• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
Afghanistan: The Impossible Transition

Source: Getty

Paper

Afghanistan: The Impossible Transition

A combination of two critical problems threatens to undermine the mission of the United States–led coalition in Afghanistan: the failure of the counterinsurgency strategy and a disconnect between political objectives and military operations.

Link Copied
By Gilles Dorronsoro
Published on Jun 15, 2011

Additional Links

Full Text

A combination of two critical problems threatens to undermine the mission of the United States–led coalition in Afghanistan: the failure of the counterinsurgency strategy and a disconnect between political objectives and military operations. If anything, the current strategy is making a political solution less likely, notably because it is antagonizing Pakistan without containing the rise of the armed opposition. That has put the coalition in a paradoxical situation, in which it is being weakened militarily by a non-negotiated and inevitable withdrawal while at the same time alienating potential negotiating partners.

The Obama administration has made new appointments to head the defense and intelligence agencies, and, in Afghanistan, has installed a new leadership to oversee U.S. military forces and named a new ambassador. The U.S. administration must take advantage of these appointments to establish greater coherence in both policy and operations:

  • The 2014 transition anticipated by the coalition is unrealistic because the Afghan army will not be capable of containing an insurgency that is gathering significant strength. If the transition were carried out, it would provide a considerable boost to the insurgency and, ultimately, the defeat of the Karzai regime. The July 2011 withdrawal must not significantly weaken the coalition, or it will create a military and political vacuum and ultimately make the success of the negotiations less likely.

  • In the border provinces of Pakistan, we are now seeing the creation of a sanctuary liable to harbor jihadist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba and al-Qaeda fighters. This is alarming because counterterrorism operations cannot eliminate groups in a sanctuary that is steadily growing larger. Meanwhile, the coalition’s operations are essentially focused on the southern regions where these jihadist groups do not exist. In practice, the only way to contain the threat posed by transnational jihadist groups is to politically reintegrate the Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami into a coalition government in order to isolate the most radical groups.

  • The Western withdrawal therefore inevitably requires a political agreement with the Taliban leadership, which implies abandoning the coalition’s reintegration policy. Confrontation with Pakistan is not an option since American leverage on Islamabad is limited and the Pakistani army has some influence over the insurgents, which would be useful should negotiations take place.

About the Author

Gilles Dorronsoro

Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program

Dorronsoro’s research focuses on security and political development in Afghanistan. He was a professor of political science at the Sorbonne in Paris and the Institute of Political Studies of Rennes.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    Building a Syrian State in a Time of Civil War

      Adam Baczko, Gilles Dorronsoro, Arthur Quesnay

  • Paper
    Waiting for the Taliban in Afghanistan

      Gilles Dorronsoro

Gilles Dorronsoro
Former Nonresident Scholar, South Asia Program
Gilles Dorronsoro

Additional Links

Full Text
South AsiaAfghanistanPakistanSecurityMilitaryForeign Policy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    In the Kremlin’s AI Propaganda Blitz, the Noise Is the Signal

    Russia’s AI-driven propaganda campaigns operate in a fragmented, chaotic, and often illogical manner. That’s not necessarily a problem for the Kremlin, though: It’s much easier to mimic genuine public debate that way.

      Ilya Klishin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Will Trump and Putin’s Diesel Deal Impact Russia and Global Markets?

    Without a ceasefire with Ukraine on attacking each other’s energy infrastructure—to which the Kremlin is unlikely to agree—the diesel agreement between Putin and Trump is largely for show, rather than representing a genuine increase in the volumes of Russian diesel on the global market.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Stalled at the Front, Russia Seeks to Undermine Ukraine’s Economic Capacity

    Russian strikes are weakening the economy sustaining Ukraine’s war effort. Closing the growing funding gap will require more European support and politically contentious reforms in Kyiv.

      Balázs Jarábik

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russian Indoctrination in Occupied Ukrainian Schools Is a Sham

    Despite a new textbook, an influx of Russian teachers and managers, and an end to the teaching of Ukrainian, the Kremlin is unlikely to have “reprogrammed” locals.

      Konstantin Skorkin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    International Demand for Russia’s Arctic Shipping Route Is Unlikely to Last

    Cargo traffic through Russia’s Northern Sea Route has increased because of the disruption caused by the conflict in the Middle East, the Ukraine war, and U.S.-China tensions.

      • Mikhail Korostikov

      Mikhail Korostikov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.