Follow us on social

google cta
Afghanistan-rebuild-scaled

Watchdog issues a stinging indictment of US nation building exercise in Afghanistan

The reconstruction was largely a failure that could have been avoided, and SIGAR said this all along. Was anyone listening?

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Today, a key government watchdog released a fortuitously-timed report examining the bipartisan failure of America’s nation-building effort in Afghanistan. "What We Need to Learn: Lessons from Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction" by John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan (SIGAR), is a 122-page indictment of our bipartisan reconstruction mission, outlining key failures that successive administrations made in Afghanistan.

Among the key points:

—  “The U.S. government did not understand the Afghan context and therefore failed to tailor its efforts accordingly.”

—  “No single agency had the necessary mindset, expertise, and resources to develop and manage the strategy to rebuild Afghanistan.”

—  “Billions of reconstruction dollars were wasted as projects went unused or fell into disrepair. Demands to make fast progress incentivized U.S. officials to identify and implement short-term projects with little consideration for host government capacity and long-term sustainability.”

The missteps recorded in today’s SIGAR report come as little surprise, considering the American military’s long, abysmal track-record of coercive nation building. But it is well worth reading.

We spent 20 years pursuing haphazard strategies aimed at ill-defined gains, subjecting millions of Afghans to violence, displacement, or death. Our inability (or unwillingness) to understand Afghanistan’s underlying ethnic, political and social dynamics left us incapable of building sustainable programs that could be led and administered by the Afghan people. 

This report, arriving on the heels of a chaotic withdrawal, underscores the failure of our two-decade long military engagement, and should serve as a nail-in-the coffin for the nation building enterprise, particularly the notion that it could be accomplished through prolonged military engagement.

But I wouldn’t hold your breath. 

Most politicians and media figures appear more concerned with dissecting the immediate, political implications of Biden’s mismanaged withdrawal than examining the incalculable costs of the last two decades. Any proper interrogation of the military-industrial complex that drives America to continue pursuing global hegemony — despite repeated, catastrophic failures — would implicate many of these same individuals. They helped to expend the billions of dollars and thousands of American lives that built the corrupt, ineffective institutions, and networks that SIGAR identifies here and that would fail to stand a fortnight on their own. 

Those who seek to end America’s addiction to American military primacy should recognize the unique opportunity at hand to force a national reckoning with America’s failed foreign policy and the war machine that drives it. 

This week, President Biden signaled that America can, in fact, choose to pursue a different path. Ending costly military interventions in Afghanistan makes room for the development of more enduring models of diplomacy and development-centered engagement in the Middle East and Central Asia. It also frees up precious resources that could be better spent on more existential obligations like fighting climate change or preparing for the next global pandemic. 

But we can’t confuse what’s possible with what’s likely; until the American people grapple with the profound costs and consequences of our nation building projects, we are doomed to continue repeating the same bloody mistakes.


Kabul, Afghanistan 05.10.2012: Armored Vehicle in the streets of Kabul (Karl Allen Mayer/Shutterstock)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
nuclear weapons
Top image credit: rawf8 via shutterstock.com

What will happen when there are no guardrails on nuclear weapons?

Global Crises

The New START Treaty — the last arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia — is set to expire next week, unless President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin make a last minute decision to renew it. Letting the treaty expire would increase the risk of nuclear conflict and open the door to an accelerated nuclear arms race. A coalition of arms control and disarmament groups is pushing Congress and the president to pledge to continue to observe the New START limits on deployed, strategic nuclear weapons by the US and Russia.

New START matters. The treaty, which entered into force on February 5, 2011 after a successful effort by the Obama administration to win over enough Republican senators to achieve the required two-thirds majority to ratify the deal, capped deployed warheads to 1,550 for each side, and established verification procedures to ensure that both sides abided by the pact. New START was far from perfect, but it did put much needed guardrails on nuclear development that reduced the prospect of an all-out arms race.

keep readingShow less
Trump Hegseth Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump, joined by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, announces plans for a “Golden Fleet” of new U.S. Navy battleships, Monday, December 22, 2025, at the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Trump's realist defense strategy with interventionist asterisks

Washington Politics

The Trump administration has released its National Defense Strategy, a document that in many ways marks a sharp break from the interventionist orthodoxies of the past 35 years, but possesses clear militaristic impulses in its own right.

Rhetorically quite compatible with realism and restraint, the report envisages a more focused U.S. grand strategy, shedding force posture dominance in all major theaters for a more concentrated role in the Western Hemisphere and Indo-Pacific. At the same time however, it retains a rather status quo Republican view of the Middle East, painting Iran as an intransigent aggressor and Israel as a model ally. Its muscular approach to the Western Hemisphere also may lend itself to the very interventionism that the report ostensibly opposes.

keep readingShow less
Alternative vs. legacy media
Top photo credit: Gemini AI

Ding dong the legacy media and its slavish war reporting is dead

Media

In a major development that must be frustrating to an establishment trying to sell their policies to an increasingly skeptical public, the rising popularity of independent media has made it impossible to create broad consensus for corporate-compliant narratives, and to casually denigrate, or even censor, those who disagree.

It’s been a long road.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.