thumbnail_Article_-_image_1

Following signing of a peace agreement between the US government and Afghan Taliban on February 29, 2020, which established a timetable for withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan in May 2021, the new Biden Administration has reviewed its Afghanistan strategy. In the light of the US government’s latest Interim National Strategic Security Guidance 2021, which outlined its vision for how it would deal with the world, the Biden Administration had indicated a firm commitment to end America’s “forever wars,” including in Afghanistan, and has now announced to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by September 2021.The interim security guidance also called for an advanced force posture in the Indo-Pacific, given its importance due to US interests in the region, with China seen as one of its largest competitors and Russia as a secondary threat.

Without a closer study of Afghanistan’s current and changing defence, political, and economic landscapes—and their effects on US strategic goals—the future of US policy cannot be effectively assessed. Observers of Afghanistan today are unanimous in their assessment that the security situation in the country is deteriorating. The national political situation is bleak, and widespread corruption in government institutions continues to undermine the regime’s effectiveness and legitimacy. The economic situation is difficult and unlikely to change substantially or rapidly. Therefore, there is no absolutely no doubt that the country’s security and economic situation has been waning continuously after 9/11.

In past US policies on Afghanistan, President George W. Bush, e.g., made it clear after the 9/11 attacks that he wanted a swift, mainly military-focused response. The main goal was to reduce the risk of attacks on the US and its allies from Afghan territory. The military operation went on despite the fact that Afghanistan was on the verge of collapse in 2009 and the US lacked a proper counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. During his presidential campaign in 2008, Barack Obama made Afghanistan a key part of his national security agenda, and in December 2009, he chose the heavy footprint option by sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan as part of a troops’ surge. Following the inability of this surge to deliver a clear victory, the US began a drawdown in July 2011, with the NATO war mission officially ending in December 2014.

In 2015, Afghanistan’s overall political situation was described as a stalemate. Although the Afghan Taliban had battlefield success, they were unable to convert this into a significant political gain, such as overthrowing the Afghan government. Afghanistan remained stuck in a protracted conflict with no end in sight for either side.

The Afghan war entered a new phase with President Donald Trump’s election in 2016. Some critics, including White House aides, had suggested that the US should send more conventional troops to break the conflict’s years-long impasse. The Trump Administration’s first step in charting a new course for the war was to determine a clear and actionable goal. For the military’s continued involvement, Trump agreed to move from a timeline-based approach to a conditions-based approach.

The Trump administration began direct talks with the Taliban in July 2018, without the participation of Afghan government officials, reversing a long-standing US policy of prioritizing a “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned” reconciliation process. On February 29, 2020, after more than a year of official talks between the US and Taliban leaders, the two sides reached an agreement, laying the groundwork for American troops’ withdrawal and talks between Kabul and the Taliban.

Hark 2021! Biden’s challenge in Afghanistan is now one of the most difficult. The so-called peace agreement, on the one hand, is in jeopardy, given the increase in attacks in and around Kabul. Furthermore, Afghan leadership is also suspicious about the Taliban’s intentions and the peace settlement. As a result of all of this, Washington began sending mixed messages. Though Biden was once one of the most vocal advocate of withdrawal from the “endless” Afghan war, he took time to review his Afghan Policy. As per his latest statement, he will not follow the deadline of May 2021 for troops’ withdrawal, rather has chosen a new date September 11, 2021, which will complete two decades of the US’ longest war in Afghanistan.

The Afghan Taliban, who had warned of resuming attacks on the US and its allies in case the deadline set by President Trump last year was not followed, are yet to unfold their revised strategy given this new Biden date. However, they have refused to be part of any US-backed future engagement.

The overall scenario suggests, first, that the Biden Administration is making serious efforts on the ground to make the withdrawal of its forces in Afghanistan possible, but it will take a lot of tough and timely decisions for these efforts to bear fruit. Second, the US has realized that hard power has not resulted in goodwill or advancement of US interests in the region. Third, it is clear that the US is constantly reviewing its Afghan strategy, which suggests that the recent announcement of withdrawal is the result of a well-calibrated policy thought process.

As the US prepares to leave Afghanistan and revise its global engagement policy, pressure on Pakistan has significantly increased to play its vital role to restore peace in the region. Pakistan’s Foreign Office Spokesperson has urged that the troops’ withdrawal must coincide with the ongoing peace process and should be in coordination with the stakeholders in Afghanistan.

President Biden has also asked countries in the region such as Pakistan, India, Russia, China and Turkey to do more which signifies that the US now has priorities that are beyond Afghanistan’s internal stability. No matter what those priorities are, the aim of the US military should be to leave Afghanistan in a way that prevents the country from becoming a safe haven for foreign terrorists again. The fundamental problem has always been that without a stable and secure Afghan government in control of its entire territory, terrorists would continue to seek refuge in Afghanistan—and no Afghan government has ever been able to defend the country on its own.

Etfa Khurshid Mirza is a researcher in the Nuclear and Strategic Affairs program at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS). Her area of interest is emerging technologies and warfare.The article was first published in International Affairs Forum (IAF). She can be reached at @sky_limiter.


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »