Building Security Institutions: Lessons Learned in Afghanistan
After its rapid military victory over the Taliban, the international community underestimated the resources, time and work that would be required enforce to Security Sector Reform (SSR) in Afghanistan. Even though the Afghan population was supportive of the coalition’s efforts at first, the light footprint approach, fostered by the Europeans, failed to provide with satisfying results as the insurgency made its way through popular frustration.
After the security situation worsened in 2005-6, the US-led coalition intensified the build-up and the training of Afghan national security forces. But internal debates about the role they should play in such a fragmented society, particularly for the Afghan Police, created division between the United States and the other members (especially the European Union countries). On the eve of the withdrawal of ISAF combat troops, Afghan government seems unfit to handle its new security forces that sometimes are the only representatives of the state in remote areas and failed to stabilize the country.
Download the full analysis
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Building Security Institutions: Lessons Learned in Afghanistan
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programsFind out more
Discover all our analysesFury from the Skies. A Strategic Analysis of Air Campaign against Iran
What is the outcome of Operations Roaring Lion (RL) and Epic Fury (EF), launched by Israel and the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026?
Finland: The Ally Who Came in from the Cold
Among all European countries, Finland is perhaps the one whose strategic culture and military model have changed the least since the end of the Cold War. Built after the end of the Second World War to deter a potential new Soviet invasion, this model enabled Finland to serve as an example of European rearmament.
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.