Introduction
The attacks that happened on September 11, 2001, changed global politics. In response, the US launched Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. They overthrew the Taliban regime with help from the Northern Alliance. Later, the involved parties gathered in Bonn to discuss Afghanistan’s future. This led to the establishment of an interim government under the leadership of Hamid Karzai. The United States’ aims were not just counterterrorism but to turn Afghanistan into a modernised, stable country.
The US Afghanistan policy was considered an example of “nation-building.” President George W. Bush had first suggested it be adapted into a version of the Marshall Plan. Billions were infused into Afghanistan. In turn, attention was diverted by international state actors to rebuilding the country’s institutions, its infrastructure, and the Afghan Military Forces. An allied, NATO-established, ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) was in charge of ensuring the development and was deployed to maintain security in the region. The Afghanistan region had long been considered a ‘failed state’ with no resources available under its regional potentate’s governance. For extended periods of time the nation needed to recover from rampant wars resulting in rampant instability.
Initial attempts accentuated military action and terrorism control. At some point, though, the goal was broadened. The United States switched its attention to the advances of democracy, fostering of institutions, and reconstruction of states. Even with almost two decades of such involvement, however, the results remained fundamentally problematic. The Taliban resumed control of vast areas. The Afghan government was not able to maintain its legitimacy. It was not possible for the institutions to be autonomous and accepted. The 2021 withdrawal of the Afghan National Army highlighted the weakness of the system.
US post-9/11 intervention in Afghanistan is the subject of this essay. The purpose of this paper is to explain the failure to build a viable state. There was substantial investment, but the results were, at best, suboptimal and, in some cases, catastrophically bad. There was an underappreciation of the sociopolitical factors at play in Afghanistan by the US and their allies. There was also an overreliance on the idea that external involvement would result in long-term change.
The principal issue of the research is defined as: what caused the failure of US nation-building efforts in Afghanistan? The investigation will start from the internal limitations and systemic gaps. The reasoning relies on the theory of state building. In this framework, a state should be capable of monopolizing violence, providing services, and gaining legitimised support from a population. In Afghanistan, only some of these objectives were, at best, partially achieved. Security forces were established but remained reliant on foreign aid. While institutions were constructed, the people had no trust.
Afghanistan has always historically struggled with a weak centre. For centuries power was constructed around tribal affiliations and local networks. Attempts at centralization usually did not succeed and were accompanied by foreign meddling. That added some new layers of complication. In the US attempt to build a Western style state post-9/11, they largely ignored the politically sensitive Afghan society and deep-rooted power structures. A considerable amount of decision-making was sidelined, which led many locals to perceive the government as externally imposed and, hence, devoid of legitimacy. The result was that the Taliban’s resurgence was both military and politically integrated.
Western policymakers did not work with the most accurate assumptions. They thought that free and fair democratic elections alongside functioning formal institutions would guarantee peace and stability. However, decisions were practically synonymous with violence and fixing. All levels of government were mired in rampant corruption. Aid was tailored to the preferences of the aid donors instead of local priorities. As John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), noted, the US state-building approach was fragmented and lacked strategic coherence. Bureaucratic timelines dictated projects rather than realities on the ground.
Development projects tended to be implemented in a siloed approach, separate from military operations. In certain contexts, more brutal methods of counterinsurgency were employed, which turned local people against the system. This diminishes the impact of governance and development initiatives. The increased emphasis placed on the military side was often at odds with the political needs of the people. The outcome captures chaos and discontent. Rentier states emerged as a result of the external funding. There was an increasing dependency of the Afghan government on aid, weakening accountability and legitimacy.
Cultural factors were also at play. The western models of governance and the rule of law could not be easily exported. There was almost no understanding of Afghan traditions, identities, and local power structures. Scholars such as Lucy Morgan Edwards have pointed out that legitimacy in Afghanistan is fundamentally based on local trust, and without that trust, institutions cannot function effectively. Many Afghans viewed the Karzai administration as merely an instrument of foreign interests, leaving the Afghan government susceptible to opposition and insurgency.
Discussions among academics and practitioners show that there are multiple reasons for the failure, with some actors attributing failure to management failures and coordination failures; others attribute failure to the resilience of the Taliban and the porous border separating Pakistan and Afghanistan, for example. State-building theory provides us with a useful framework to assess situations. It encompasses three major dimensions: elite bargains, institutional capacity, and public legitimacy. In the case of Afghanistan, there was weak performance in each sphere—elites were fragmented, institutions were hollow, resting on the arbitrary decisions of an elite, and legitimacy was contested.
The sending of additional troops by President Obama in 2009 marked a watershed moment. The goal was to defeat the Taliban and create space for reconstruction, but it did not stop the Taliban’s forward momentum. In 2011, the emphasis shifted yet again, this time to transition and withdrawal, under the assumption the Afghan government was prepared to take over security. It was not. The Taliban advanced as international troops withdrew. The final collapse of the Afghan state in 2021 confirmed its structural weaknesses.
This study has combined theoretical knowledge with evidence. It includes Western and South Asian scholarship, but often Afghan voices and Southwestern Asian perspectives are absent from the mainstream literature. This research makes an attempt to combine and examine those sources with document analysis and thematic readings. Themes included legitimacy, capacity, and sustainability. The objective is to learn why things did—not only what happened.
This research states there were inherent failures based on a fundamental disjunction. External actors imposed a model that did not suit Afghan society. Institutions were built on a top-down—not bottom-up—model; local engagement for accountability was minimal. Consequently, the state exhibited few roots in its society. The international community promoted outputs—passed laws, elections, an army, Security Forces—rather than outcomes, trust, and legitimacy.
Grasping the defeat of nation-building in Afghanistan is more than an academic exercise. And it is not only a moral and political obligation. Millions of Afghans responded to determinations made in Washington, Brussels, and Kabul. They were promised lives shaped by unfulfilled pledges. At a time when the world contemplates two decades of intervention, this work aims to be a straightforward, grounded, and thought-provoking analysis that explains the relationship between the best intentions of policy and the worst outcomes. And, importantly, to determine what is to be learned from it.
Bonn Agreement, 2001
US objectives after 2001 of combating al-Qaeda, overthrowing the Taliban regime, and advancing liberal democracy were couched in military power. The Bonn Accords [1] and the constitutions that followed produced a strongly centralised Afghan state in practice. Bonn introduced the 1964 constitution (now amended in a strong presidency) and appointed Hamid Karzai as the interim leader. Karzai’s government, with significant foreign aid support, fused monarchical and executive authorities into a single office, consolidating power in Kabul. The “heavy foreign hand” of centralization in democratization removed Afghan autonomy; the legislature was reduced to a largely symbolic role as the state became reliant on foreign support. Similarly, post-9/11 nation-building reduced Afghanistan to functioning as a “rentier state” economically and militarily reliant on US/NATO assistance. In other words, the early objectives of developing a viable and autonomous Afghan state were sacrificed in line with external control and conditionality, producing limited local legitimacy.
Institutional Implementation and Reconstruction Efforts
Through a combination of security programs, political measures, and development plans, the United States engaged in state-building. International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops established security in Kabul and key provinces; Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) mixed military, civilian, and aid agencies to implement ‘stabilization’ projects. For example, US Civil Affairs teams in PRTs met elders and government officials to assess the needs of the communities and deliver projects (from roads to schools) financed by the United States government at a relatively low cost. [2] While reconstruction in general emphasised building Afghan National Security Forces and governance institutions, in practice multiple parallel systems emerged. The 2004 Constitution revived bureaucratic practices associated with Soviet-style civil service (and thus limited opportunities for decentralization) and established an extremely powerful presidency with authority over appointments.[3] Despite the overarching structure of the president directing the state, Hamid Karzai was forced to quickly consolidate power and recruit former militia leaders—meaning he appointed warlords such as Ismail Khan as provincial governors—to build his coalition.
Governance Structure:
The Bonn Agreement and the 2004[4] constitution emphasised a strong unitary state. Some factions of the Northern Alliance called for federalism; US and Afghan leaders favoured centralization to consolidate control and “watch where our investments were going.” Critics argue that claims to a checks and balance structure were diminished, as the single nontransferable vote meant little to bolster parties or parliament, resulting in an extremely powerful president.
Security and Development Nexus:
US strategy fused military and development goals (counterinsurgency doctrine). PRTs and programs like the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP) allowed rapid funding of local projects but often bypassed Afghan government channels. RAND researchers observe [5] that such off-budget aid “creates accountability relationships” between communities and foreign donors rather than with Kabul, doing little to strengthen Afghan state capacity. In practice, US personnel often lacked cultural understanding or training for governance, and turnover was high. Moreover, short timelines and poorly coordinated civilian-military efforts hindered recruitment of qualified state-builders, reflecting the fragmented implementation of reconstruction.[6]
Critiques and Lessons of the US State-Building
As of 2014, research critiques seem to reach a consensus regarding US nation-building efforts that were ultimately ineffective. A common thread is that US policies were implemented without proper cognizance of the realities for Afghans.[7] The four administrations of US strategies (military offensives, negotiated settlements, and institution building) were designed with little or no understanding of the realities on the ground and, appropriately, “the critical factor” leading to their failure. There were too much foreign influence and too many conditions in the way of legitimacy with the people. Suhrke (2008) explains that when the “heavy foreign hand” intervenes in democratization, foreign assistance effectively invalidates the institutions they built. Brick Murtazashvili (2022) argues, in a similar vein, that the centralised system in Kabul created distrust as flooding the post-2001 order with foreign aid “fostered corruption,” and Afghans were no longer willing to fight for a government that was unresponsive and far removed from the realities of its citizens.
Corruption and Legitimacy:
SIGAR reveals that corruption substantially oversaw the US mission in Afghanistan from the very beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom and the reconstruction project. By 2005, they found that corruption cut across all aspects of the reconstruction effort, jeopardizing progress made in security, rule of law, governance, and economic growth. We conclude that failure to effectively address the problem means US reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail. When Afghan officials and contractors stole or extorted project funds, ordinary citizens often lost faith in the Afghan state and their international sponsors.
Dependent State and the Rentier Effect:
The literature emphasises Afghanistan’s dependence on external aid. Iqbal used the concept of “rentier state” to describe Afghanistan’s reliance on foreign dollars and direction for its economy and security forces. This meant that it was often Washington who dictated the conditionality of policies, not Kabul. For example, Afghan priorities were not the basis for when, why, or how many projects were funded; instead, they were measured by target metrics. Critics argue that this externalization functionally prevented an independent, self-sustaining Afghan governing system from emerging.
Incoherent Strategy and Coordination:
Another point of critique is the incoherent whole-of-government approach. Civilian agencies (I.e., State, USAID) faced military needs and priorities on a regular basis. Some scholars refer to “civil-military tensions.” Ultimately, PRT missions had mandates and were routinely resource constrained.
Despite vast effort and funding, the literature suggests that US nation-building in Afghanistan ultimately failed to create a resilient, legitimate state. The top-down model clashed with local social structures, endemic corruption and patronage persisted, and chronic insecurity continued.
Internal Structural and Political Obstacles to US-Led State-Building in Afghanistan:
Understanding Afghanistan’s internal socio-political structure helps explain why state-building efforts of the United States were so problematic after 2001. Early on there were aims of defeating al-Qaeda, dismantling the Taliban, and constructing a democratic Afghan state. However, centralization and externally imposed reconstruction plans faced significant internal challenges. Recent history indicates that the model for governance developed in Afghanistan at Bonn (2001) and confirmed in the constitutional drafting in 2004[8] did not match Afghanistan’s historical traditions as an ethnically, tribally, and politically diverse society.[9] Thus, internal structural and political factors—not simple security threats—were critically limiting to the effectiveness and sustainability of US-backed nation-building.
The Centralization Dilemma
A core issue was the design of the new political order itself. The Bonn Agreement restored a 1964 constitutional model that centralised political power, with vast executive powers granted to the president in Kabul. International actors hoped that centralization would engender unity in government while also better enabling bureaucratic coherence. However, this approach did not take into consideration the fractured nature of social and political life in the country. For instance, the “heavy foreign hand” inherent in designing the state and minimizing local ownership led to a political model that turned democratic institutions into shells of meaning.[10] The choice of the unitary model had not only a structural rationale but a political rationale as well, which was largely due to the final federalism proposition of factions of the Northern Alliance to delay the imposition of centralised power from foreign actors. The centralization of state power had a number of implications. First, it weakened the ability of both the legislative institutions and provincial institutions of governance to act independently of the political centre, to the detriment of the provinces. Second, and most notably, it did not account for local governance practices that had existed before state-building, such as local shuras, jirgas, and tribal councils that had mediated conflict and provided service and resource delivery in Afghanistan. Consequently, the top-down political architecture had no real legitimacy from below.[11]
Warlord Integration and Patronage Politics
Another persistent challenge was the incorporation of warlords into the formal political system.[12] After 2001, many regional strongmen—some of whom had previously been aligned with the mujahedeen—were integrated into governance structures to retain stability in the short term. In fact, Karzai’s method of political survival was dependent on accommodating elite power brokers in various ways by instituting them into official governance structures—for example, through appointments as provincial governors or as ministers. This was not merely a tactical exercise but an indication of an institutional void where formal state sovereignty and authority did not exist or were largely absent.
The empowerment of warlords created a patron-client system of chains of authority and power, which replaced bureaucratic authority and subverted the institutional development of impartial bureaucratic institutions. Although some provided basic service delivery and security to their local constituencies and thus achieved localised legitimacy, they strangled the monopoly on state authority over violence, which is pivotal to Weberian formulations of the nation-state.[13] Rather than the US-backed state structure dismantling warlordism, it legitimated warlordism, causing informal authority to be woven into formal state institutions, blurring the line of demarcation between state authority and faction utopias of authority.
Institutional Incompatibility with Afghan Society
Furthermore, the state-building endeavour failed to aggregate Afghanistan’s various ethnic, tribal, and religious groups into a collective and autonomous national identity. The US Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) faced challenges in reconciling formal governance systems with informal tribal networks, and many US personnel lacked the cultural competency to account for the actors and dynamics in these contexts, resulting in incompatible programmatic interventions that disregarded the socio-political rationales of local populations.[14] For example, US personnel implemented development interventions in which they did little or no consultation or engagement with communities, which led to local actors misusing, abandoning, or resisting the innovations.
The dissonance between externally configured institutions and internally established social norms has led Howell and Lind (2009) to characterise the civil society in Afghanistan as a “renter civil society” in which donor priorities have too profoundly structured the agency of local actors. Instead of being seen as civil actors in their own right, NGOs were seen as extensions of foreign leadership and thus undermined their effectiveness and neutrality in the conflict-affected context.
Additionally, traditional and customary institutions were largely ignored instead of being integrated into the state as a whole. Although jirgas and village councils continued to play a role in society, the national government largely failed to bring them into any formal decision-making setting. The lack of a partnership between the central government and customary institutions stunted the growth of a pluralistic and legitimate governance structure, especially in rural communities where most Afghans live.
Fragmented Implementation and Strategic Incoherence
Although there were good intentions toward the needs of Afghanistan, the lack of interagency coordination resulting from competing diplomatic and military agendas frequently undermined even the best of intentions.[15] US civilian and military agencies typically acted with very different plans and timelines, operating in silos. The CERP (Commander’s Emergency Response Program) enabled military commanders to fund quick-impact projects locally without going through an Afghan ministry, thus undermining the developing nation-state’s own channels, structures, and capacities. The combination of civil-military tensions, lack of coordination, high personnel turnover, and intra-agency disputes further diminished the effectiveness of even the best intentions. It was also the sense of urgency—the political timelines of Washington political staff, rather than the realities of Afghanistan—that provided later legitimacy to unsustainable problem-solving. Nation-building was confused with a technical process supported by an inflow of funds. Nation-building was not so much a technical process as it was a slow process of building trust and larger adaptive capacity. Policies that were “misaligned with the socio-political context of Afghanistan” were therefore reinforced in expectations of failure and ultimate abandonment.
Theoretical variations and pragmatic failure of state-building
State-building efforts in Afghanistan diverged sharply from core theoretical models. Classical Weberian theory favours a state with a monopoly on legitimate force and rational-legal institutions. [16] Similarly, the OECD guidelines declare that state-building is a country-led, demands-driven process of capacity and legitimacy building. In reality, however, the post-2001 intervention imposed a highly centralised, top-down order on a severely fragmented society. Ultimately, a management regime positioned by an elite group, frequently former warlords or their allies, whose agenda often countered popular interests, was the outcome. The Afghan government never achieved Weberian legitimacy or effectiveness; even by 2010 it “would appear to be a centralised power,” was fiscally unsustainable, and outside of major cities was barely functional, it represented “a political elite whose objectives would seem to be at odds with the” interests of the population.
Legitimacy disappeared when international patrons co‐opted discredited actors. Since the Bonn Loya Jirga, US strategy has attached itself to regional strongmen for stability. More than $1 billion worth of cash and weapons was funnelled to armed groups from the Northern Alliance, and warlords deposed by the Taliban were appointed to government. [17] Within this “big tent” approach, former warlords could present themselves as rightful rulers under the international seal of approval without assumption of accountability. NATO’s own analysis states that unaccountable warlords “guarantee security and impose their own local rules … gaining political legitimacy and authority over indigenous populations.” As a result of this negotiation-and-co-option process, the coalition created a “state‐within‐a‐state” mediated by patronage networks instead of a Weberian civil authority. Key ethnic constituencies were alienated: many Pashtun leaders believed they were excluded from the Bonn settlement, which added to popular perceptions that the central government served the interests of outsiders.[18] Consequently, Afghan citizens often understood their government as illegitimate or irrelevant to their lives, resulting in reliance on local power brokers or insurgents for security.
Administrative capacity remained weak throughout. Theoretically, state-building should have built coherent bureaucracies to provide security and services, but in the case of Afghanistan, formal institutions were slow-moving and over-supervised. By the late 2000s the state was “able to function only in cities,” and fundamental public finance and rule-of-law functions continued to reside in Kabul.[19] The provincial and local levels suffered almost complete loss of fiscal autonomy, which in turn required donors to create parallel structures to provide alternative public services. Governance improvements (such as financial management reforms) were undermined by indeterminate bureaucratic implementation and poorly defined incentives. In fact, 80 percent of all aid was disbursed out of normal government channels. The OECD had advised state-building must be locally owned and must depend on a political settlement, but the coalition made every effort to sidestep Afghan institutions where possible. Even the donors “bypassed the Afghan state by and large because of state weakness and corruption,” and this led to dysfunctional state structures.[20]
Top‐level cohesion never developed. The ruling coalition was an awkward amalgam of erstwhile rivals, unable to commit to a common vision for the nation. Many ministers and governors owed their status not to competence and electoral legitimacy but to militia leaders. Personal loyalties, ethnic divides, and rent‐seeking were more important than institutional loyalty. The US and Karzai government sought to co‐opt local bosses with slim hope for ‘renting’ peace in the country. However, this action only weakened cohesion: the warlords continued with their forces in ways that circumvented Kabul. Karzai’s government included warlords like Abdul Rashid Dostum and Atta Mohammad Noor (autonomous power centres). The central elite was, in effect, divided: each element protected its interests while exploiting its state office for patronage. The absence of any cohesive national coalition rendered the regime fragile. All of this is markedly different from Weberian ideals of a bureaucratic apparatus under rational, impersonal rule. The Afghan “state” was a matrix of symmetrical patronage and patron‐client relations.
Endemic corruption suppressed both legitimacy and capacity. By mid–decade observers indicated that corruption reached “the highest levels of the Afghan government,” from Kabul Bank fraud to presidential interference in anti–corruption bodies. Even the Deputy President, Zia Massoud, was alleged to have US$ 52 million in properties in Dubai.[21] Shadow appointments and ghost workers had inflated government payrolls, while bribes were normalised for minimal public services. In a UNODC survey conducted in 2012, half of Afghans paid a bribe for a public service, and Transparency International rated Afghanistan one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Given this, even well‐designed programs could build no trust: improvements in public financial management “did not significantly reduce corruption,” as 80% of transactions continued to be off budget. Donors often aggravated the situation. Rather than building ministries, they funnelled aid through NGOs and provincial reconstruction teams to ensure they “bypassed the state” at every level. As Bizhan writes, off‐budget aid “diverted almost all political, financial, and other resources away” from the government and its abilities to produce popular legitimacy with local institutions. In sum, rampant bribery defeated any realistic Weberian idea of impersonal rule; rather, public trust was lost to a predatory political economy that deviated to the opposite of the OECD goal of building accountable, transparent institutions.
The entrenched failures were due to heavy foreign dependency. Afghanistan became almost entirely aid dependent, with a government and security forces solely funded by foreign sources. To understand this, the IGC study shows that from 2002 to 2010 a cumulative amount of $57 billion flowed into Afghanistan as aid.[22] At first this capacity was on paper only, and while, on paper, the whole nation was becoming more efficient, most aid was off budget and did not allow for sustainable revenue or accountability. A Keynesian stimulus turned into a “vendor state,” where political leaders were more accountable to donors than to citizens. The OECD’s ease of endogenous ownership was ignored. Instead, for better or for worse, policy in Kabul was based largely on foreign priorities. When international forces began handing over tasks to local counterparts, local institutions had no independent base to work from. For instance, NATO’s police training programs by design made Afghans dependent on foreign advisors. The aid flow also distorted political dynamics: as money tapered off in the 2010s, competing factions fought to hang on to remaining resources, deepening mistrust. In that way, Afghanistan became a rentier state, peopled by an elite that is rent seeking, as opposed to a Weberian ideal of a state funded and legitimised from within.
On the ground, military and civilian planners were often focused on incompatible agendas: short-term election legitimacy even as basic order broke down. The analysis in the Journal of Democracy asserts that the international community “inadvertently re-created the maladies that drove instability in past governments” by reverting to Afghanistan’s old, centralised constitution and not devolving power. In short, there was no coherent US strategy, and it abandoned the OECD-principled perspective of balancing short-term requirements with long-term institutionalization.
In sum, US nation-building in Afghanistan fundamentally departed from theory. Instead of a Weberian rational-legal state, what emerged was a hybrid order where power lay with informal sources. Legitimacy was never grounded in consent or effective governance; state capacity was shallow and donor-driven; elite cohesion was undermined by factionalism and corruption. In each case, the intervention failed to observe foundational state-building principles: it ignored local politics, disregarded accountability, and sacrificed institutional development for short-term ends. It is these failures—fundamentally inconsistent with Weberian and OECD models of state formation—that partially explain why the Afghan government ultimately failed.
Conclusion
The US established a rebuilding operation in Afghanistan starting in 2001 which sought to fashion an advanced, self-sufficient democratic state. The extensive financial and military resources invested in the operation did not lead to the achievement of these objectives. The fundamental reason behind this failure exists in the mismatch between worldwide expectations and the true nature of Afghanistan. The US introduced an all-encompassing political system that overlooked Afghanistan’s deep-rooted tribal and ethnic as well as local power systems. The Bonn Agreement and the 2004 constitution created a powerful presidency, yet this moves concentrated authority solely in Kabul, thereby isolating rural districts and their traditional leadership structures. Consequently, the government failed to gain local support since it was viewed as a puppet administration backed by foreign interests. Throughout their two-decade involvement, the United States and their partners worked on establishing institutions yet failed to create essential results such as public trust, accountability, and sustainable governance. The distribution of aid through separate channels instead of Afghan organizations led to both extensive corruption and complete dependency. Warlord-era strongmen were integrated into the formal system as a means of achieving justice and stability but have since made the distinction between formal legal, state, and state-sanctioned power and informal non-state power networks blurry. The “conclusion” was a weak statement: “Let’s not kid ourselves; it was always going to be weak, reliant on foreign donors, and with little capacity for leadership on its own” or gain the legitimacy of the “Afghan People.” Civil-military coordination was lacking, timeliness was forced, and ‘culture’ and long-term engagement were neglected in the strategy from the onset.
In essence, the US–led effort to rebuild Afghanistan failed because, among other things, simply put, it valued expedience, control, and technical fixes over legitimacy, inclusion, and local ownership. Since speed, control, and technical fixes were prioritised, a top-down model of governance was imposed when local actors needed a bottom-up response. Afghanistan never stabilised as the larger state became a fragile amalgamation of externally driven, divided, and disjointed governance models. Corruption, elite disunity, indifference, and disillusionment characterised the state, and in 2021, when the final collapse of the Afghan government occurred, it was not surprising; it was a translation of poor choices from the foundation.
To reiterate, the things to learn from this experience for future state-building enterprises include (1) thinking and understanding about local context; (2) substantial and meaningful participation by local actors; and (3) long-term and consistent building of the institutions from the ground up that are trusted, accountable, and culturally appropriate. No amount of money will build a legitimate state without these three, even if a great deal of coordination goes into the intervention.
Bibliography
Akbaryaar, Frozan. “Afghanistan’s Governmental Structure in the Post- Bonn Era.” International Journal of Political Science and Governance 2, no. 1 (2020): 42–46. https://www.journalofpoliticalscience.com/uploads/archives/2-1-7-282.pdf.
Barfield, Thomas. “Culture and Custom in Nation-Building: Law in Afghanistan, 60 Me.” Maine Law Review 347 (June 2008): 348–59. https://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1279&context=mlr.
Bizhan, Nematullah. “Building Legitimacy and State Capacity in Afghanistan.” In State Fragility: Case Studies and Comparisons, edited by Nematullah Bizhan, 344. Routledge, 2023. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/75937.
Edwards, Lucy Morgan. “State-Building in Afghanistan: A Case Showing the Limits?” International Review of the Red Cross 92, no. 880 (December 2010): 967–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1816383111000099.
Goodhand, Jonathan. “Winning Hearts and Minds? Reconstruction, Governance and Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.” Mount Holyoke College, February 2014. https://offices.mtholyoke.edu/sites/default/files/global/docs/Goodhand.pdf.
Iqbal, Sajid. “International Intervention and State-Building in Afghanistan.” Journal of Security & Strategic Analyses, January 27, 2022. https://www.academia.edu/81663944/International_Intervention_and_State_building_in_Afghanistan_International_Intervention_and_State_building_in_Afghanistan.
Iyengar, Radha, Jacob N. Shapiro, and Stephen Hegarty. “Lessons Learned from Stabilization Initiatives in Afghanistan: A Systematic Review of Existing Research.” RAND Corporation, April 11, 2017. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2987581.
Löfström, Amanda. “A Fatigued State: Exploring the Fragilities of the Afghan State.” www.ui.se, February 2022. https://www.ui.se/butiken/uis-publikationer/ui-paper/2022/a-fatigued-state-exploring-the-fragilities-of-the-afghan-state/.
Mac Ginty, Roger. “Warlords and the Liberal Peace: State-Building in Afghanistan.” Conflict, Security & Development 10, no. 4 (September 2010): 577–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/14678802.2010.500548.
Murtazashvili, Jennifer Brick. “The Collapse of Afghanistan.” Journal of Democracy, January 2022. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-collapse-of-afghanistan/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. “DAC Guidelines and Reference Series Supporting Statebuilding in Situations of Conflict and Fragility POLICY GUIDANCE.” OECD, 2011. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2011/02/supporting-statebuilding-in-situations-of-conflict-and-fragility_g1g125a0/9789264074989-en.pdf.
Parker, Michelle. “The Role of the Department of Defense in Provincial Reconstruction Teams.” RAND Cooperation, September 5, 2007. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT290.pdf.
Schetter, Conrad, and Rainer Glassner. “The Peripheralization of the Center: ‘Warlordism’ in Afghanistan.” Middle East Institute, April 19, 2012. https://www.mei.edu/publications/peripheralization-center-warlordism-afghanistan.
Shad, Muhammad Riaz, and Sajid Iqbal. “From Intervention to Exit: An Analysis of Post-9/11 US Strategies in Afghanistan.” Margalla Papers 25, no. 2 (December 31, 2021): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.54690/margallapapers.25.2.70.
Sopko, John F. 2021. “WHAT WE NEED to LEARN: LESSONS from TWENTY YEARS of AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION.” SIGAR. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo159506/pdf/GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo159506.pdf.
Suhrke, Astri. “Democratizing a Dependent State: The Case of Afghanistan.” CMI – Chr. Michelsen Institute, 2008. https://www.cmi.no/publications/3053-democratizing-a-dependent-state.
Theros, Marika. “Understanding»Local Ownership«in Peacebuilding Operations in Afghanistan.” Bonn: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, December 2012. https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/09522.pdf. Watson, Eleanor. “20-Year US Effort in Afghanistan ‘Marked by Many Failures,’ New Oversight Report Finds.” Cbsnews.com. CBS News, August 16, 2021. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/afghanistan-failures-20-years-oversight-report/
Be the first to comment