afghanistan to achieve peace and stability.” The Civil Military
strategic framework released in 2013 specifically identifies “an inclusive, credible and transparent election in 2014” as
“an essential step of consolidating a viable and legitimate system of governance in Afghanistan.” The following year’s
Integrated Country Strategy identifies “a democratic, sovereign Afghan government” and “legitimacy of the Government of
Afghanistan improved,” as goals. The 2020 Integrated Country Strategy remains consistent with this trend, phrasing the
same goal as “Government in Afghanistan is more stable, democratic and accountable.” Afghanistan Freedom Support Act
of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-327, 22 U.S.C. § 7511 (2002); State and USAID, Publication 11084, “Strategic Plan Fiscal Years
2004–2009,” August 2003, p. 3; U.S. Embassy Kabul and USFOR-A, “United States Government Integrated Civilian-Military
Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan,” August 2013, p. 3; State, “Integrated Country Strategy” (2014), p. 7; State,
“Integrated Country Strategy” (Reviewed and Updated: November 15, 2020), p. 5.
305 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, p. viii.
306 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, p. 24; Democracy and Governance Researcher, SIGAR interview, August 31, 2021;
Dobbins, SIGAR interview, December 20, 2022.


governance in Afghanistan. 308 A May 2005 joint declaration produced by the Bush administration and the
Afghan government expressed the United States’ commitment to a “democratic, free” Afghanistan, and
declared triumphantly that the Afghan people had “established a moderate, representative government.” 309
But, as we stated in our 2021 lessons-learned report, Elections: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in
Afghanistan, efforts to foster a credible democracy quickly faltered. As early as 2005, a report by the
Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit, an independent research non-profit, suggested a widespread
perception among Afghans that the parliamentary elections that year were “marred by weak candidate vetting,
fraud, and intimidation,” despite praise from the United States at the time for running a successful election
and initial excitement from the Afghan citizenry. Massive fraud during 2009’s presidential election resulted in
the Electoral Complaints Commission tossing out nearly 25 percent of the votes. However, the international
community generally supported Hamid Karzai’s victory, despite his likely role in the fraud. This support made
earlier U.S. commitments to a “democratic [and] free” Afghanistan seem hypocritical to many Afghans and
international observers. 310
The contested results in the 2014 election were also marred by credible allegations of malfeasance. The
success of this election was identified in the 2013 Civil-Military Strategic Framework as “an essential step of
consolidating a viable and legitimate system of governance in Afghanistan.” However, then-Deputy U.S.
Ambassador to Afghanistan Michael McKinley told us that as he monitored shifts in polling data during that
election, he “was instantly convinced that there had been major fraud.” 311 The contested outcome
necessitated a U.S.-brokered power-sharing arrangement between the eventual winner, Ashraf Ghani, and the
runner-up, Abdullah Abdullah. Former acting SRAP Laurel Miller described this arrangement as “one of the key
moments” marking the country’s deteriorating political stability. 312 Ghani’s inauguration in September 2014
may have been the first democratic transfer of power in Afghanistan’s history, but it was a transfer made
possible only by emergency interventions by high-ranking U.S. officials all the way up to the White House. 313
Moreover, Miller added, the agreement “patched things together to limit the deterioration of political stability,
but it didn’t fully solve it.” 314 The position of chief executive created for Abdullah had no basis in the Afghan
constitution, and no real mechanism (apart from constant interventions by U.S. officials) to compel any actual
cooperation between the roles of president and chief executive. Following the formation of the National Unity
Government—the official name for the dual administration of Ghani and Abdullah—Ambassador McKinley
reported that he spent “an inordinate amount of time commuting between the two palaces … because there
was conflict after conflict after conflict.” 315
Afghans themselves expressed little faith in their democracy. Fawzia Koofi, a former deputy speaker of
parliament, told us, “We all know … President Ghani was not the winner” of the 2014 election. 316 This
perception—that Ghani’s presidential power was not rooted in a sound electoral process—seems to have been
widespread. 317 Several interviewees expressed the belief that Ghani had essentially been selected by the
United States, with little regard for the will of Afghans. 318 Whether that view is justified is to some extent a
308 Barno, SIGAR interview, May 2, 2022.

309 George W. Bush and Hamid Karzai, “Joint Declaration of the United States-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership,” May 23,
2005.
310 SIGAR, Corruption in Conflict, SIGAR 16-58-LL, pp. 18, 34; SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, p. 10.
312 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2014-QR-4, pp. 128–129; Miller, SIGAR interview, April 26, 2022.
315 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2014-QR-4, p. 129; McKinley, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022.
317 Sarabi, SIGAR interview, January 6, 2022; Koofi, SIGAR interview, December 27, 2021.
318 Democracy and Governance Researcher, SIGAR interview, August 31, 2021; Sarabi, SIGAR interview, January 6, 2022;
Murtazashvili, SIGAR interview, December 9, 2022.

matter of perspective. One researcher told us, “There’s no doubt about that, the U.S. put Ghani into power ... I
mean, [Secretary of State John] Kerry brokered that agreement.” 319 Former SRAP Dobbins disagreed, saying,
“We could influence the system by which [Afghanistan’s political leaders] were chosen, but we couldn’t pick the
leaders.” 320 However, the extent of U.S. intervention required to resolve the fiasco may have dealt a fatal blow
to any remaining faith Afghans had in democracy. Habiba Sarabi, a former Afghan government official and
member of the Republic’s negotiating team, told us, “Especially after 2014, [Afghan people] don’t believe in
democracy [or] elections.” 321
By the 2019 election, in which Ghani again faced Abdullah, only an estimated 10 percent of eligible citizens
actually went to the polls, and allegations of fraud at all levels of the electoral process caused a 5-month delay
in announcing who had won. On February 18, 2020, Afghanistan’s Independent Electoral Commission declared
Ghani the winner, prompting an assertion by Abdullah that he had won the largest number of “clean votes,” as
opposed to what he said were fraudulent or irregular votes. Despite U.S. efforts to negotiate another last-
minute power-sharing deal, Kabul hosted the spectacle of two parallel presidential inaugurations on March 9,
2020. Senior U.S. officials, including Afghanistan envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and USFOR-A Commander General
Austin Scott Miller, attended Ghani’s inauguration and snubbed Abdullah’s ceremony. 322 Andrew Watkins, an
Afghanistan expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace, told us, “The factor that made Ghani’s [inauguration] real and
Abdullah’s a sideshow only came down to which one the embassies in Kabul decided to attend or not.” 323
Ambassador McKinley noted that the low voter turnout, substantial fraud, and months-long delay in
announcing the winner “should have been the biggest red flag on earth that there was no legitimacy to the
political system that was in place in Afghanistan.” 324
Even perfect elections may not have created a legitimate government. Chris Mason of the U.S. Army War
College told SIGAR, “I want to emphasize … just how far-fetched the project in Afghanistan—to try to create a
stable Jeffersonian democracy there—was. In Afghanistan’s 2,000-year history, they had never before held a
vote on anything.” Across Afghan history, Mason said, its most successful form of legitimate governance was a
hereditary monarchy established in the 1700s and overthrown in 1973. 325 “Even if there had been completely
successful elections in Afghanistan, the results in the eyes of the people would have been an illegitimate leader
because democracy is not a source of legitimacy of government in Afghanistan and it probably never will be,” he
added. 326 Thomas Barfield noted, “The U.S believes we’re doing democracy, so who are we to determine Afghan
leaders, [but] from the Afghan point of view, you are determining Afghan leaders. You put this government in
place.” 327 Ashley Jackson, a researcher specializing in civilian interaction with militant groups, including the
Taliban, told us that Afghans she interviewed did not have the “luxury” of preference in who governed them:
“Their voices do not matter, [and] that’s what they’ve been told repeatedly for 40 years.” 328
The Taliban regime that took over on August 15, 2021, has stated that it has no intention of implementing any
kind of elected government. In an interview with the New York Times, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid

322 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, p. 24; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2020-QR-2, pp. 97, 100.
323 Watkins, SIGAR interview, January 4, 2022.
325 Reflecting the strength of the monarchy, when asked what factors he thought contributed to the collapse of the Afghan
government, Ambassador Hugo Llorens told us, “Things went very badly wrong beginning with the coup that overthrew King
Mohammad Zahir Shah back in 1973.” Llorens, SIGAR interview, February 2, 2022; Chris Mason, associate professor of
national security at the U.S. Army War College, SIGAR interview, February 7, 2022; Malkasian, The American War in
Afghanistan, epp. 27, 31.
326 Mason, SIGAR interview, February 7, 2022.
328 Ashley Jackson, Co-director, Centre for the Study of Armed Groups at the Overseas Development Institute, SIGAR
interview, January 21, 2022.

declared, “Some of the principles of democracy are in contradiction with the principles of Islam. For example,
in a democracy, the people are sovereign. But in Islam, God is sovereign. The Koran is sovereign.” 329 One
former Afghan government official and member of the Islamic Republic negotiating team described the
Taliban’s mockery in response to fruitless efforts to advocate for democratic processes during intra-Afghan
negotiations: “As soon as we would say ‘election,’ [the Taliban would respond] ‘Hahaha, that election that
you’re talking about, that corrupt election? That every person was for sale?’” 330
Attempts to Bolster the Legitimacy of the Afghan Government through Economic and Social Development
Failed
The United States believed that economic and social development programming would increase support for
the Afghan government and reduce support for the Taliban insurgency. For example, according to USAID’s “U.S.
Foreign Assistance for Afghanistan Post Performance Management Plan (2010–2015),” security and stability
goals were woven into initiatives as diverse as public health, governance, education, and agriculture. These
goals included building active support for the government (health), supporting and reinforcing efforts to
improve security (governance), increasing the legitimacy of the Afghan government (education), and increasing
confidence in the Afghan government. Similarly, economic growth was seen as a key driver of security, based
on the assumption that a robust economy would keep young men in the workforce and out of the insurgency,
create confidence in the government, and generate revenues that would enable the Afghan government to
deliver services and mitigate its dependency on foreign donors.331
However, the theory that economic and social development programing could produce such outcomes had
weak empirical foundations. As far back as 2010, a report summarizing expert views concluded that there was
“a surprisingly weak evidence base for the effectiveness of aid in promoting stabilization and security
objectives.” 332 Referring to this and several other studies, a 2011 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report
echoed this conclusion. The Senate report stated, “The evidence that stabilization programs promote stability
in Afghanistan is limited. Some research suggests the opposite, and development best practices question the
efficacy of using aid as a stabilization tool over the long run.” 333 Multiple subject matter experts and U.S.
officials doubted the effectiveness of service delivery in the absence of good security and governance, based
on their research or observations. 334 As Scott Guggenheim, former senior advisor to President Ghani, told
SIGAR, “Building latrines does not make you love Ashraf Ghani.” 335
Attempts to use economic and social development to achieve security and stability effects faced several
problems. First, the Taliban directly benefitted from the very development projects that were supposed to
marginalize them. Diversion of U.S. funds to the insurgency was sometimes characterized as an “open secret”
of the reconstruction and warfighting efforts in Afghanistan. Media reports in 2009 and 2010 alleged that the
Taliban siphoned off a proportion of U.S. funds spent on contracts. One report described the existence of a
Kabul-based Taliban “contracts officer” who negotiated with major Afghan contractors for a percentage of the
329 Matthieu Aikins, “After Quick Victory, Taliban Find Governing Harder,” New York Times, September 1, 2021.
330 Gailani, SIGAR interview, January 15, 2022.
331 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 37–38.
332 Wilton Park Conference Report, Winning Hearts and Minds in Afghanistan: Assessing the Effectiveness of Development
Aid in COIN Operations, March, 2010, p. 1.

333 Committee on Foreign Relations, S.Prt. 112-21, Evaluating U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan (2011), pp. 2, 8–10.
334 S.Prt. 112-21, Evaluating U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan; Murtazashvili, “The Collapse of Afghanistan,” pp. 40–
54; Bing West, The Wrong War: Grit, Strategy and the Way Out of Afghanistan (New York: Random House, 2012), p. 250;
Michael Martin, Visiting Research Fellow, King’s College London, SIGAR interview, January 12, 2022; Omar Sadr, former
assistant professor at the American University of Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, December 13, 2021; Guggenheim, SIGAR
interview, November 23, 2021; Mason, SIGAR interview, February 7, 2022; Murtazashvili, SIGAR interview, December 9,
2021; McKinley, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022; Neumann, SIGAR interview, February 1, 2022; Bolger, SIGAR
interview, September 8, 2021; Patrick Fine, former USAID Mission Director for Afghanistan, SIGAR interview, February 3,
2022; Jackson, “U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan,” p. 99.
335 Guggenheim, SIGAR interview, November 23, 2021.

value of contracts funded by donors. A USAID Office of Inspector General review prompted by this and other
allegations found that Afghan subcontractors working on USAID’s $349 million Local Governance and
Community Development project, which aimed to foster political, economic, and social development in
communities in insecure areas, may have used USAID funds to pay Taliban insurgents up to 20 percent of the
total value of subcontracts. In exchange, the Taliban promised not to attack subcontractor personnel.
Interviews indicated that subcontractors often recouped the funds paid to insurgents by including the amount
of anticipated protection payments in the total cost of subcontracts. 336 Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
testified before Congress in 2009 that “one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection
money.” 337
Benefits to the Taliban were not always so direct. Short-term stabilization projects aimed to help “legitimate”
authorities “peaceably manage conflict and prevent a resurgence of violence.” 338 But one perverse finding
arising from a study examining the effects of several USAID stabilization programs was that in some areas,
support for the Taliban actually increased. USAID viewed education and health service delivery as a way to
generate “increased confidence in the legitimacy and effectiveness of the [Afghan] government” that, in turn,
would “foster stability.” But the moral imperative to deliver education and health care also applied in Taliban-
controlled areas—where the Taliban took credit for outcomes funded by U.S. dollars. A 2017 World Bank report
found that some Taliban were simply co-opting Afghan government schools, rather than attacking or closing
them as they had done in the past. The Bank also described instances where insurgents actually protected
health services. In the words of one of the Bank’s informants, “Ambulances can easily travel around [in Wardak
Province], because the Taliban and militants [also] need health services.” Ashley Jackson summarized the key
dynamic: “The Taliban leadership realized that instead of attacking government schools and aid projects, it
could gain much more by co-opting them. In doing so, it could take credit for providing services and win over
the local population.” 339 Unlike the coalition-assisted Afghan government, which promised everything but did a
poor job of delivering anything, the Taliban strategically managed expectations according to what they knew
they could deliver (or would allow others to deliver). 340 As one former State official told us, Taliban governance
competed with the Afghan government only in limited dimensions and “therefore [was] able to be more
focused and arguably … more effective in doing what they said they were going to do.” 341
Even where projects did not inadvertently increase support for the Taliban, unintended consequences could
exacerbate local conflict. Standard U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine reflected the belief that “political, social,
and economic programs are usually more valuable than conventional military operations in addressing the root
causes of conflict.” 342 But some programs risked exacerbating local conflicts. Even a “successful” project could
inadvertently benefit one powerbroker or interest group at the expense of another, stoking local conflicts and
creating an opportunity for insurgents to form an alliance with the disaffected party. As Mike Martin, a former
British Army officer and fluent Pashto speaker, told us in colorful but no uncertain terms, running a successful
project in one community could create a situation in which “you’ve got another village over there now that’s
thinking, ‘Well, why the f— didn’t we get that?’ … You’re creating jealousy and possibly increasing levels of
conflict.” 343
Still another issue involved incentives. Many projects lacked mechanisms that would induce support for the
Afghan government: The benefits of a public infrastructure project, such as a road or electricity, could not be
336 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, p. 57.
337 Afghanistan: Assessing the Road Ahead, Before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 111th Cong., p. 48
(December 3, 2009) (testimony of Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State).
338 SIGAR, Stabilization, SIGAR 18-48-LL, p. 6.
339 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 57–58; 245–246.
343 Martin, SIGAR interview, January 12, 2022.

limited only to those who supported the government. A Taliban-supporting Afghan civilian had no motivation to
change his or her allegiance because using a USAID-funded clinic or a U.S. military-funded road was not
restricted by one’s loyalty. 344 But although coalition-aligned forces did not limit access, the Taliban did. In
contested territory, the Taliban attacked projects or the people using them, rendering them useless; in Taliban-
controlled areas, the local population could negotiate—albeit in a very limited capacity—with the Taliban to
access such services. As described above, the Taliban could then claim credit for allowing services to
function. 345
Both U.S. officials and non-government-affiliated researchers have observed that although a service delivery
project might have given a local population a better quality of life, it had little impact on their propensity to
approve of—or, more critically, actively support—the government. 346 As former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia, Colin Jackson, observed in 2017,
In theory, the provision of public goods and services and jobs should have decreased incentives for
resistance and increased incentives for collaboration. In practice, small projects and cash outlays
bought information and rented short-term cooperation. Over the longer run, the reciprocity norm
seldom held. 347
Former Ambassador McKinley noted, “It wasn’t that everyone, including conservative rural populations, didn’t
appreciate services …. But that didn’t seem to change their views.” 348 As Chris Mason, of the U.S. Army War
College told us, “This idea … that if you build a road or a hospital or a school, people will then come on board
and support the government—there’s no evidence of that occurring anywhere since 1945, in any internal
conflict. It doesn’t work.” 349
Monitoring and Evaluation Were Poor

U.S. goals for Afghanistan were anything but modest. The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 declared
U.S. support for a democratic, “broad-based, multi-ethnic, gender-sensitive, and fully representative
government in Afghanistan.” That formulation, or something like it, would be repeated by various U.S. strategy
documents over the next two decades. As recently as November 2020, only 9 months before the collapse of
the Afghan government, State’s Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) said that a key goal was moving Afghanistan
closer to a “stable, democratic, and accountable” ideal. But while the 2020 ICS sought to bring Afghanistan
more in line with the end state that was initially imagined, it also painted a bleak picture: the Afghan public was
“increasingly skeptical of the government’s commitment to respect the rule of law, address corruption, and
appoint senior-level officials based on merit rather than personal allegiance.” 350
Although State’s ICS may have articulated an ideal, in reality, these goals were not always achievable or
realistic. Yet over the years, as we reported in our July 2021 lessons-learned report on monitoring and
344 West, The Wrong War, p. 250.

345 Fine, SIGAR interview, February 3, 2022; Malkasian, SIGAR interview, December 14, 2021; SIGAR, The Risk of Doing
the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 57–58.
346 S.Prt. 112-21, Evaluating U.S. Foreign Assistance to Afghanistan; Murtazashvili, “The Collapse of Afghanistan,” pp. 40–
54; West, The Wrong War, p. 250; Martin, SIGAR interview, January 12, 2022; Sadr, SIGAR interview, December 13, 2021;
Guggenheim, SIGAR interview, November 23, 2021; Mason, SIGAR interview, February 7, 2022; Murtazashvili, SIGAR
interview, December 9, 2021; McKinley, SIGAR interview, February 18, 2022; Neumann, SIGAR interview, February 1,
2022; Bolger, SIGAR interview, September 8, 2021; Fine, SIGAR interview, February 3, 2022; Jackson, “U.S. Strategy in
Afghanistan,” p. 99.
349 Mason, SIGAR interview, February 7, 2022.
350 Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-327, 22 U.S.C. § 7511 (2002); State, “Integrated Country
Strategy” (Reviewed and Updated November 15, 2020), pp. 3, 5.

evaluation, assertions of success were a recurring theme. 351 A prison system program was contributing to
Afghanistan’s stability. Power-sector projects were contributing to the counterinsurgency effort. The
Commander’s Emergency Response Program was a vital tool; trade shows were increasing Afghanistan’s
exports. 352
That claims could be advanced so often without sufficient evidence was indicative of the overwhelming political
hunger for quick successes in a country that could not, or would not, be easily or quickly transformed. Serious
efforts to monitor and evaluate how well U.S. programs actually helped achieve strategic goals in Afghanistan
were an inevitable casualty of this flood of optimism. At times, the problem extended from the implementation
level all the way up reporting chains to the Congress, where, as the SIGAR, John Sopko, expressed, “We have
incentivized lying to Congress and by that, I mean the whole incentive is to show success and to ignore the
failure and when there’s too much failure, classify it, or don’t report it.” 353
In some cases, inaccurate and incomplete information was published for public and official use. For example,
seemingly unprecedented improvements to life expectancy and maternal mortality turned out to be based on
faulty data. Similarly, school enrollment figures were misleading given that enrollments were not equivalent to
actual attendance. 354 More importantly, metrics used to gauge the effectiveness of health and education
programs were not always relevant to the broader political goal. Even if school attendance rates for girls
increased or maternal mortality rates dropped, it was unclear whether those metrics were an accurate proxy
for measuring the legitimacy of the Afghan government. 355
Another problem was the use of overly simple metrics that actually obscured reality. The conceptually useful
metric of district control became one first-order measure of how U.S. reconstruction efforts were proceeding.
But presenting this data in simplistic color-coded maps masked considerable nuance, such as the presence of
a single ANDSF compound in the middle of a district otherwise controlled by the Taliban. 356 Data experts have
questioned whether district stability assessments were ever methodologically sound, with one expert we
interviewed dismissing the assessments as “just the opinion of an analyst, and then commanders would often
change the colors based on their personal sentiments.” 357 Another analyst discovered at one point that there
was a significant discrepancy between ANDSF and U.S. territorial assessments—because, while the Afghans
generally had a better understanding of a given territory, the red-amber-green color coding held no particular
meaning in a country with no traffic lights. 358
In many cases, numbers mattered even more than colors. The attractiveness of health and education metrics
can be explained, in part, by their quantifiability. For example, counting children enrolled in school and
assessing changes in life expectancy and maternal mortality boiled progress down to numbers. A common
assumption in U.S. monitoring and evaluation was that quantitative indicators were inherently more rigorous
351 “Monitoring and evaluation” is the attempt to objectively determine whether a reconstruction program achieved its
intended outcomes. SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, p. 7.
352 The Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) provided field commanders with funding to implement urgent
reconstruction projects to reduce violence and improve the legitimacy of the Afghan government. SIGAR, The Risk of Doing
the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 113, 177.
353 John F. Sopko, “U.S. Lessons Learned in Afghanistan,” testimony before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, 116th
Congress, January 15, 2020, ep. 42.

354 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 46–47, 66, 174, 177–178, 281.
356 Mason, SIGAR interview, February 7, 2022; SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp.
151–152, 280.
357 Connable, SIGAR interview, December 28, 2021.
358 While the exact terminology shifted over the years, the color scheme for territorial assessment maps used red for areas
of insurgent control, influence, or activity; amber for contested areas; and green for areas that were secure or under
government control. This reflects the red-amber-green color scheme used in traffic lights. Kyle Pizzey, former ISAF civilian
branch chief for data, SIGAR interview, January 14, 2022; SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-
41-LL, pp. 153, 282.

and desirable than qualitative ones. 359 However, quantitative data was not always employed in informed ways.
Several experts familiar with the ways in which quantitative data was used in Afghanistan critiqued an
overreliance on such data and the dismissal of qualitative reporting. 360 For example, military decision makers
relied heavily on significant activity (SIGACT) data, a metric meant to capture all incidents of violence against
U.S. and coalition forces. But the databases recording SIGACTs were significantly flawed or incomplete, and
lacked explanations of who had carried out a violent act or what their motivation might be. 361 A drop in SIGACTs
in a given territory could indicate that U.S. forces had full control of the area—or it could indicate that they had
left. Without qualitative information to interpret the data, quantitative data could easily be misconstrued. 362 One
expert, describing increasingly byzantine assessments, told SIGAR, “We quantified our way to defeat.” 363
Moreover, measurability was not always synonymous with efficacy. Easily measured inputs and outputs were
often substituted for harder-to-define measures of actual impact. Although there were some exceptions, inputs
and outputs were emphasized at the expense of impact. The most infamous example was the use of the burn
rate—the rate at which money was being spent—as an indicator of effectiveness. The term was often used to
describe a phenomenon in which agencies and implementing partners focused more on spending money than
on delivering results. But equating burn rate to success resulted in projects that poured money into a fragile
environment with no concept of whether those projects achieved any actual goals or even necessarily where
the money was going. 364 As a World Bank report on Afghanistan’s post-2014 economic and political transition
observed, pouring aid dollars into Afghanistan actually contributed to waste and corruption. 365
None of these criticisms should be read as a glib attempt to diminish the difficulty of assessing effectiveness in
a complex environment like Afghanistan, where numerous confounding variables can present significant
obstacles to effective monitoring and evaluation. Nevertheless, it was crucial to exert reasonable efforts to
measure progress. Unfortunately, as implemented, monitoring and evaluation too often created the risk of
doing the wrong thing perfectly, creating a situation in which projects that met contracted deliverables and
performance-indicator targets could be considered “successful,” whether or not they had achieved or
contributed to broader, more important strategic goals. In the end, pressure to demonstrate gains discouraged
a candid assessment of progress towards outcomes and impacts, and led to overly positive reporting.
The United States Adhered to a Simplistic Conflict Narrative That Failed to Appreciate the Complexity of
Afghanistan’s Political Economy
Ignorance of prevailing social, cultural, and political contexts in Afghanistan was a significant contributing
factor to failures at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels. As a consequence of incomplete information,
planners sometimes made bold assumptions about the country, many of which turned out to be incorrect. For
example, an emphasis on counterinsurgency accompanied by a significant troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009
was based on a similar approach in Iraq, which policymakers had concluded led to significant improvement
there. The U.S. military’s advocacy of the surge was part of a broader pattern of assertions that success was
achievable if only resources and strategies were adjusted. 366 But whatever successes that resulted were
359 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 177, 280.
360 Connable, SIGAR interview, December 28, 2021; Daniel Egel, senior economist at RAND Corporation, SIGAR interview,
December 20, 2021; Pizzey, SIGAR interview, January 14, 2022; Jonathan Schroden, Director of the Countering Threats
and Challenges Program at CNA, SIGAR interview, November 16, 2021.
361 Egel, SIGAR interview, December 20, 2021; Connable, SIGAR interview, December 28, 2021; SIGAR, The Risk of Doing
the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 134, 280.

362 One data expert told SIGAR that measuring kinetic events like SIGACTs without context led to joking that the solution
was, “I’ll go home. There will be no events.” Pizzey, SIGAR interview, January 14, 2022.
363 Connable, SIGAR interview, December 28. 2021.
365 World Bank, Afghanistan in Transition: Looking Beyond 2014, May 2012, pp. 47, 109.
366 SIGAR, Stabilization, SIGAR 18-48-LL, p. 21, 26; SIGAR, What We Need to Learn, SIGAR 21-46-LL, p. 71.

“washed away,” in the words of Afghanistan expert Carter Malkasian, who concluded that it would have been
better “never to have surged at all.” 367
One explanation for the surge’s failure was its compressed timeline. A deeper problem, as articulated by
counterinsurgency expert Christian Tripodi, was the failure of U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine, which
conceptualized the conflict as a binary contest between insurgent and counterinsurgent for the support of the
people. Slotting Afghanistan’s many local political economies into roles of either “good” allies supporting the
nascent state, or “bad” enemies opposing it, ignored the complex power dynamics and conflicts foundational
to those political structures. Tripodi writes,
What emerged as a consequence was a theory of victory that not only accorded with the requirement
for a light-footprint and time-limited commitment, but also aligned with a set of core liberal beliefs
relating to the curative effects of democracy, the enhancement of human rights, and the pacifying
effects of social, economic and governmental reform. 368
There was also the clear desire of President Bush’s administration “to get rid of the Taliban very quickly,” said
Afghanistan scholar Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network. Clark described the resulting post 9/11
framework as “this sort of strange idea that you could split Afghans into good and bad, black and white,
Taliban and anti‐Taliban, and the anti‐Taliban were good guys and the Taliban were bad guys.” This was, Clark
said, “such a misreading of a very complex country that it was bound to cause problems,” not the least of those
being alliances of convenience with “men and factions with really severe war crimes allegations against
them.” 369 Early U.S. support for warlords helped to empower a class of strongmen at the local and national
levels whose anti-Taliban sentiments by no means translated into support for democratic ideals, in general, or
the U.S.-supported Afghan government, in particular. As we noted in our August 2021 report, What We Need to
Learn, some of these strongmen had been deposed by the Taliban to widespread applause. 370
Another cognitive mistake was U.S. policymakers’ view of the Taliban as a monolithic entity, inextricably linked
to terrorism against American civilians solely because of its refusal to turn over Osama bin Laden in the
aftermath of 9/11. 371 As former President Bush wrote in his memoir, “radical mullahs offered sanctuary to
Osama bin Laden …. In return, bin Laden drew on his personal fortune to fund the Taliban. By 9/11,
Afghanistan was not only a state sponsor of terror, but a state sponsored by terror.” 372 Yet even before 9/11,
the Taliban were a global pariah due to their harsh disregard for human rights. After 9/11 and their removal
from power, they were excluded from the Bonn Conference and barred from any legitimate participation in
Afghan politics. Malkasian writes, “A conference for a political settlement without one of the most important
parties seems to have struck no one as odd.” 373 In hindsight, several U.S. officials now agree that this
exclusion was a mistake: the Taliban, though militarily defeated and removed from power, maintained
politically significant popular support in some regions of the country. 374 Former deputy national security advisor
for Iraq and Afghanistan Douglas Lute told SIGAR that this exclusion “set the fuse … that essentially slowly
burned towards the fall of Kabul in August 2021.” 375
367 Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, ep. 548.

368 Christian Tripodi, The Unknown Enemy: Counterinsurgency and the Illusion of Control (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press, 2021), p. 172.
369 Clark, SIGAR interview, January 7, 2022.
371 Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, epp. 74–75; Lute, SIGAR interview, January 13, 2022.
372 Bush, Decision Points, p. 187.
373 Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, epp. 66, 87.
374 Barno, SIGAR interview, January 11, 2022; Lute, SIGAR interview, January 13, 2022; McKinley, SIGAR interview,
February 18, 2022.

375 Lute, SIGAR interview, January 13, 2022.

But at the time, any hint of association with the Taliban would have been politically impossible. As former
President Bush writes, “We had liberated the country from a primitive dictatorship, and we had a moral
obligation to leave behind something better.” 376 Malkasian notes, “After October 2001, there are no known
U.S. attempts to talk with Taliban leaders until the Obama administration.” Even then, negotiations were
unceremoniously derailed by the Taliban’s decision to fly its flag over a newly-established “office” in Doha,
Qatar, which looked more like an embassy and was conspicuously marked by a sign identifying the “Islamic
Emirate,” rather than the “Taliban movement” terminology preferred by Afghan and American officials. An
eventual U.S.-Taliban agreement was not signed until nearly two decades into the war. 377
In the meantime, the United States was busy trying to outcompete the insurgency by employing the theory that
it could increase trust in the legitimacy of the Afghan government by helping it provide more services to Afghan
citizens—or, as Tripodi puts it, “that more government is better government.” 378 One of the ways the United
States aimed to extend governance was through the provision of services. The primary services the Taliban had
occasionally provided since 2001 were physical security and dispute resolution. Yet, it was widely assumed that
to compete with the Taliban for the allegiance of the population, Afghans would need access to high-quality
government services pushed down from centralized ministries. Instead of using the Taliban offerings as a
baseline for the government’s own value proposition, the coalition tried to build soaring institutions that the
Afghan government was unprepared to manage or sustain. “We did what we know how to do, not what needed
to be done,” said former senior State advisor Barnett Rubin. “We build bureaucracies, so that’s what we did.” 379
Even within dispute resolution, the United States chose to focus on formal, rather than informal, rule of law.
The outcomes of the more informal Taliban-run processes may not have always delivered what the United
States would consider to be just and equitable outcomes, but the path to those outcomes was much quicker
and more familiar to many Afghans than the U.S.-sponsored system. In contrast, the formal court system
established through foreign intervention was slow, corrupt, and foreign to Afghans used to traditional
community-level dispute resolution mechanisms. But advocating for traditional dispute resolution to compete
with the Taliban would have put the United States dangerously close to endorsing outcomes that would have
violated Western norms of human rights, and that would have been politically untenable to Americans. U.S.
officials chose to pursue a vision for Afghanistan’s justice system that reflected American values and
preferences, without sufficient regard for what was practical or possible. As Rubin observed, “Trying to
compete with the Taliban’s successful dispute resolution would have meant allowing sharia, and that’s not
something we could do politically.” 380
As the Afghan state solidified, formalized, and expanded into more and more territory, it met apathy and
opposition in the most remote, rural areas. Barfield told us that rural Afghans had their own value system to
maintain and “they’re actually willing to let you do what you want, but keep it out of their backyard.” 381 Many
rural Afghans did not want the reach of formal government to be extended because it was traditionally foreign
to them, and it rapidly became unpredictable and predatory. American advisors, practitioners, and coalition
partners inadvertently contributed to the predatory behaviors their local allies committed because, confronted
by a social and political environment they did not understand, they relied on these same allies for information
and insights. In the rush to establish and extend a government allied to the United States, these abuses—which
included torture, summary execution, and child sexual abuse—were often missed or ignored. Instead, Afghans
376 Bush, Decision Points, p. 205.

377 Malkasian, The American War in Afghanistan, epp. 124, 378, 537.
378 Tripodi, The Unknown Enemy, p. 172.
379 SIGAR, Stabilization, SIGAR 18-48-LL, pp. 156.
380 SIGAR, Stabilization, SIGAR 18-48-LL, p. 157; SIGAR, What We Need to Learn, SIGAR 21-46-LL, pp. 74–75.

who opposed the government were often assumed to be supporters of the Taliban, rather than citizens
attempting to raise legitimate grievances. 382
The journalist Wesley Morgan describes one example of government opposition that did not begin as support
for the Taliban, but which ended up there. The people of the Pech Valley in Kunar Province had little
connection to the Taliban before 9/11, and held some early positive interactions with U.S. troops. But when
then-President Karzai outlawed logging in 2002 (due to unsubstantiated environmental concerns raised by
international environmental organizations and then-finance minister Ashraf Ghani), and U.S. forces maintained
a presence in the area which enforced this ban, the decision destroyed the only significant industry in the
region. At the same time, the United States and Afghan government co-opted several local strongmen as allies
in the fight against al-Qaeda—unaware that these individuals had historically been involved in buying,
transporting, and selling felled timber (which was still technically legal), and were extorting the now-
criminalized local loggers. The insurgency that arose in Kunar’s minor valleys was initially rooted in this
grievance, compounded by a general suspicion of outsiders. Unaware of this economic context, American
military officers assumed that anyone attacking them must be Taliban, and responded accordingly. Within a
few years, a group of locals trying to protect their economic interests had battled with American troops several
times, asked the Taliban for help, worked out an arrangement with them, and were ultimately absorbed into
them. To a population victimized by edicts from a far-off government, extortionary strongmen, and U.S. soldiers,
the Taliban were the only ally willing to protect their interests. 383
Mike Martin, a former British Army officer described briefing a general on disentangling similar situations in
Helmand:
I told him, this is a total f--- up. Everyone thinks it’s government [versus] Taliban, but actually, here’s
what's driving the conflict, it’s land and water [that] always comes up. And we went on and on …. [I
said] look here, we got manipulated because we didn’t understand it. And over here, it’s about
drugs …. By the end of it, he had his head in his hands … and he said, “Oh God. … I had a suspicion
that this was what was going on, but every day, I read documents about Afghanistan and it’s about the
official narratives of the conflict, right? It’s about how we’re making progress in these metrics, and
girls in schools, and it’s government [versus] Taliban. 384
In the end, official narratives framed state-based progress against an anti-state regression, with little
understanding of cultural and social nuance. Expanding the state into previously remote and autonomous
areas was a driving force behind 20 years of conflict—without any critical examination of what harm some
policy might be doing to a local population, if specific projects were actually wanted, or how some initiatives,
such as high school education for girls, might in some areas violate established traditions. One interviewee,
discussing the narrative framework of progress, stated that she now “reject[s] the progress-regression thing,”
noting that people progress towards what they value, and many Afghans valued different things than
Americans. 385 American policymakers, as well as many urban and expatriate Afghans, simply could not
conceive of a situation where the Taliban were preferable to the Western promise of a liberal democracy.
Some Progress was Made before the Collapse of the Afghan Government
The rapid disintegration of Afghan security forces and the Ghani administration in August 2021 represented
the dramatic conclusion of a two-decade, U.S.-led effort to develop and westernize Afghan society. That
ambitious endeavor included not only strengthening the capacity of the Afghan government directly, but also

383 Wesley Morgan, The Hardest Place: The American Military Adrift in Afghanistan’s Pech Valley (New York: Random
House, 2021), pp. 76–82.
384 Martin, SIGAR interview, January 12, 2022.

improving Afghanistan’s economy, constructing infrastructure, supporting Afghan media, bolstering the health
and education sectors, and even altering gender relations. The constellation of programs that U.S. government
agencies aimed at these sectors would—according to their designers’ thinking—foster legitimacy and popular
support for the Afghan government, and, thereby, stabilize the country. 386
Although the ultimate failure of those efforts is undeniable, it is also clear that the time and money the
international community committed to Afghanistan over the course of a generation achieved some semblance
of change. Certain aspects of those changes were fleeting, but others may endure, at least in the short term.
Reflecting on the changes of the last 20 years, former Afghanistan Minister of Interior Ali Jalali told us that the
Taliban government “is running on inertia” that will continue for some unknown period of time. 387
Health, Education, and Human Capital Were Among the Most Durable Gains
Perhaps the best-known areas of progress in Afghanistan were in the health and education sectors. 388 In
2013, in response to our request to provide a list of their 10 most successful reconstruction projects, State
and USAID cited advances in public health, including the increased availability of basic health services and
primary healthcare facilities, more trained healthcare workers, improved life expectancy, and reduced
childhood and maternal mortality. 389 USAID pointed out that these gains were achieved by focusing on the
main causes of morbidity and mortality in a country that had some of the worst baseline health indicators in
the world. 390 However, even after achieving those notable improvements, Afghanistan still struggled to contain
outbreaks of treatable diseases due to relatively poor access to healthcare services by international
standards. 391 Furthermore, as we have highlighted in the past, the accuracy of health data in Afghanistan is
subject to significant limitations, particularly benchmark data from the early years of the reconstruction
effort. 392 These limitations notwithstanding, it still appears that Afghanistan has made significant progress in
key health indicators since 2001. 393
As in the health sector, education in Afghanistan showed rapid and dramatic improvements over the last two
decades, although, again, progress was measured from a low benchmark and data limitations obscure the
exact magnitude of the gains. 394 According to USAID, in 2002, an estimated 900,000 boys attended school in
Afghanistan, and practically no girls. 395 As we noted in 2021, a quality education for Afghanistan’s young
people—more than 40 percent of the country’s population are below age 14—represents a long-term
investment in the country’s human capital. 396 Indeed, the exponential increase in the number of young people
attending school over the last generation translated into what appears to be dramatic increases in literacy
386 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 38, 137.
388 SIGAR, Support for Gender Equality, SIGAR-21-18-LL, p. i; Afghanistan in Review: Oversight of U.S. Spending in
Afghanistan, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, Subcommittee on Federal Spending
Oversight and Emergency Management, 115th Cong., p. 3 (May 9, 2018) (Statement of Laurel E. Miller, The RAND
Corporation); Justin Sandefur, “Here’s the Best Thing the U.S. Has Done in Afghanistan,” The Atlantic, October 10, 2013.
389 USAID and State, correspondence with SIGAR, May 9, 2013, pp. 2–3.
392 SIGAR, The Risk of Doing the Wrong Thing Perfectly, SIGAR 21-41-LL, pp. 46–47.
394 For example, as we have previously reported, figures for the number of children and youth in school varied widely.
Afghan government enrollment data could not be used to determine attendance rates directly because Afghanistan’s
Ministry of Education counted students who had been absent for up to 3 years as enrolled under the premise that they may
return to school. USAID and State, correspondence with SIGAR, May 9, 2013, pp. 1–2; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-
2017-QR-4, p. 209; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2019-QR-4, p. 152.
395 USAID and State, correspondence with SIGAR, May 9, 2013, p. 1.

rates, including 28.3 points for males ages 15–24, and 19.1 points for females of the same age. 397 Improved
literacy rates may be one of the most enduring and impactful achievements of the last 20 years.
Beyond public education and literacy, the United States and its international partners made concerted efforts
to develop the human capital and institutional capacity of various Afghan government organizations. In both
the public and private sectors, the combination of available opportunities and the training and educational
opportunities provided by the United States and its international partners led to increased human capital and
institutional capacity. Capacity building was imperfect but yielded some positive results. 398 Within the Ministry
of Mines and Petroleum (MOMP), for example, USAID’s efforts to build capacity had mixed results and were
hindered by structural barriers and a lack of commitment from Afghan counterparts. 399 On the other hand, the
Ministry for Rural Rehabilitation and Development (MRRD) has been cited as a model of successful capacity-
building in Afghanistan. 400 Another bright spot in the capacity building effort appears to have been the Ministry
of Finance, where USAID and the U.S. Department of the Treasury provided substantial financial, technical, and
political support. 401
Yet, despite some success in building Ministry of Finance capacity, Afghanistan’s recent history of revenue
collection and financial management is mixed. One year after State and USAID characterized public financial
management and revenue collection as a success story of U.S. programming in Afghanistan, the country
experienced a sudden and dramatic budgetary shortfall that required a bailout from donors, including the U.S.
government. 402 The 2014 bailout should be considered in context, though. As previously noted, even under
normal circumstances, the Afghan government’s operating budget was largely derived from donors: According to
the World Bank, donor grants were equivalent to 52.06 percent of the country’s 2020 expenditures, while
domestic revenues were equivalent to 39.79 percent. 403 Including off-budget (that is, U.S.-managed)
assistance, the proportion of donor financing climbed to almost 80 percent, as we reported in our 2021 High-
Risk List. 404
Women’s Rights, Foreign Investment, and Economic Growth Were Fleeting Achievements
Another perceived success in Afghanistan was the suite of programs designed to alter the role of women in
Afghan society. In 2021, before the collapse of the Afghan government, we documented the significant gains
women experienced in Afghanistan under the U.S.-supported government, including educational attainment,
reduced maternal mortality, participation in the workforce and civil society, and occupying public office. 405
However, unlike the more durable gains in literacy, many of the new roles for women in Afghan society have
been reversed easily by the Taliban, who have imposed new restrictions on women’s ability to participate in
public life. 406 In March 2022, the Taliban declined to open schools for girls beyond the sixth grade, and in May
2022, they ordered women to cover themselves from head-to-toe while in public. 407
397 SIGAR, Support for Gender Equality, SIGAR-21-18-LL, p. 64.

398 SIGAR, Private Sector Development and Economic Growth: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan, SIGAR 18-
38-LL, April 19, 2018, p. 179.
399 SIGAR, Afghanistan’s Oil, Gas, and Minerals Industries: $488 Million in U.S. Efforts Show Limited Progress, and
Challenges Prevent Further Investment and Growth, SIGAR -16-11-AR, January 11, 2016, pp. i, 7, 11.
400 Frauke de Weijer, “Capacity Building in MRRD: A Success Story,” Afghanistan Analysts Network, July 2012, p. 1.
401 SIGAR, Private Sector Development and Economic Growth, SIGAR 18-38-LL, p. 74.
403 World Bank, Afghanistan Development Update: Setting Course to Recovery, April 2021, p. 35.
404 SIGAR, 2021 High-Risk List, SIGAR 21-22-HRL, p. 2.
405 SIGAR, Support for Gender Equality, SIGAR-21-18-LL, p. xi.
406 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2022-QR-2, April 30, 2022, pp. 63, 79–80; Margherita
Stancati and Esmatullah Kohsar, “Taliban Orders Women to Cover Their Faces,” Wall Street Journal, May 7, 2022.
407 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2022-QR-2, p. i; Stancati and Kohsar, “Taliban Orders Women to Cover Their Faces.”

Another fleeting achievement was the increase in private sector investment and economic activity, which was
meant to generate government revenue and enable the Afghan government to become self-sustaining. 408
Between 2001 and 2012, per capita income increased more than fivefold, from $117 in 2001 to a peak of
$669 in 2012. 409 However, these economic gains were driven by a post-conflict recovery and lavish spending
by the international community, and were therefore unsustainable. 410 Meanwhile, the country confronted a
range of forces that undermined organic economic growth. These included poor roads that limited farmers’
access to markets, inconsistent trade practices of neighboring countries, high transportation costs, land
ownership disputes, and a notable lack of reliable and cheap power. 411
But even though the dearth of reliable power in Afghanistan undermined economic activity, the country made
significant advances in electrification (even if misleading data and the lack of performance indicators meant
the extent of progress was unclear, as SIGAR has pointed out in past reports). 412 For example, USAID said that
its assistance for hydroelectric and solar power development, along with support to the Afghan national power
company, helped increase the share of Afghans with access to reliable electricity. 413 We reported in July 2021
that that figure was approximately 30 percent. 414
Like advances in electrification, the Afghan media blossomed under the Western-backed government. 415
Ambassador Hugo Llorens, who served in Afghanistan from 2012–2013 and again from 2016–2017,
observed that Afghanistan had perhaps the freest press in Central Asia during those periods. 416 However, the
current Taliban government has already curtailed, though not eliminated, free press operations. 417
For two decades, the international community, led by the United States, tried not only to reform wide-ranging
aspects of Afghan society, but to develop formal institutions where none had existed before. The seeds of
change that the United States sowed in Afghanistan may have generated some benefits in the areas of public
health, education, human capital, and communications, but the effort to cultivate viable government
institutions failed. As Ambassador Dobbins told SIGAR, “If you look at longevity, if you look at infant mortality,
maternal mortality, and literacy, you all see that it has left an impact. Now, this impact may be swept away
because all these people starve to death, but … Afghanistan has a more educated population [who are] more
literate, more knowledgeable about the world.” 418
Residual Elements of the Afghan Government Still Exist and Are Functioning,
Although Sustainability is Uncertain
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan no longer exists but many of its government institutions still function under
the Taliban. Running on “inertia” due to some amount of carryover from the prior government, the ministries of
finance, health, economy, and education, among others, and the country’s central bank, have continued to
execute some basic functions. 419 At the same time, the Taliban have dissolved several ministries of the former
409 SIGAR, Private Sector Development and Economic Growth, SIGAR 18-38-LL, p. IX.
411 SIGAR, Private Sector Development and Economic Growth, SIGAR 18-38-LL, pp. XIII, 6, 163–164.
413 USAID and State, correspondence with SIGAR, May 9, 2013, p. 4.
415 John F. Sopko, Remarks Prepared for Delivery, Atlantic Council, March 20, 2014.
416 Llorens, SIGAR interview, April 29, 2022.
417 Dobbins, SIGAR interview, April 20, 2022; Fereshta Abbasi, “Afghanistan’s Taliban Crack Down on Vloggers,” Human
Rights Watch, June 14, 2022.

419 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2022-QR-1, pp. 110, 112, 121; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2022-QR-2, pp. 81,
110–111; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-4, p. 136.

government, such as the Ministries for Peace and Parliamentary Affairs, and have replaced others, such as the
Ministry of Women’s Affairs, which has been supplanted by the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and
Prevention of Vice. 420 The Taliban face several administrative and technical challenges to keeping government
institutions running. These include staffing shortfalls as former civil servants are either in hiding, have fled the
country, or are prevented from returning to work due to the Taliban’s restrictive policies regarding women;
capacity challenges, in that many technocrats in leadership positions have been replaced by Taliban loyalists
and some lower-level individuals have been moved up to work in positions beyond their level of competence;
and uncertainties about the Taliban’s ability to pay civil servants.
The Taliban are using systems and processes developed under the previous government to conduct some
government functions. For example, former acting Minister of Finance Payenda told SIGAR that the Taliban’s
Ministry of Finance continues to use several information management systems carried over from the former
government that international donors helped develop, including the Afghanistan Financial Management
Information System, the Automated System for Customs Data, the State Budget Planning System, and the
Standard Integrated Government Tax Administration System. 421 Payenda stated that the Taliban have used
these systems to develop a quarterly budget and to collect taxes and customs revenue, and have taken
measures to reduce instances of misdeclaration or miscalculations in weight, practices that occurred
frequently under the customs systems used by the previous government. 422 Fieldwork conducted by Dr. David
Mansfield, an independent consultant and expert on Afghanistan’s drug trade, and Alcis, a UK-based
Geographical Information Services company, suggests that since taking power, the Taliban have moved quickly
to regulate and centralize revenue generation on cross-border trade. They have cracked down on corruption at
the border by implementing rules established but “routinely ignored” under the Ghani administration, and
disassembled the patronage system where powerbrokers siphoned off hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes
each year on undeclared goods at border crossings and checkpoints. 423
The Taliban have also maintained some functionality in the health and education sectors, despite significant
funding and staffing shortfalls following the collapse. In our July 2022 quarterly report to Congress, we reported
that a World Bank survey conducted in fall 2021 (October–December) found that improvements in the security
situation had allowed access to health services to remain high, and overall school attendance was found to be
at its highest point since at least 2014 for both boys and girls. 424 However, the Taliban’s subsequent
introduction of varying restrictions and barriers on women’s access to secondary and tertiary education, health
care, and freedom of movement may counteract improvements due to the security situation. 425
The Taliban have even launched a major development project that was initially intended to be implemented
under the previous government: construction began in March 2022 on the Qushtipa Water Canal, which aims
to irrigate 500,000 hectares of land in three northern provinces. 426 That a development project of this scale
could be launched by the current administration shows how much capacity remains in the government, said
Ikram Afzali of Integrity Watch Afghanistan. Such a project would have taken the current Taliban government “5
to 10 years” to come up with, “even if they had all the right people in the right places,” Afzali said. “That’s a

421 Payenda, SIGAR interviews, March 22, 2022 and April 19, 2022.
422 Payenda, SIGAR interview, April 19, 2022.
423 David Mansfield and Alcis, “Changing the Rules of the Game: How the Taliban Regulated Cross-Border Trade and
Upended Afghanistan’s Political Economy,” Cross-Border Conflict Evidence, Policy and Trends (XCEPT), July 13, 2022, p. 5.
424 World Bank Group, “Afghanistan Welfare Monitoring Survey: Round 1,” March 2022, pp. 2, 12–13; SIGAR, Quarterly
Report, SIGAR-2022-QR-2, pp. 63–64.

425 SIGAR, Quarterly Report to the United States Congress, SIGAR-2022-QR-3, July 30, 2022, pp. 6, 8; SIGAR, Quarterly
Report, SIGAR-2022-QR-2, p. 80.

426 USAID, press release, “Feasibility Study for Khush Tepa Irrigation Canal Ceremony Held,” December 10, 2018; “Canal
Project to Employ 200,000 People,” TOLONews, March 30, 2022.

huge example of the capacity that has been created within the state, within the state institutions, to be able to
launch such mega projects even under some very difficult circumstances.” 427
Some interviewees told SIGAR that the continued functioning of government ministries is due to the fact that
many civil servants from the prior regime remain in their posts. The Taliban have installed their own members
in many leadership positions, but have largely kept the lower-ranking civil servants in their jobs. Speaking to us
in January 2022, journalist Charlotte Bellis recounted her experience engaging with government ministries
since the collapse. “If you go to the government ministries now, yes, the head guy is so and so Haqqani, but the
guy … who signs the paperwork is the same guy as was doing it in May [2021]. All those people are the
same.” 428 According to former Afghanistan Minister of Interior Ali Jalali, the Taliban “do not have the technical
know-how to run government, so they left those government people there in the ministries. But they appointed
their own mullahs at the top of every office.” 429 Interviewees have pointed out that institutions such as the
Ministry of Mines and Petroleum, Da Afghanistan Bank, and the Ministry of Finance are still functioning
because of the technical or subject matter expertise that remains at lower levels—evidence, some observers
say, that U.S. efforts to build governance capacity were successful to some extent. Patrick Fine, who served as
USAID mission director for Afghanistan from 2004–2005, told SIGAR, “The continued functioning and
resilience of most government institutions since the Taliban took control provides strong evidence that our
efforts were more effective than even we believed.” 430
The sustainability of these residual elements of the Afghan government may depend, in part, on the Taliban's
access to resources and outside support. Afzali contends that the Taliban’s ability to sustain its current level of
governmental operation may rely on continuation of some sort of support to these institutions. “I don’t see
[how] this would be possible without support from the U.S. agencies, USAID or others,” he said in an interview
with SIGAR. “Not just because of [U.S. donors’] financial resources, but also because of the knowledge of state
building and institution building.” 431 While many international donors have taken a wait-and-see approach to
working with the Taliban on matters of foreign assistance, the UN has affirmed its commitment to engaging
with the Taliban to provide life-saving assistance, sustain essential services, and preserve social investments
and community-level systems. 432 It remains to be seen whether this level and type of assistance will be
sufficient to keep government institutions afloat.
Decisions that the Taliban make about staffing may also affect the long-term sustainability of their governance
efforts. If the Taliban continue to appoint political figures with little technical experience to leadership positions
without investing in training, they may not be able to sustain even basic government functions. Some
interviewees noted that Taliban officials have reached out to former Afghan ministers and asked them to join
the Taliban government—in part, to retain their skills, and in part to establish legitimacy in the eyes of the
international community. 433 To date, the Taliban have allowed some women to remain in government
positions, particularly those in which they are expected to interact exclusively with women and girls, such as in
health care and primary education. However, local Taliban authorities have reportedly required women to have
a male guardian escort them to the office and during other work activities, to work in a separate room from
their male colleagues, and to fully cover their faces or risk being fired from their posts. 434

430 Fine, email correspondence with SIGAR, April 11, 2022.
432 United Nations Development Programme, Afghanistan: Socio-Economic Outlook 2001–2022: Averting a basic needs
crisis, December 1, 2021, p. 12; United Nations Afghanistan, “United Nations Transitional Engagement Framework (TEF)
for Afghanistan,” January 26, 2022, p. 3.
433 Nateqi, SIGAR interview, April 26, 2022; Bellis, SIGAR interview, December 23, 2021.
434 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2022-QR-2, p. 79; David Zucchino and Safiullah Padshah, “Taliban Impose Head-to-Toe
Coverings for Women,” New York Times, May 7, 2022; SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2022-QR-3, pp. 7, 78.

The Taliban’s ability to pay salaries may also factor into their longevity. Some government workers have
remained in their posts despite months of missed salary payments in order to avoid replacement by
unqualified Taliban personnel, but this may change. 435 The UN reported in December 2021 that many current
government employees—as well as thousands of soldiers, police, and security personnel—were not being paid
their salaries, and warned that, with 70 percent of teachers going unpaid, Afghanistan’s education system
could collapse. 436 In November 2021, the Ministry of Finance announced that it had collected approximately
$300 million in revenue, from which it planned to pay the salaries of government employees. The UN reported
that by the end of December, “staff in 61 out of 63 budget units, including 23 ministries and some line
departments in all 34 provinces, reportedly received salary arrears for September and October; however,
challenges persisted in the actual processing of salary payments.” 437
The Taliban, for now, have found it useful to maintain elements of the former Republic’s bureaucracy. A
functioning state serves their interest, especially as they seek recognition from the international community. As
Ali Jalali told SIGAR, “[The Taliban] came, they did not have a government, but they are using the government
that was there before in order to look like a government.” 438 For the time being, the structures, processes, and
norms that were introduced and built up over the last 20 years have not completely disappeared with the
collapse of the Republic, even with “the extraordinary political, resource and management challenges now
facing these systems,” said Patrick Fine. 439 It may be too soon to tell how sustainable the Taliban’s approach
will be. As former SRAP Dobbins told SIGAR, “It could reverse, it could begin to get worse, it could stay at a
constant level, or it could improve. They’ve got more to work with than they had last time, that’s for sure.” 440
CONCLUSION
The United States sought to build stable, democratic, representative, gender-sensitive, and accountable
Afghan governance institutions. It failed. The Taliban dealt a decisive political defeat to the Afghan government,
despite approximately $145.0 billion in U.S. appropriations, including more than $36.2 billion to support
governance and economic development. On August 15, 2021, former President Ghani boarded a helicopter
and fled the country. With that, the two-decade long U.S. effort to transform Afghanistan came to a close.
Some gains were achieved before the Republic’s collapse, and residual elements of the Afghan government
remain. These circumstances, however, offer little consolation. The situation in Afghanistan following the
government’s dissolution reflects a significant deviation from what the United States aimed to help create. On
September 7, 2021, the Taliban announced a 33-person “caretaker” government cabinet. According to the
Afghanistan Analysts Network, the all-male government signaled “to the outside world and other Afghans that
the [Taliban] movement currently sees no reason to compromise with anyone but their own.” 441 Noting that the
de facto Taliban government was a disappointment for any who had hoped or advocated for inclusivity, the UN
stated that there were “no non-Taliban members, no figures from the past government, nor leaders of minority

436 United Nations Development Programme, Afghanistan…, December 1, 2021, p. 13; United Nations Afghanistan, “United
Nations Transitional Engagement Framework (TEF) for Afghanistan,” January 26, 2022, p. 5.
437 UN, Report of the Secretary-General: The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and
security, A/76/667–S/2022/64, February 2, 2022, p. 3.

439 Fine, email correspondence with SIGAR, April 11, 2022.
441 Martine van Bijlert, “The Focus of the Taleban’s New Government: Internal cohesion, external dominance,” Afghanistan
Analysts Network, September 12, 2021.

groups.” 442 Sirajuddin Haqqani, a U.S. Specially Designated Global Terrorist, was appointed as Afghanistan’s
interim interior minister. 443
Whether a different outcome could have been achieved is a question for history. For now, what stands out
most is the significance of the tragedy that unfolded over 20 years. Before the Republic’s collapse, SIGAR had
identified approximately $19 billion of waste, fraud, and abuse in our published reports and closed
investigations. 444 But lives lost were the far greater cost. Overall, the U.S. effort in Afghanistan—one goal of
which was to help the Afghan government become sufficiently legitimate and capable—resulted in the deaths
of 2,456 American and 1,144 allied service members. An additional 20,666 U.S. troops were wounded.
Afghans, meanwhile, faced an even heavier toll. At least 66,000 Afghan troops were killed. More than 48,000
Afghan civilians were killed and at least 75,000 were injured—both likely significant underestimations. 445 If
there is one overarching lesson to be learned from the totality of this tragedy, it is that any future U.S.
reconstruction mission similar in scale and ambition to that in Afghanistan is likely to be difficult, costly, and
defined by the real possibility of an unfavorable governance outcome.
AGENCY COMMENTS
We provided State, USAID, and DOD a draft of this report, which allowed them an opportunity to share their
institutional perspectives with the readership of this evaluation. We received formal written comments from
State, which are reproduced in appendix II. We incorporated these comments, as appropriate. USAID and DOD
declined to provide comments.
State said it appreciated “the opportunity to work closely with SIGAR to ensure transparency and accountability
to the American people regarding U.S. reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan.” However, State noted it had
raised jurisdictional questions about certain aspects of this evaluation. We respond to this comment, as well as
to two others, in appendix II.
442 UN, “Briefing to the United Nations Security Council by the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Afghanistan,
Ms. Deborah Lyons,” September 9, 2021.

444 See, SIGAR, Update on the Amount of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Uncovered through SIGAR’s Oversight Work between
January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019, SIGAR-21-05-SP, October 15, 2020.
445 John F. Sopko, “Development Assistance During Conflict: Lessons from Afghanistan,” testimony before the
Subcommittee on International Development, International Organizations, and Global Corporate Social Impact, Committee
on Foreign Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, 117th Cong., October 6, 2021, SIGAR 22-01-TY, p. 3.

APPENDIX I - SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
This report presents the results of our evaluation of why the Afghan government collapsed in August 2021. It
responds to a September 10, 2021, request from the Chair and Ranking Member of the House Committee on
Oversight and Reform, and the Chair and Ranking Member of its Subcommittee on National Security. The
request asked us to examine (1) the factors that contributed to the collapse of the government of Afghanistan,
and any chronic weaknesses that undermined the government’s authority or legitimacy since 2002, and (2)
the relative success or failure of U.S. reconstruction efforts to build and sustain Afghan governing institutions
since 2002.
The corresponding objectives of this evaluation were to determine (1) the factors that contributed to the
dissolution of the Government of Afghanistan in August 2021, and (2) the extent to which U.S. reconstruction
efforts achieved their stated goals and objectives to build and sustain Afghan governing institutions. In
addressing these objectives, we focused primarily on events, U.S. policy decisions, and reconstruction efforts
that took place from the beginning of fiscal year 2002 (October 1, 2001), until the withdrawal of U.S. personnel
in August 2021. Where we determined they were relevant to the evaluation objectives, we also considered, to
the extent possible, events following the collapse of the Afghan government as the Taliban took control of key
governance functions.
For the purposes of this report, we focused mostly on the collapse of the Afghan government rather than on
the related dissolution of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. SIGAR addressed the collapse of
the ANDSF in a separate evaluation, Collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces: An
Assessment of the Factors That Led to Its Demise. An interim version of this evaluation was published on May
12, 2022, under report code SIGAR 22-22-IP.
To accomplish the evaluation’s objectives, we began by identifying the U.S. government’s strategic governance
goals in Afghanistan. To do so, we used judgmental sampling to select eight U.S. strategic documents that
articulated interagency goals. Those were the following:
• Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-327, 22 U.S.C. § 7501 (2002).
• U.S. Department of State (State) and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Publication
11084, “Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2004–2009,” August 2003.
• State and USAID, “Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2007–2012,” May 7, 2007.
• U.S. Embassy Kabul and U.S. Forces–Afghanistan (USFOR-A), “United States Government Integrated
Civilian-Military Campaign Plan for Support to Afghanistan,” February 2011.
• U.S. Embassy Kabul and USFOR-A, “Civil-Military Strategic Framework,” March 2012.
• U.S. Embassy Kabul and USFOR-A, “United States Government Integrated Civilian-Military Campaign
Plan for Support to Afghanistan,” August 2013.
• State, “Integrated Country Strategy,” 2014.
• State, “Integrated Country Strategy,” Reviewed and Updated November 15, 2020.
We selected these criteria documents to achieve maximum time coverage of strategic governance goals over
the 20-year U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, with priority given to joint documents capturing the goals and
objectives of multiple agencies. In our selection, we sought to minimize the amount of time overlap between
documents and focused on those pertaining solely to U.S. agencies instead of agreements, declarations, or
plans between the United States and international partners.
We then analyzed these documents to identify overarching U.S. governance objectives that served as the
evaluation’s criteria. We determined that, overall, the U.S. sought to build stable, democratic, representative,
gender-sensitive, and accountable governance institutions in Afghanistan. We assessed that this overarching
goal did not materially change from 2002 to 2021. To answer the evaluation’s second objective, we used this
goal as a benchmark to assess U.S. successes and failures in building Afghan governing institutions.

Using our professional judgement and accumulated institutional knowledge, we then identified SIGAR reports
that synthesized data and information relevant to governance in Afghanistan. We based our assessment of
whether individual reports were relevant on the extent to which they examined the aggregate effects of U.S.
efforts, dating back to 2002, to develop Afghan governing institutions. We considered reports published by
SIGAR from October 30, 2008 (the date of our first quarterly report to Congress), to July 30, 2022 (the date of
our most recent quarterly report prior to the completion of this evaluation). We determined that all four of
SIGAR’s High-Risk List reports, ten of its lessons-learned reports, and ten of its audit reports synthesized data
and information relevant to governance. We excluded some SIGAR reports from our analysis on the basis of
their narrow scope, redundancy with other products in our evidence base, or because their subject was
insufficiently directly relevant to governance. We also identified those SIGAR quarterly reports that documented
the specific series of events leading up to, and following, the Republic’s collapse. With a few exceptions, we
determined that quarterly reports published from October 30, 2017, through July 30, 2022, described those
events. We included additional quarterly reports in our evidence base if they presented historical information
about Afghanistan reconstruction that we determined was relevant to the evaluation objectives.
Much of our documentary evidence consisted of previous SIGAR reports. However, these reports rely on data
and information from numerous other entities and individuals, including reporting and responses to SIGAR
requests for information from U.S. government agencies involved in reconstruction, nonprofit,
nongovernmental, and international organizations, various publications that provide insight into the U.S. war in
Afghanistan, other U.S. government research and oversight institutions such as the Government Accountability
Office and the Congressional Research Service, Afghan government reporting, and previous SIGAR interviews
with U.S. and Afghan officials. Information on the scope and methodology for our prior work summarized in this
evaluation can be found in the reports cited. Our analysis also included various other works published from
2006 through 2021, that we determined could provide insight into the dynamics of the Afghan government,
the U.S. war in Afghanistan, and, more broadly, Afghanistan’s history. In selecting these works, we relied on the
professional judgement of the report team, which consisted of analysts with considerable collective experience
working on Afghanistan and conducting research related to it.
The reports and other publications we assembled helped us answer both evaluation objectives. To answer the
first objective, we used these documents to analyze and summarize those factors that consistently
undermined the Afghan government’s authority and legitimacy over a multi-year period, from 2002 to 2021.
We considered these factors to be potential contributors to the Afghan government’s eventual collapse. We
then compared the results of our documentary evidence analysis against the testimonial evidence we gathered
from interviews to determine the major factors contributing to the Republic’s demise. To help answer the
evaluation’s second objective, we determined whether the assembled literature consistently reported on any
successes or failures in meeting U.S. governance goals and objectives.
In addition to reviewing the reports and other publications described above, we conducted over 80 interviews
with more than 60 current and former U.S. officials, former Afghan government officials, and experts on
Afghanistan’s history and social structures. Related to the evaluation’s first objective, we obtained the
interviewees’ assessments of the factors contributing to the Afghan government’s collapse, including those
factors that undermined the Republic’s authority and legitimacy over the course of the two-decade
reconstruction effort. Related to the evaluation’s second objective, we elicited interviewee assessments of U.S.
successes and failures in achieving governance objectives in Afghanistan, including whether any Afghan
government institutions still existed and were functional. We judgmentally selected interviewees based on the
expertise of various agency stakeholders, including SIGAR’s senior subject matter expert (also the agency’s
governance subject matter expert), SIGAR’s special advisor for Afghanistan affairs, the evaluation team, the
director and deputy director of SIGAR’s Research and Analysis Directorate, and SIGAR senior management.
Our criteria for selecting interviewees varied depending on the nature of the information we were seeking. We
selected some interviewees based on their proximity to events surrounding the collapse of the Afghan
government—for example, the negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, and between the

Afghan government and the Taliban. We selected others—for example, former high-level U.S. government
officials—based on our assessment of their ability to provide unique insights into the U.S. approach to building
and sustaining governance institutions in Afghanistan, or into the dynamics within the Afghan government.
Other interviewees—for example, scholars of Afghanistan—we selected because we assessed that their
expertise was relevant to the evaluation’s objectives. In some cases, interviewees were also the authors of
published works we included in the evaluation’s evidence base. We interviewed these individuals to further
understand their views and determine if they had any more recent observations on the situation in
Afghanistan. To broaden the pool of prospective interviewees beyond those known to the stakeholders above,
we sent calls for interview volunteers to the American Foreign Service Association, American Academy of
Diplomacy, and the Army Heritage Center Foundation, who forwarded our invitations to their member lists.
Working with our public affairs team, we also used Twitter to solicit potential interviewees.
We implemented a process for interviewee selection that involved both nomination and supervisory review. This
process varied, depending on the nominator. Nominations submitted by SIGAR’s senior subject matter expert
were subject to supervisory review and approval by our Research and Analysis Directorate’s deputy director.
Nominations submitted by evaluation team members and SIGAR’s special advisor for Afghanistan affairs, as
well as “self-nominations” emerging from our professional association and social media announcements were
first vetted by SIGAR’s senior subject matter expert. 446 In some cases, SIGAR senior management used their
professional judgement to recommend interviewees to the evaluation team. In practice, the majority of
interviewees were nominated by SIGAR’s senior subject matter expert. To coordinate our interviews with other
ongoing reports, including those responsive to additional congressional requests related to the Republic’s
collapse, we established a shared calendar that we populated with the dates of our interviews and the names of
our interviewees. This calendar was accessible to agency stakeholders, including SIGAR’s senior management
team. We conducted our interviews in a semi-structured format that allowed us to seek interviewee responses
to predetermined questions while giving us the opportunity to flexibly ask follow-up questions.
We used the results of our interviews to answer the evaluation’s first objective by comparing the results of our
documentary analysis against the information we gathered from these interviews to expand our understanding
of longer-term factors that contributed to the Afghan government’s collapse since 2002. We also analyzed and
summarized interviewees’ views and observations regarding those factors that may have contributed to the
Republic’s collapse in the years and months prior to its dissolution. For example, we interviewed five members
of the Republic’s negotiating team to understand the dynamics of intra-Afghan negotiations, as well as officials
close to negotiations between the U.S. government and the Taliban. For the evaluation’s second objective, we
used the results of our interviews to both supplement and illustrate the documentary evidence we examined,
as well as to understand whether any Afghan government institutions still existed and were functional. In order
to clarify interviewees’ views and seek further information, we also sent follow-up questions to some
individuals and received written responses.
To structure our analysis, we constructed extensive evidence maps that aggregated much of our documentary
and testimonial evidence, and tied them to each of our findings in order to establish that those findings were
sufficiently supported. Where we determined it was appropriate, we selectively included media reports in these
evidence maps. In order to maximize transparency surrounding our evidence base, our report makes extensive
use of endnotes. Our evidence maps make use of additional sources that are not directly cited in these notes.
The research and analysis presented in this report has several limitations. First, the U.S. government no longer
has a diplomatic or military presence in Afghanistan. To some degree, this limited our analysis of events
occurring after the Republic’s dissolution. For example, we were unable to conduct on the ground research in
Afghanistan, as we have in the past. To address this limitation, we interviewed former Afghan government
officials and other individuals who we determined had information regarding developments in Afghanistan since
the government’s collapse. We also relied on SIGAR’s quarterly reports, which synthesize data and information
446Beginning in March 2022, interviewee nominations were vetted by a supervisory research analyst in SIGAR’s Lessons
Learned Program.

related to recent events, including open-source reporting and responses to requests for information from U.S.
agencies. These quarterly reports also helped us corroborate information provided to us by interviewees.
Additionally, we relied exclusively on non-sensitive, unclassified information. Given that the costs of
reconstruction have been borne by U.S. taxpayers, our goal was to produce a report that required no redactions
and was fully publicly accessible. Moreover, we assessed that the Afghan government’s collapse was a
significant historical event that warranted maximal transparency surrounding its causes. However, it is possible
that some classified or otherwise not publicly available information could shed additional light on the reasons
underlying the Republic’s demise.
We gave State, USAID, and the Department of Defense (DOD) an opportunity to provide information relevant to
the causes of the Afghan government’s collapse, and to make officials available for interviews. However, we
received very few documents from the agencies, and determined that what we did receive was not materially
relevant to our objectives. Additionally, we were able to interview only one current official, from USAID, who was
made available by the agencies. To address these limitations, we interviewed former U.S. and Afghan officials,
and consulted SIGAR’s substantial body of work on reconstruction to understand the dynamics that culminated
in the events of August 2021. We also provided State, USAID, and DOD a draft of this report, which allowed
them an opportunity to share their institutional perspectives with the readership of this evaluation. State
provided official written comments. USAID and DOD did not provide any comments.
Moreover, we sent 13 questions relating to the collapse of the Afghan government to President Ashraf Ghani.
President Ghani declined to answer these questions, choosing instead to respond to allegations of theft that
we assessed in a separate evaluation. 447
Two additional factors limited our work. First, the U.S. government does not recognize the de facto Taliban
regime. Therefore, we did not interview Taliban officials or seek records from them. While unavoidable at this
time, this is a significant gap that should be addressed in future research. Second, as a general matter,
determining with precision the underlying causes of the Afghan government’s collapse is a difficult
undertaking, particularly with limited historical distance from the events. Our hope and expectation is that over
time, many other institutions and historians will seek to address the questions we begin to answer here.
This evaluation should therefore be considered in context, as a report that is limited in its evidence base to
information that is available now, and also subject to the additional limitations described above.
We conducted our work for this report in Arlington, Virginia, and via virtual telecommunication methods from
October 2021 through September 2022, in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspection and
Evaluation, published by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our evaluation objectives.
SIGAR performed this evaluation under the authority of Public Law No. 110-181, as amended, and the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.
447See, SIGAR, Theft of Funds from Afghanistan: An Assessment of Allegations Concerning President Ghani and Former
Senior Afghan Officials, SIGAR 22-35-IP, August 9, 2022.

APPENDIX II - COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE
SIGAR
Comment 1
SIGAR
Comment 2

SIGAR
Comment 3

SIGAR Response to State Comments
SIGAR Comment 1: In a letter to State and USAID on May 6, 2022, SIGAR explained its oversight jurisdiction in
detail. State's assertion now that “it remains unclear how certain aspects of this report relate to SIGAR’s
mandate” is vague and does not address our analysis.
State has previously admitted that Congress’s grant of jurisdiction to SIGAR “is not limited to financial audits of
the expenditure of [these] funds, but rather authorizes SIGAR to conduct oversight of the programs and
activities that utilize such funds.” 448 SIGAR also has the authority to evaluate the effectiveness, sustainability,
and outcome of those same programs and activities, which is something that we have emphasized in our work
from the very beginning. Success is measured not merely by how many schools are built or how many medical
supplies were delivered, but also by the outcome of those and other reconstruction activities taken as a whole.
Congress and the American people want to know why the Afghan government collapsed after $145.0 billion
was appropriated for reconstruction.
SIGAR Comment 2: In the report, we acknowledge that multiple, consecutive U.S. presidents expressed an
interest in exiting Afghanistan. However, we also note that each of these presidents made decisions that
conflicted with this preference. We accurately characterize this as a history of U.S. vacillation on the issue of
withdrawal and, notably, do not state that President Biden also vacillated. Nevertheless, in response to State’s
comment, we made revisions to this section of the report. These revisions acknowledge that President Biden’s
April 2021 announcement, in which the President declared that all U.S. troops would exit Afghanistan by
September 2021, made U.S. intentions clearer.
SIGAR Comment 3: We disagree. As we detail in the report, U.S. strategies for Afghanistan consistently outlined
governance goals that ultimately went unachieved. However, we note that this report, as well as SIGAR’s
broader body of work, provides ample evidence of the Republic’s dysfunction.
448 Letter from Richard C. Visek, Acting Legal Advisor, Department of State, and Margaret L. Taylor, General Counsel, USAID,
to John G. Arlington, General Counsel, SIGAR (April 25, 2022), p. 1.

APPENDIX III - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Evaluation Team
Dan Fisher, Analyst-In-Charge
Daniel Weggeland, Subject Matter Expert
Harrison Akins, Subject Matter Expert
Sarai Arriola-Jacob, Student Trainee
Acadia Brooks, Project Coordinator
Jordan Bresnahan, Program Analyst
Sarah Collins, Research Analyst
Mary Ducharme, Program Analyst
Ahmad Fawad, Senior Program Analyst
Alyssa Goodman, Research Analyst
Mariam Jalalzada, Senior Research Analyst
Paul Kane, Senior Research Analyst
Refael Kubersky, Student Trainee
Omar Sharif, Subject Matter Expert
Jordan Smith, Student Trainee
Luis Vertiz, Senior Program Analyst
SIGAR Management
Joseph Windrem, Director, Lessons Learned Program
David Young, Acting Director, Lessons Learned Program
Deborah Scroggins, Director, Research and Analysis
Michael Bindell, Deputy Director, Research and Analysis
Tracy Content, Reviewer/Editor
Clark Irwin, Reviewer/Editor
Other
Sara Margraf, Director, Quality Control
Audrey Solis, Director, Report Review
Glen Levis, Senior Program Analyst
Jeff Phillips, Report Reviewer
Virginia Vanderlinde, Senior Program Analyst
Tiffani Wallace, Chief Methodologist

This evaluation was conducted
under project code SIGAR E-011.

SIGAR
SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL
FOR AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION
2530 Crystal Drive

Arlington, VA 22202
www.sigar.mil
SIGAR 23-05-IP
Cover photo credit:

Taliban fighters take control of the presidential palace in Kabul, Afghanistan, on August 15, 2021.
(AP photo by Zabi Karimi)
WASTE, FRAUD, OR ABUSE MAY BE REPORTED TO SIGAR’S HOTLINE
By phone: United States

Toll-free: 866-329-8893
DSN: 312-664-0378
All voicemail is in English and answered during business hours.
By fax: 703-601-4065
By email: [email protected]
By web submission: www.sigar.mil/investigations/hotline/report-fraud.aspx

Sigar 23 05 Ip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sigar 23 05 Ip

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sigar 23 05 Ip

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WHY THE AFGHAN

SIGAR 23-05-IP EVALUATION REPORT

The Honorable Carolyn B. Maloney The Honorable James Comer

The Honorable Stephen F. Lynch The Honorable Glenn Grothman

Appendix I - Scope and Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix II - Comments from the Department of State .......................................................................................... 56

Appendix III - Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 59

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page vi

ANDSF Afghan National Defense and Security Forces

DOD Department of Defense

ICS Integrated Country Strategy

OIG Office of Inspector General

SIGACT Significant Activity

State Department of State

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USFOR-A United States Forces–Afghanistan

USIP United States Institute of Peace

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page vii

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 1

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 2

11 SIGAR, Elections, SIGAR 21-16-LL, pp. 15, 23–24.

Demise, interim report, SIGAR 22-22-IP, May 12, 2022, p. 4.

Congress, July 1, 2021–September 30, 2021,” November 16, 2021, p. 6.

18 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, 2021-QR-3, p. 84.

SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-4, pp. 69–71.

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 3

20 Dobbins et al., After the War, pp. 91, 103.

Afghanistan and Pakistan,” December 1, 2009.

(Interim Report), SIGAR 22-22-IP, May 12, 2022, p. 27.

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 4

27 Miller, SIGAR interview, January 21, 2022.

21, USIP Peaceworks, August 2022, p. 21.

10, 2021, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/20/the-secret-history-of-the-us-diplomatic-failure-in-

January 13, 2022.

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 5

Inconsistent U.S. Policies Amplified the Confusion

32 Senior U.S. government official, SIGAR interview.

35 Barfield, SIGAR interview, February 9, 2022.

36 SIGAR, What We Need to Learn, SIGAR 21-46-LL, p. 35.

38 Miller, SIGAR interview, January 21, 2022.

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 6

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 7

Taliban,” Wall Street Journal, April 14, 2021.

57 The White House, “Remarks by President Biden.”

Year 2022,” May 28, 2021, p. 261.

60 Mohib, correspondence with SIGAR, April 13, 2022.

61 Mohib, correspondence with SIGAR, April 13, 2022.

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 8

July 22, 2021).

68 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2021-QR-4, p. 96.

Afghanistan Analysts Network, August 15, 2021.

19, 2019, p. 77.

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 9

72 SIGAR, Reintegration of Ex-Combatants, SIGAR-19-58-LL, pp. 78-79.

77 Mohib, correspondence with SIGAR, April 13, 2022.

78 Fawzia Koofi, SIGAR Interview, December 27, 2021.

79 SIGAR, Quarterly Report, SIGAR-2019-QR-1, p. 112.

SIGAR 23-05-IP/Why the Afghan Government Collapsed Page 10

U.S. and Taliban Negotiators Signed an Agreement