Hubbry Logo
AfPakAfPakMain
Open search
AfPak
Community hub
AfPak
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
AfPak
AfPak
AfPak
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Afghanistan and Pakistan

AfPak (also spelled Af-Pak) was a neologism used within United States foreign policy circles to designate Afghanistan and Pakistan as a single theater of operations. Introduced in 2008, the neologism reflected the policy approach that was introduced by the Obama administration, which regarded the region comprising the Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan as having a singular dominant political and military situation that required a joint policy in their global war on terrorism.[1]

Following sharp criticism from Pakistan, which condemned the hyphenation of the country's geopolitics with Afghanistan, the U.S. government stopped using the term in 2010.[2] In 2017, the Trump administration expanded its Afghanistan policy to a regional South Asia strategy, which sought continued counter-terrorism cooperation with Pakistan, but envisaged a greater economic role for India in Afghanistan;[3] the new approach was dubbed "AfPakIndia".[4]

Origin

[edit]

British writer Michael Quinion writes that the term began appearing in newspaper articles in February 2009.[5] The term was popularized and possibly coined by Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.[6][7] In March 2008 (a year before he assumed the post), Holbrooke explained the motivation behind the term:

First of all, we often call the problem AfPak, as in Afghanistan–Pakistan. This is not just an effort to save eight syllables. It is an attempt to indicate and imprint in our DNA the fact that there is one theatre of war, straddling an ill-defined border, the Durand Line, and that on the western side of that border, NATO and other forces are able to operate. On the eastern side, it's the sovereign territory of Pakistan. But it is on the eastern side of this ill-defined border that the international terrorist movement is located.[5]

According to the U.S. government, the common policy objective was to disrupt, dismantle, and prevent al-Qaeda and its affiliates from having a safe haven from which it can continue to operate and plot attacks against the U.S. and its allies.[8] This policy decision represented a shift from previous ways of thinking about Afghanistan as an independent problem that required a military solution.[citation needed] The AfPak strategy was an attempt to win the “hearts and minds” of both Afghans and Pakistanis.[citation needed]

In 2009, the National Security Advisor under the Barack Obama administration, James L. Jones, proposed reversing the term to "PakAf"; this proposal was met with staunch resistance in Pakistan due to its supposed suggestion that Pakistan was the primary source of difficulty in the war on terror, according to Bob Woodward in his 2010 non-fiction book Obama's Wars.[9]

Impact

[edit]

The term "AfPak" has entered the lexicon of geopolitics, and its usage implies that the primary fronts for the global war on terrorism were in Afghanistan and Pakistan at the time. It has reinforced the message that the threat to United States from pro-terrorist activities masquerading as Islamic religious policy and the resulting infrastructure of fear and disarray in the two countries are intertwined.[1]

Official use of the term within the Obama administration has been echoed by the media, as in The Washington Post series The AfPak War[10] and The Af-Pak Channel, a joint project of the New America Foundation and Foreign Policy magazine that was launched in August 2009.[11][12]

In Pakistan

[edit]

In order to better enforce border security and to halt the cross-border phenomenon that inspired the AfPak label, the Pakistani government authorized the construction of a border barrier with Afghanistan in March 2017.

Criticism

[edit]

The term has been widely criticized in Pakistan.[2] Iranian author Amir Taheri writes that Holbrooke's use of the term has been resented by many Pakistanis, who see Pakistan as "in a different league than the much smaller and devastated Afghanistan."[13] American journalist Clifford May writes that it is disliked by Afghans as well.[14]

Pakistani journalist Saeed Shah mentioned that the international community has always had Pakistan and India bracketed together, and that Pakistan has always historically compared itself with India. He mentions that the United States has lumped Pakistan with Afghanistan under "Af-Pak", a supposed diplomatic relegation, while India is lauded as a growing power. This is a key reason why Pakistan is seeking a nuclear deal with the U.S. as "parity" with India.[15]

In June 2009, former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf criticized the term:

I am totally against the term AfPak. I do not support the word itself for two reasons: First, the strategy puts Pakistan on the same level as Afghanistan. We are not. Afghanistan has no government and the country is completely destabilized. Pakistan is not. Second, and this is much more important, is that there is an Indian element in the whole game. We have the Kashmir struggle, without which extremist elements like Lashkar-e-Taiba would not exist.[16]

As seen by Pakistan, India "should have been" part of a wide regional strategy including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. However, the Indian government argued against the proposition.[17] Answering questions at a June 2009 press conference in Islamabad, Holbrooke "said the term 'AfPak' was not meant to demean Pakistan, but was 'bureaucratic shorthand' intended to convey that the situation in the border areas on both sides was linked and one side could not be resolved without the other".[18] In January 2010, Holbrooke said that the Obama administration had stopped using the term: "We can't use it anymore because it does not please people in Pakistan, for understandable reasons".[2]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

AfPak

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
AfPak is a portmanteau term designating and as an integrated geopolitical and security theater, primarily invoked in U.S. to address the symbiotic challenges of Islamist militancy spanning their shared border. The concept gained traction in under the Obama administration, which reframed efforts to encompass both nations' territories as essential to disrupting and networks that exploit cross-border sanctuaries. This linkage reflects empirical realities of militant mobility, where operations in one country often depend on dynamics in the other, driven by and ethnic affinities rather than formal alliances. The defining feature of the AfPak region is the 2,640-kilometer , demarcated in 1893 by British colonial authorities as the frontier between British India and but never ratified by , fostering enduring disputes over sovereignty and Pashtun tribal lands. recognizes the line as its international , while views it as an arbitrary division that bisects Pashtun populations, enabling insurgents to maneuver through porous, mountainous terrain historically beyond effective state control. This has perpetuated safe havens in 's former (FATA) and adjacent Afghan provinces, serving as bases for groups like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Afghan Taliban, with cross-border raids and smuggling sustaining operations. Empirical data from military engagements highlight the interdependence, as Pakistani operations against militants in the displaced fighters into , amplifying regional instability. Notable controversies include Pakistan's alleged strategic provisioning of Afghan Taliban elements for influence in —aimed at countering Indian presence—yielding blowback via TTP attacks from Afghan soil post-2021, alongside U.S. drone strikes in Pakistani that strained bilateral ties without eradicating core threats. Recent escalations, such as October 2025 border clashes with divergent casualty claims—Pakistan reporting 200 Afghan fighters killed versus 's assertion of 58 Pakistani soldiers—underscore persistent frictions amid fencing efforts and policies. These dynamics reveal causal chains where weak , irredentist ideologies, and external interventions entrench militancy, complicating stabilization despite initiatives like Pakistan's border barriers.

Definition and Origins

Conceptual Framework

The AfPak conceptual framework emerged as a recognition within U.S. that the security challenges in and are inextricably linked, primarily due to cross-border insurgent sanctuaries and militant networks. This approach treated the two nations as a single operational theater, emphasizing that efforts to stabilize could not succeed without simultaneously addressing militant havens in , where groups like the and maintained logistical and leadership bases. The framework was formalized during a 60-day review in early 2009, chaired by , with input from Ambassador , who popularized the "AfPak" terminology to underscore the need for an integrated strategy. It shifted focus from a primarily Afghanistan-centric model under the Bush administration to a broader regional effort, incorporating military, diplomatic, and economic dimensions to disrupt 's core and prevent its reconstitution. The core objective was articulated as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating and its safe havens, acknowledging Pakistan's tribal areas—particularly North and South Waziristan—as critical enablers of Afghan instability. This conceptualization rested on empirical assessments of militant mobility across the , the poorly demarcated Afghan-Pakistani border, which facilitated retreats into for regrouping and resupply. U.S. intelligence reports from the period highlighted 's (ISI) directorate's historical ties to Afghan mujahideen and subsequent support, complicating bilateral cooperation despite aid incentives. While the framework aimed for causal realism by targeting root enablers of rather than symptoms, implementation faced challenges from 's sovereignty concerns and selective counterterrorism commitments, as evidenced by ongoing militant operations in and .

Development Under Obama Administration

The Obama administration, upon assuming office in January 2009, conducted an interagency strategic review of U.S. policy toward and , prioritizing the region as the central front in the global fight against following the perceived distraction of the under the prior administration. The review, chaired by —a former CIA analyst and senior fellow—integrated military, diplomatic, and development efforts, framing and as a unified operational theater, a conceptual shift encapsulated in the "AfPak" designation. This approach emphasized disrupting al-Qaeda's leadership and safe havens while bolstering the legitimacy of the Afghan and Pakistani governments against and other insurgent threats. On March 27, 2009, President Obama announced the strategy's core elements in a speech at the , committing an additional 17,000 U.S. troops to —bringing the total to approximately 58,000—and outlining a civilian surge involving 400 additional personnel for reconstruction and support. The policy set measurable benchmarks for progress, including Afghan National Army expansion to 134,000 troops by 2011 and Pakistani military operations against militants in border regions, with $1.5 billion in annual non-military aid to to address underlying failures. Consultations during the review included Afghan President , Pakistani officials, allies, and regional stakeholders, though implementation faced early challenges from Pakistan's ambivalence toward targeting Afghan Taliban sanctuaries. A subsequent review in late 2009, informed by General Stanley McChrystal's assessment of deteriorating security, led to the announcement of a 30,000-troop surge, extending U.S. commitment through mid-2011 with conditions for transition to Afghan forces. This escalation refined AfPak by intensifying tactics in key Afghan population centers while expanding drone strikes and intelligence cooperation with , aiming to degrade insurgent capabilities before initiating drawdowns. The strategy's development reflected a data-driven pivot from broad to focused and stabilization, though critics from military circles argued it imposed artificial timelines that undermined long-term operational flexibility.

Strategic Objectives and Components

Military and Counterinsurgency Elements

The AfPak strategy's military components centered on reversing the Taliban's momentum in through a population-centric (COIN) approach, emphasizing the protection of civilians, disruption of insurgent networks, and transition of security responsibilities to Afghan forces. In March 2009, President Obama outlined a shift from a broad effort to focused COIN operations, integrating U.S. and troop increases with accelerated training of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and (ANP) to reach a target of 134,000 ANA personnel and 82,000 ANP by 2011. This involved raids against high-value targets, alongside conventional forces securing population centers to deny insurgents sanctuary and facilitate governance. A key element was the December 2009 troop surge, authorizing 30,000 additional U.S. forces—bringing total U.S. troop levels to approximately 100,000 by mid-2010—under General Stanley McChrystal's command, who advocated a "clear, hold, build, transfer" doctrine to prioritize civilian protection over enemy body counts and enable Afghan self-reliance. Empirical assessments post-surge indicated temporary gains in -controlled areas like Helmand and , with operations such as the February 2010 offensive clearing insurgents and establishing Afghan governance outposts, though casualty data showed U.S. forces suffering over 300 deaths in 2010 alone amid persistent asymmetric threats. The strategy linked Afghan military progress to Pakistani actions, conditioning $1.5 billion annual aid on Islamabad's offensives against sanctuaries in the (FATA). Counterinsurgency tactics drew from updated U.S. Field Manual 3-24, stressing intelligence-driven targeting and civil-military integration, but faced causal challenges from cross-border flows and limited Afghan institutional capacity, as evidenced by ANSF attrition rates exceeding 20% annually despite investments exceeding $20 billion by 2010. In , U.S. support included $2 billion in military reimbursements for operations like the 2009 Swat Valley campaign, which displaced over 2 million civilians but degraded Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) leadership; concurrently, CIA drone strikes in FATA eliminated 20-30 high-value targets by 2010, though they correlated with civilian casualties estimates of 10-20% of total strikes per independent audits. These elements aimed at dismantling al-Qaeda's safe havens but were critiqued for over-relying on kinetic operations without sufficient addressing of vacuums, as Taliban influence rebounded in rural districts by 2011.

Diplomatic and Economic Aid Initiatives

The AfPak strategy emphasized diplomatic engagement to align regional actors with U.S. goals, including improved coordination with Afghan and Pakistani governments and partners. President appointed Richard as Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan on January 22, 2009, tasking him with leading multifaceted diplomacy that integrated civilian, military, and international efforts to disrupt and stabilize the region. 's mandate involved consultations with Afghan President , Pakistani civilian and military leaders, and allies to build capacity and address cross-border militancy, though these initiatives often encountered resistance due to concerns in . Economic formed a core pillar to foster development and undercut insurgent support, with the Obama administration prioritizing non-military assistance to promote . In , the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009—commonly known as the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act—authorized $7.5 billion in civilian from fiscal years 2010 to 2014, tripling annual U.S. economic and development funding to $1.5 billion focused on , , , and democratic institutions. Signed into law on October 15, 2009, the act conditioned on certifications of Pakistani cooperation against while aiming to shift emphasis from short-term grants to long-term economic partnerships. For Afghanistan, the strategy directed substantial increases in U.S. foreign assistance through the State Department and USAID, integrating economic programs into counterinsurgency operations under the "clear, hold, build" framework to generate jobs, revenue, and infrastructure. Annual U.S. appropriations supported sectors like agriculture, energy, and rule-of-law initiatives, with total post-2001 aid exceeding $100 billion by 2014, much allocated during the AfPak period to reduce aid dependency via domestic revenue growth. These efforts included international pledges coordinated through mechanisms like the 2010 Kabul Conference, though delivery faced challenges from corruption and insecurity.

Implementation and Key Operations

Troop Surge and Afghan Operations

In response to deteriorating security conditions in , General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. and forces, submitted an initial assessment on August 30, 2009, recommending additional troops and a shift toward a population-centric strategy to reverse momentum and protect key population centers. The assessment highlighted insufficient force levels, with U.S. troops numbering approximately 68,000 by late 2009, and warned that without rapid reinforcement, the risked becoming entrenched. On December 1, 2009, President announced a troop surge, authorizing the deployment of 30,000 additional U.S. forces to , increasing total U.S. troop levels to over 100,000 by mid-2010, alongside commitments from allies for about 5,000-7,000 more personnel. The surge aimed to conduct clear-hold-build operations in strongholds, particularly in southern provinces like Helmand and , with a planned transition to Afghan forces beginning in 2011. Initial surge units, including and brigades, began deploying in early 2010, with notifications issued as early as October 2009. Major operations focused on , a logistics hub and opium production center. , launched on February 13, 2010, targeted district, involving approximately 15,000 ISAF and Afghan National Army troops, primarily U.S. from the 2nd , alongside British, Danish, and Afghan units. The offensive cleared fighters from the area after intense urban combat, establishing government outposts and initiating governance and development efforts, though insurgents employed improvised explosive devices and , resulting in over 60 casualties during the initial assault. In , the 's spiritual and operational heartland, surge forces conducted shaping operations from summer 2010, combining raids with conventional clears to disrupt command structures and secure Arghandab, Panjwai, and Zhari districts. These efforts involved U.S. Army brigades, such as the , working with Afghan partners to dismantle roadside bomb networks and interdict supply lines, temporarily reducing control in urban areas like City. Overall, enabled intensified partnered operations with Afghan forces, training over 100,000 recruits by 2011, though cross-border sanctuaries in complicated sustained gains.

Pakistan Engagement and Drone Campaign

The United States' AfPak strategy emphasized cooperation with Pakistan to disrupt militant safe havens in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and North-West Frontier Province, where al-Qaeda and Taliban affiliates operated with perceived tolerance from Pakistani authorities. In March 2009, President Obama outlined the strategy, committing to bolster Pakistan's counterinsurgency efforts against groups like Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) while addressing cross-border support for Afghan insurgents. The US provided substantial aid, including the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act of 2009, which authorized $7.5 billion in non-military assistance over five years (FY2010-FY2014) to promote economic stability and governance reforms as incentives for sustained action against militants. Additional military reimbursements through Coalition Support Funds totaled billions post-9/11, though certification requirements mandated progress on counterterrorism and nuclear security. Despite aid flows, US officials expressed persistent concerns over Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate's ties to the and , viewing them as strategic assets against Indian influence in . A 2010 , based on interviews with Taliban sources, documented ISI provision of funding, training, and safe passage to insurgents, contradicting Pakistan's public denials. Similarly, a leaked and subsequent analyses highlighted ISI orchestration of attacks, such as the 2008 Mumbai bombings via proxies. Pakistan conducted major operations, including the 2009 Swat Valley offensive displacing 2 million civilians and killing 1,600 militants, but US assessments deemed these selective, sparing Afghan-focused groups. Relations frayed after the May 2011 US raid killing in , revealing his undetected presence near a , prompting Pakistan to demand an end to unilateral actions. Parallel to diplomatic engagement, the escalated a CIA-led drone campaign in Pakistan's tribal regions to target high-value militants without ground troop risks. The first acknowledged strike occurred on June 19, 2004, near the Afghan border, initiating a program that conducted approximately 430 strikes by 2018, primarily in FATA. Under Obama, strikes peaked in 2010 with 117 attacks, killing an estimated 2,200-3,800 militants including leaders like (TTP founder, July 2009) and (November 2013). figures reported fewer than 100 civilian deaths from 2008-2015, asserting a militant-to-civilian ratio below 2% based on intelligence vetting. Independent estimates varied, with the New America Foundation tallying 384-807 civilian fatalities amid 2,366-3,862 total deaths, while critics cited higher collateral from "double-tap" tactics and faulty signatures. Pakistan initially granted tacit approval for strikes in ungoverned areas via 2004-2006 understandings but later protested sovereignty infringements, filing 2013 petitions after incidents like the November 2011 supply route blockade. The campaign disrupted command but fueled anti-US sentiment, radicalizing locals and straining bilateral ties, as evidenced by post-strike TTP retaliatory attacks killing over 30,000 Pakistanis since 2004. Strikes ceased after 2018 under Trump administration policy shifts, coinciding with FATA's merger into province.

Impacts and Outcomes

Effects in Afghanistan

The AfPak strategy, announced by President Obama on March 27, 2009, emphasized disrupting and preventing a takeover in through a troop surge and enhanced efforts. In December 2009, an additional 30,000 U.S. troops were deployed, bringing the total U.S. force to a peak of approximately 100,000 by mid-2011, alongside allied contributions. This surge temporarily degraded capabilities in population centers like Helmand and provinces, enabling operations that killed key commanders and reduced insurgent momentum in targeted districts. However, the 18-month timeline for drawdown, beginning in July 2011, limited sustainability, as forces exploited safe havens in and adapted tactics, including improvised explosive devices, leading to a resurgence. Enemy-initiated attacks escalated from 372 in 2002 to 40,535 by 2014, reflecting the strategy's inability to decisively weaken the despite intensified operations. The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), built with over $83 billion in U.S. funding, reached nominal strengths of around 350,000 personnel by 2014 but suffered from systemic issues including 24% annual attrition rates by 2020, dependency on U.S. logistical and air support, and corruption such as siphoning $300 million annually. These weaknesses contributed to the ANDSF's rapid collapse in 2021, when forces overran provincial capitals and within weeks of the U.S. withdrawal, controlling nearly the entire country. Reconstruction aid under AfPak initiatives formed part of the $145 billion total U.S. spending from to 2021, with surges exceeding 100% of Afghanistan's GDP by 2010, intended to bolster and development. While some metrics improved—life expectancy rose to 65 years and literacy rates increased (28% for males, 19% for females by 2017)—outcomes were undermined by off-budget channeling (bypassing Afghan institutions), poor oversight, and that inflated contracts and empowered . Counternarcotics efforts, allocated $9 billion, failed to curb opium production, which hit record highs, further funding the . Centralized models clashed with local tribal dynamics, fostering resentment and insurgent recruitment, as U.S.-backed systems prioritized formal institutions over culturally aligned . The strategy's emphasis on rapid stabilization overlooked Afghanistan's fragmented society and the 's deep rural roots, resulting in donor dependency (80% of government expenditures by 2018) and unsustainable , with 31% of $7.8 billion in capital assets abandoned or unused by 2021. exploitation of governance failures, including election disruptions (e.g., 37% of polling stations closed in 2019), eroded public confidence in the Afghan government, paving the way for their 2021 victory. Overall, AfPak's effects in demonstrated the limits of military-centric approaches without addressing underlying , capacity gaps, and regional dynamics, culminating in strategic failure despite tactical successes.

Effects in Pakistan

The AfPak strategy intensified U.S. drone strikes in 's tribal areas, with President Obama authorizing 327 strikes between 2009 and 2013, compared to fewer than 50 prior to his administration. These operations targeted and Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) leaders, including the killing of TTP emir in November 2013 via a strike in North , which disrupted militant command structures and planning. Empirical of strikes from 2004 to 2011 found they correlated with reduced incidence of terrorist attacks, lower lethality, and fewer suicide bombings and IED incidents in , countering claims of significant blowback while supporting U.S. goals. Pakistani government estimates attributed 2,160 militant deaths and 67 civilian casualties to these strikes, though independent verification varied. In response to U.S. pressure and domestic threats, Pakistan expanded military operations against TTP strongholds, conducting offensives in six of seven (FATA) agencies by 2010, including Operation Rah-e-Rast in Swat Valley (May-July 2009) and Rah-e-Nijat in South (June 2009 onward). These efforts, sustained through major campaigns like in North starting June 2014, resulted in the deaths of thousands of militants and significant weakening of TTP operational capacity, though at the cost of over 30,000 Pakistani security personnel and civilian fatalities from since 2001. The operations displaced up to 2 million people from FATA and improved border coordination with U.S. and Afghan forces, but TTP remnants relocated to , enabling partial resurgence by mid-decade. Economic and civilian aid under the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, enacted in October 2009, provided $7.5 billion over five years ($1.5 billion annually) focused on non-military sectors like , , and to bolster Pakistan's stability and counter radicalization. Approximately $700 million supported initiatives by 2013, alongside infrastructure projects, though implementation faced challenges including bureaucratic delays, corruption, and limited absorption capacity, with only a fraction of funds disbursed as intended by 2011. Aid was conditioned on cooperation and democratic reforms, fostering a U.S.-Pakistan Strategic Dialogue that enhanced some institutional trust and flood relief efforts in 2010, yet failed to compel decisive action against Afghan Taliban sanctuaries. Persistent safe havens for Afghan and militants in areas like and parts of North undermined AfPak objectives, as Pakistan's prioritized threats from over fully dismantling these groups, despite U.S. entreaties. Drone strikes and aid conditions strained bilateral ties, fueling public anti-U.S. sentiment and grievances—exemplified by protests after the 2011 raid killing —while highlighting Pakistan's selective counterterrorism approach that targeted anti-Pakistan militants more aggressively than those focused on . Overall, AfPak yielded tactical gains against and TTP but did not resolve Pakistan's strategic hedging, contributing to uneven progress amid thousands of Pakistani terrorism casualties.

Broader Counterterrorism Results

The AfPak under the Obama administration achieved notable tactical successes in degrading 's core operational capacity in the Afghanistan- border region through a combination of drone strikes, raids, and intelligence-driven targeting. From 2009 to 2016, U.S. drone campaigns in conducted over 400 strikes, killing an estimated 2,200-3,500 militants, including key figures such as , founder of the Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP), in August 2009, and reducing 's leadership cadre by eliminating mid- and senior-level operatives. This pressure, as assessed by captured documents, disrupted training, recruitment, and attack planning, forcing the group to operate in smaller, less cohesive cells and diminishing its ability to coordinate complex, 9/11-scale operations against Western targets. A pivotal broader counterterrorism outcome was the elimination of on May 2, 2011, during a U.S. raid in , , which severed 's symbolic and strategic head and further eroded its central command structure. U.S. intelligence assessments indicated that by 2014, 's senior leadership (AQSL) in the AfPak region lacked the capacity for highly effective global operations, with FBI Director stating there was "not a highly capable, functioning AQSL in the Af-Pak area." This degradation contributed to a decline in foiled plots directly attributable to al-Qaeda core, with no major successful attacks on the U.S. homeland originating from the region post-2011, though smaller-scale inspirations persisted. Despite these gains, the strategy's broader effects on global revealed limitations, as 's core weakening prompted a diffusion of threats to affiliates in (AQAP), Somalia (), and (where precursors to ISIS emerged), enabling decentralized and inspirational attacks rather than centrally directed ones. Global trends from 2009 to 2016 showed al-Qaeda-linked deaths fluctuating but not eliminated, with the Institute for Economics & Peace reporting a net decline in overall fatalities by 2016 partly due to operations against core groups, yet a rise in affiliate-driven incidents elsewhere. The persistence of safe havens in ungoverned Pakistani tribal areas and alliances allowed al-Qaeda to rebuild limited resilience, underscoring that while tactical disruptions reduced immediate threats from AfPak, the underlying ideological drivers of global endured, influencing subsequent groups like ISIS.

Criticisms and Controversies

Strategic and Tactical Shortcomings

The AfPak strategy, formalized in March 2009, conflated Afghanistan's internal insurgency with Pakistan's sovereign territorial concerns, treating the two nations as a unified theater despite Pakistan's nuclear status and strategic depth that precluded direct U.S. military intervention. This framing underestimated Pakistan's (ISI) support for the and , allowing safe havens in Pakistan's (FATA) to persist as launchpads for cross-border attacks into , with over 80% of leadership reportedly operating from these sanctuaries by 2010. The policy's reliance on Pakistani cooperation without addressing its double game—receiving $33 billion in U.S. aid from 2002 to 2020 while shielding militants—failed to disrupt these havens, as evidenced by the Taliban's continued resurgence despite U.S. pressure. Strategic overreach manifested in from post-9/11 to ambitious , imposing unattainable goals like a centralized democratic Afghan state amid entrenched tribal and ethnic divisions, without sufficient regional to stabilize Pashtun areas spanning both countries. The civilian surge component, intended to bolster and reconstruction, delivered only about 1,000 personnel by mid-2009—far short of RAND estimates requiring thousands to match one-quarter of military efforts—leaving military operations unsupported and reconstruction fragmented. This imbalance prioritized short-term kinetic gains over long-term political reforms, exacerbating in Afghan institutions, where U.S.-funded programs lost an estimated $19 billion to graft between 2002 and 2020. Tactically, the (COIN) doctrine of "clear, hold, build" achieved localized successes, such as reduced violence in during the 2010 surge of 30,000 U.S. troops, but faltered due to inadequate Afghan partner forces plagued by rates exceeding 30% annually and pervasive corruption that undermined local buy-in. Restrictive , designed to minimize civilian casualties, delayed responses to imminent threats, enabling forces to regroup and plant improvised explosive devices (IEDs), which caused 60% of U.S. casualties from 2009 to 2014. The parallel drone campaign in eliminated mid-level figures—over 2,500 strikes from 2004 to 2018—but inflicted civilian deaths estimated at 300-900, fueling and anti-U.S. protests without eroding core networks, as attacks in Afghanistan spiked 20% post-2011 drawdown. These tactics mistook tactical metrics, like cleared villages, for strategic progress, ignoring insurgents' adaptability and the absence of viable exit conditions.

Regional and Sovereignty Concerns

The U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan's (FATA), initiated in 2004 and intensified under the AfPak strategy, was frequently criticized as a direct violation of Pakistani , as strikes were conducted unilaterally by the CIA without prior notification to Pakistani authorities. By 2013, Pakistan's Foreign Ministry formally protested ongoing strikes by summoning the U.S. , asserting they infringed on national territory despite occasional tacit Pakistani acquiescence earlier in the program. The May 2, 2011, U.S. Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in further exemplified these tensions, executed without informing Pakistani officials and condemned by Pakistan's government as an "unauthorized unilateral action" amounting to an act of war. Pakistan's responded by calling for a review of U.S. ties, highlighting domestic outrage over perceived humiliation, though evidence of Pakistani complicity in sheltering bin Laden weakened Islamabad's sovereignty claims. In Afghanistan, while U.S. operations initially operated under bilateral agreements granting legal basis, Afghan President Hamid Karzai voiced repeated concerns over sovereignty erosion from unilateral tactics like night raids, which involved unannounced entries into Afghan homes and were linked to civilian casualties. Karzai ordered the Afghan Defense Ministry to assume control of such raids in 2011 and demanded their curtailment as a condition for any long-term U.S. presence, arguing they undermined Afghan authority and fueled anti-U.S. sentiment. These protests culminated in negotiations for Afghan-led operations by 2012, reflecting Karzai's push to reassert national control amid public demonstrations against perceived foreign overreach. Regionally, the AfPak approach exacerbated and stability concerns among neighbors, as cross-border militancy and U.S. operations spilled over into , , and . India's strategic apprehensions centered on Pakistan's provision of safe havens for groups like , whose attacks on Indian soil, such as the 2008 Mumbai assaults, were enabled by AfPak-area sanctuaries, prompting to view the strategy as insufficiently addressing Pakistan's dual role in fostering regional terrorism. Iran expressed fears of Sunni extremist spillover from Afghan instability, including influxes and potential threats to its Shia-majority borders, while criticizing U.S. policies for indirectly bolstering resilience. , prioritizing security for its investments in Pakistan and , perceived prolonged U.S. military presence as a counter to its influence, heightening great-power competition over AfPak's geopolitical buffer zones. These dynamics underscored how AfPak's focus on bilateral U.S. engagements often overlooked multilateral implications, contributing to enduring frictions and proxy influences.

Ideological and Long-Term Failures

The AfPak strategy embodied an ideological commitment to exporting and secular to , presuming these models could supplant entrenched tribal loyalties, codes, and Islamist ideologies without foundational societal buy-in. This approach disregarded empirical evidence of 's historical fragmentation, where centralized authority has repeatedly collapsed amid ethnic divisions and religious conservatism, rendering imposed institutions illegitimate to large swaths of the population. SIGAR assessments concluded that the "sought—but failed—to achieve its goal of building stable democratic, representative, gender-sensitive, and accountable " due to mismatched expectations and inadequate adaptation to local realities. Analyses further highlighted that efforts exacerbated instability by empowering corrupt elites and warlords through fraudulent elections, such as the and presidential contests, which eroded public trust without fostering genuine accountability. Compounding this was a failure to prioritize rooted in cultural realism over aspirational , leading to policies that alienated rural Pashtun majorities by promoting urban-centric, Western-aligned reforms incompatible with widespread preferences for Sharia-based governance. The strategy's emphasis on gender equity and , while normatively defensible, clashed with conservative societal norms, fueling propaganda that framed the U.S.-backed regime as a of foreign . This ideological overreach contributed to the Afghan government's inability to cultivate legitimacy, as evidenced by its collapse on August 15, 2021, when provincial capitals fell in rapid succession despite two decades of investment exceeding $88 billion in alone. In Pakistan, the AfPak framework ideologically misjudged the state's strategic calculus, treating it as a reliable partner against while ignoring its "double game" of providing sanctuary and logistical support to the and to maintain influence in and counter . Declassified assessments and intelligence reports confirmed Pakistan's (ISI) role in the Taliban's origins and sustenance, including safe havens in and North , which enabled cross-border attacks that undermined Afghan stability. U.S. totaling over $33 billion from 2002 to 2020 failed to alter this dynamic, as Pakistan's military prioritized hedging against a pro-India Afghan government over genuine counterterrorism cooperation, culminating in the discovery of in on May 2, 2011. Long-term failures manifested in the absence of enduring institutions capable of withstanding insurgent pressure, with the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces disintegrating in weeks due to systemic , desertions, and dependency on U.S. —issues SIGAR attributed to unaddressed political patronage and failure to decentralize power. Pakistan's persistent militancy support perpetuated a problem, allowing affiliates to regroup and export threats, as seen in the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan's attacks and ISIS-Khorasan's emergence. Broader outcomes included empowered regional rivals, with securing mining concessions and expanding influence post-2021, while global gains proved ephemeral, with reverting to a haven for groups like the by 2023. These shortcomings underscore a causal disconnect between resource inputs—over $2 trillion overall—and outputs, rooted in neglecting adaptive, culturally attuned strategies for ideologically driven transformation.

Legacy and Post-AfPak Developments

The U.S. withdrawal from , completed on August 30, 2021, marked the effective end of the AfPak strategy's military phase, resulting in the rapid collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces and the Taliban's recapture of on August 15, 2021. This outcome underscored the strategy's failure to create a self-sustaining Afghan government capable of countering Taliban resurgence, despite over $88 billion invested in Afghan security forces since 2001. No international government has recognized the Taliban's Islamic , leading to frozen foreign reserves, economic contraction of approximately 27% in 2021, and a affecting over half the population. Under Taliban rule, has seen intensified internal conflicts, particularly from the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISIS-K), which claimed eight attacks across and in late 2024 alone, targeting religious minorities and Taliban forces. ISIS-K's capabilities have expanded, enabling external operations such as the March 2024 Moscow concert hall attack killing over 140 and enabling plots against Western targets, with U.S. assessments indicating a marginal increase in terrorism threats emanating from post-withdrawal. The has suppressed , ethnic minorities, and political dissent, enforcing policies that marginalize these groups from public life and services, while failing to dismantle al-Qaeda affiliates despite Doha Agreement commitments. Relations between and have deteriorated since 2021, exacerbated by the 's inability or unwillingness to curb cross-border militant activity. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), ideologically aligned with but operationally distinct from the Afghan , has resurged, launching over 800 attacks in in 2023-2024, a sharp rise from 267 incidents in 2021, often from sanctuaries in . clashes intensified, with reporting the capture of 19 Afghan posts and over 200 fighters killed in October 2025 skirmishes along the . TTP's growth to an estimated 6,000-7,000 fighters by 2025 has strained 's security, prompting operations like the 2024 Zarb-e-Azb revival, yet the Afghan 's refusal to extradite TTP leaders has fueled mutual accusations and economic fallout from deportations of . Broader legacies include the persistence of jihadist networks in the region, with AfPak's emphasis on drone strikes and Pakistan partnerships yielding short-term disruptions but not eliminating safe havens, as evidenced by ISIS-K's global ambitions and TTP's reconstitution. U.S. over-the-horizon capabilities, reliant on regional partners, have conducted limited strikes, such as the 2022 killing of leader in , but assessments highlight ongoing risks of plots against U.S. interests without ground presence. 's bifurcated approach—cooperating on some militants while tolerating others—continues to complicate regional stability, contributing to a environment where terrorism deaths in rose 94% from 2021 to 2023 before slight declines.

References

  1. https://2009-2017-fpc.state.gov/120965.htm
  2. https://fpif.org/the_afpak_paradox/
  3. https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Asia/0110pp_khan.pdf
  4. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/durand-line/
  5. https://ipripak.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/1.-PakAfghan-International-Border-Policy-Brief-2.pdf
  6. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/troubled-afghan-pakistani-border
  7. https://static.rusi.org/assets/Cross-Border_Security_Symposium_FINAL.pdf
  8. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/RL/PDF/RL34763/RL34763.4.pdf
  9. https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/16/the-definition-of-insanity-is-u-s-afpak-strategy/
  10. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/12/taliban-pakistani-forces-trade-heavy-fire-along-afghanistan-border
  11. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/2/25/the-pak-afghan-border-fence-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
  12. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/press-briefing-bruce-riedel-ambassador-richard-holbrooke-and-michelle-flournoy-new-
  13. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the-press-office/whatrsquos-new-strategy-afghanistan-and-pakistan
  14. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-united-states-military-and-diplomatic-strategies-for-afghanistan-and-pakistan-0
  15. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-the-new-afghanistan-strategy/
  16. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2010/12/16/overview-afghanistan-and-pakistan-annual-review
  17. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/was-obamas-2009-afghanistan-surge-based-on-sound-strategy/
  18. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/jfq/jfq-59/jfq-59_75-82_Schrecker.pdf
  19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23527517
  20. https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/20090618Holbrooke.pdf
  21. https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2009a/02/116314.htm
  22. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/unquiet-american-richard-holbrooke-world
  23. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/plaw/111/public/73
  24. https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/senate-unanimously-passes-kerry-lugar-pakistan-aid-package
  25. https://www.cgdev.org/page/aid-pakistan-numbers
  26. https://www.cfr.org/report/us-strategy-pakistan-and-afghanistan
  27. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB292/Assessment_Redacted_092109.pdf
  28. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AUPress/Papers/ap_86_brand_mcchrystals_assessment.pdf
  29. https://www.centcom.mil/MEDIA/NEWS-ARTICLES/News-Article-View/Article/883960/president-calls-for-30000-more-us-troops-in-afghanistan/
  30. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/defense/afghanistan
  31. https://www.army.mil/article/31457/officials_announce_first_afghanistan_surge_units
  32. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111shrg64644/html/CHRG-111shrg64644.htm
  33. https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/US%2520Marines%2520in%2520Afghanistan%2520Anthology.pdf
  34. https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/70-135.pdf
  35. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan
  36. https://www.vifindia.org/article/2025/february/07/Contested-Figures-The-Reality-of-US-Aid-Assistance-to-Pakistan
  37. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/u-s-aid-to-pakistan-by-the-numbers/
  38. https://www.lse.ac.uk/international-development/Assets/Documents/PDFs/csrc-discussion-papers/dp18-The-Sun-in-the-Sky.pdf
  39. https://www.bbc.com/news/10302946
  40. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111shrg53160/html/CHRG-111shrg53160.htm
  41. https://www.newamerica.org/future-security/reports/americas-counterterrorism-wars/the-drone-war-in-pakistan/
  42. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war
  43. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/accuracy-of-the-u-s-drone-campaign-the-views-of-a-pakistani-general/
  44. https://hri.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/publications/CountingDroneDeathsPresserFINAL.pdf
  45. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/after-dead-are-counted-us-and-pakistani-responsibilities-victims-drone-strikes
  46. https://www.icip.cat/perlapau/en/article/the-us-drone-strikes-and-on-the-ground-consequences-in-pakistan/
  47. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/biden-can-reduce-civilian-casualties-during-us-drone-strikes-heres-how/
  48. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-new-strategy-afghanistan-and-pakistan
  49. https://www.sigar.mil/Portals/147/Files/Reports/Lessons-Learned/SIGAR-21-46-LL.pdf
  50. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/war-afghanistan
  51. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/easier-get-war-get-out-case-afghanistan
  52. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/drone-strikes-and-the-u-s-pakistan-relationship/
  53. https://esoc.princeton.edu/publications/impact-us-drone-strikes-terrorism-pakistan-and-afghanistan
  54. https://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan901/aid.html
  55. https://tnsr.org/2022/01/were-drone-strikes-effective-evaluating-the-drone-campaign-in-pakistan-through-captured-al-qaeda-documents/
  56. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-us-takes-on-the-islamic-state-al-qaeda-remains-degraded-but-not-defeated/2014/09/25/1f15c2c0-3eba-11e4-b0ea-8141703bbf6f_story.html
  57. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/al-qaedas-post-911-surge/
  58. https://warontherocks.com/2014/02/al-qaeda-is-alive-and-well-in-afghanistan-and-pakistan/
  59. https://www.economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2016.2.pdf
  60. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-global-state-of-al-qaida-24-years-after-9-11/
  61. https://cdn.cfr.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/Pakistan_Afghanistan_TFR65.pdf
  62. https://quincyinst.org/2020/10/30/the-united-states-must-abandon-the-failed-afpak-approach-to-south-asia/
  63. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Opinion/Outside-View/2009/05/13/Outside-View-Strategic-flaws-in-AFPAK-strategies/18841242219600/
  64. https://www.rferl.org/a/Strategic_Affairs_Analyst_Takes_Broad_View_Of_AfPak_Strategy/1618476.html
  65. https://www.marshallcenter.org/en/publications/security-insights/causes-and-consequences-strategic-failure-afghanistan-0
  66. https://warontherocks.com/2016/12/elephants-in-afghanistan-the-militarys-counterinsurgency-failure/
  67. https://www.cfr.org/article/our-biggest-errors-afghanistan-and-what-we-should-learn-them
  68. http://opiniojuris.org/2013/06/10/guest-post-pakistans-official-withdrawal-of-consent-for-drone-strikes/
  69. https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/15/issue/11/pakistans-sovereignty-and-killing-osama-bin-laden
  70. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2013/7/10/us-bin-laden-raid-was-act-of-war-report-says
  71. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-13398281
  72. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/world/asia/16night.html
  73. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/karzai-wants-afghans-to-take-control-of-night-raids-idUSTRE74R0YZ/
  74. https://www.voanews.com/a/karzai-outlines-conditions-for-us-troops-remaining-in-afghanistan-133947958/148240.html
  75. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2012/04/night-raids-agreement-us-helps-karzai-save-face/329502/
  76. https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/publications/051012_Karim_PakistanNeighbors.pdf
  77. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/wps/ceip/0031300/f_0031300_25338.pdf
  78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24711188
  79. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14736489.2023.2180921
  80. https://www.sigar.mil/Portals/147/Files/Reports/Audits-and-Inspections/Evaluation/SIGAR-23-05-IP.pdf
  81. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/why-afghan-nation-building-was-always-destined-fail
  82. https://costsofwar.watson.brown.edu/sites/default/files/papers/Niland-61615.pdf
  83. https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-collapse-of-afghanistan/
  84. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2018/Lynch-Double/
  85. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-15445047
  86. https://archive-yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/pakistans-dangerous-double-game
  87. https://www.sigar.mil/Portals/147/Files/Reports/Quarterly-Reports/2025-01-30qr.pdf
  88. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45122
  89. https://www.carnegie.org/our-work/article/afghanistan-after-us-withdrawal-five-conclusions/
  90. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/afghanistan/isis-k-goes-global
  91. https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2024-05/ssg-final-report-counterterrorism-afghanistan-pakistan.pdf
  92. https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-asia/afghanistan/report-afghanistan/
  93. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/taliban-afghanistan
  94. https://acleddata.com/report/battle-borderlands-tehreek-i-taliban-pakistan-challenges-states-control
  95. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17467586.2023.2280924
  96. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/10/12/live-afghanistans-taliban-pakistan-claim-inflicting-losses-in-fighting
  97. https://blog.prif.org/2025/01/21/the-resurgence-of-the-pakistani-taliban-implications-for-afghanistan-pakistan-relations/
  98. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/13/an-environment-of-terror-deadly-resurgence-of-pakistan-taliban-gathers-pace
  99. https://www.usip.org/publications/2021/05/evolution-and-potential-resurgence-tehrik-i-taliban-pakistan
  100. https://www.mei.edu/publications/pakistan-afghan-taliban-relations-face-mounting-challenges
  101. https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Global-Terrorism-Index-2025.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.