Hubbry Logo
logo
Resolute Support Mission avatar
Resolute Support Mission
Community hub

Resolute Support Mission

logo
0 subscribers
Read side by side
Resolute Support Mission
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Resolute Support Mission
Official logo of RSM
Active1 January 2015–September 2021[1]
CountryContributing states: see below
Allegiance NATO[2]
SizePeak Strength: 17,178 (October 2019)[3]
Part ofAllied Joint Force Command Brunssum [citation needed] American contingent responsible to:
United States Central Command
MacDill AFB, Florida, U.S. [citation needed]
HeadquartersKabul, Afghanistan[4]
Mottosتعلیمات، کمک، مشورت (training, assistance, advice)[5]
EngagementsWar in Afghanistan[6]
Commanders
Last CommanderKenneth F. McKenzie Jr.
Notable
commanders		Austin S. Miller
John W. Nicholson Jr.
John F. Campbell
Insignia
Flag
Change of Mission Ceremony from ISAF to Resolute Support, 28 December 2014, Kabul
Badge used to identify personnel part of Resolute Support Mission

Resolute Support Mission (RSM) or Operation Resolute Support was a NATO-led multinational mission in Afghanistan.[7][8] It began on 1 January 2015 as the successor to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which was completed on 28 December 2014.[9][10] Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2189 of 2014,[11] RSM was a noncombat mission aimed at advising and training Afghan security forces to provide long-term security to the country, under the aegis of the U.S.–Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement between the United States and Afghanistan, which was originally supposed to run from 1 January 2015 and was to "remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless terminated with two years' advance notice.[11][12]

The number of troops and contributing nations diminished throughout the mission.[13] In October 2019, RSM had its largest size of troops, which was 17,178.[14][15] Moreover, throughout 2015, the RSM had its peak of contributing nations, which was 42.[15] The US accounted for the largest contingent, while Italy, Germany, and Turkey served leading roles.[16] Intended to play a temporary and transitionary role, the mission gradually withdrew its forces, which numbered around 10,000 at the start of 2021. On 14 April 2021 via a North Atlantic Council Ministerial Statement, NATO announced a drawdown of RSM troops by 1 May,[17] and the mission was terminated early September 2021.[18] The last remaining RSM troops to leave was the 82nd Airborne Division commanded by Major General Christopher T. Donahue, which were withdrawn on August 30, 2021.[19][20]

[edit]

The operation plan for the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) was approved by foreign ministers of the NATO members in late June 2014 and the corresponding status of forces agreement was signed by President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani and NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan Maurits Jochems in Kabul on 30 September 2014.[9] The United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution 2189 in support of the new international mission in Afghanistan.[10]

Objectives and deployment

[edit]

The objective of the mission was to provide training, advice and assistance for Afghan security forces and institutions in their conflict with extremist groups such as the Taliban, the Haqqani network, and ISIS-K.[21][22][23]

USFOR-A SSI

The Resolute Support Mission consisted of approximately 17,000 personnel from NATO and partner nations in Afghanistan. The leader of the operation was at all times identical with the commander of United States Forces - Afghanistan.

Forces were distributed between the central hub at Kabul and Bagram Airfield and four supporting spokes.[9] The spokes were formed by Train Advise Assist Commands (TAACs), which directly supported four of the six Afghan National Army Corps. Train Advise Assist Command - Capital replaced the former Regional Command Capital. TAAC East assisted the 201st Corps from FOB Gamberi in Laghman, TAAC South assists the 205th Corps from Kandahar International Airport, TAAC West assisted the 207th Corps in Herat and TAAC North covered the 209th Corps from Mazar-i-Sharif.[24]

The 203rd Corps located in the south-eastern part of the country saw advisers from time to time from TAAC East (one source described this as "fly to advise").[25] The 215th Corps in the south-west is supported by TAAC South.

U.S. President Barack Obama, in an update given from the White House on 6 July 2016, stated that, following General John W. Nicholson's, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph Dunford's, and U.S. Defense Department Secretary Ashton Carter's mutual recommendations, the U.S. would have about 8,400 troops remaining in Afghanistan through the end of his administration in December 2016.[21]

The residual force of 9,800 troops was withdrawn on 31 December 2016, leaving 8,400 troops stationed at four garrisons (Kabul, Kandahar, Bagram, and Jalalabad).

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) was appointed by the US Congress to oversee the $117.26 billion that Congress had provided to implement reconstruction programs in Afghanistan. The SIGAR's "April 30, 2018 Quarterly Report to Congress" says, "[As of January 31, 2018,] 14.5% of the country's total districts [were] under insurgent control or influence [& an additional 29.2% were] contested[.]"[26]

Collapse and dissection

[edit]
Main article: Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021)

Intended to play a temporary and transitionary role, the mission gradually withdrew its forces, which numbered around 10,000 at the start of 2021. On 14 April 2021 via a North Atlantic Council Ministerial Statement, NATO announced a drawdown of RSM troops by 1 May,[17] and the mission was terminated early September 2021.[18]

The US Forces Afghanistan Forward was the name given by US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, and it continued to have a military presence in the country until all US forces were withdrawn by August 30, 2021.[19][20]

In November 2021 NATO published a factsheet on its 'Afghanistan Lessons Learned Process'. Seven meetings of a committee of NATO civil servants were held and the result was termed a "comprehensive review". John Manza, the committee's chair and the contemporary Assistant Secretary General for Operations, presented a summary that was reviewed and discussed by the NAC Permanent Representatives and the NAC Foreign Ministers. NATO HQ felt it "should consider mechanisms to improve the timeliness and relevance of reporting from the field and for more interactive discussions in the Council."[27][28]

SIGAR reported to Congress with the title "Collapse of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces: An Assessment of the Factors That Led to Its Demise" in May 2022.[29][30]

General David Petraeus, who had commanded for a time around 2010 the precursor ISAF mission to Afghanistan, described the end of the mission as "heart-breaking, tragic and disastrous" as he said "Afghanistan's gone back to the dark ages" in an interview on the release of the UK Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee report on the matter.[31][32] The report said the fact that the then-Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, his Permanent Secretary Philip Barton and Prime Minister Boris Johnson were all on summertime leave when the Taliban took Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, "marks a fundamental lack of seriousness, grip or leadership at a time of [British] national emergency", especially in light of the vacuum left by the flight of President Ashraf Ghani, his cabinet and vaporous government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.[32]

As of June 2022 the Afghanistan War Commission had yet to report.[33]

Contributing nations

[edit]
Map of Resolute Support Mission that documents the partition of responsibilities between allies: TAAC – Capital, TAAC – North, TAAC – South, TAAC – East, TAAC – West
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks to soldiers at Resolute Support headquarters in Kabul, 9 April 2016
A Dutch soldier fires a Panzerfaust 3 in Afghanistan, 30 September 2020. Over 100 Netherlands Armed Forces personnel participated in the Resolute Support Mission.

In 2019, the forces that contributed to the mission were 8,475 Americans that trained and helped Afghan forces, approximately 5,500 Americans engaged in counter-terrorism missions, 8,673 allied soldiers and 27,000 military contractors.[34]

A new type of U.S. unit, the Security Force Assistance Brigades, deployed to Afghanistan in February 2018 to support the mission.[35]

The United Kingdom announced in July 2018 that it sent 440 more British personnel to Afghanistan. Around half of the additional personnel were deployed in August 2018 and the other half followed by February 2019. This increased the total number of British personnel in the country from 650 to 1,090 by early 2019.[36]

The countries that had personnel in Afghanistan as of February 2021 (with complete statistics last published prior to withdrawal) are as follows. The mission was terminated on 12 July 2021, and several countries had personnel in place, before all were withdrawn before 31 August 2021.[7]

Country Number of personnel
(September 2021) 		Number of personnel
(February 2021) 		Date withdrawn
Albania 99 21 June 2021[37]
Armenia 121 4 March 2021[38]
Australia 80 1 July 2021[39]
Austria 16 18 June 2021[40]
Azerbaijan 120[41] 26 August 2021[42]
Belgium 72 14 June 2021[43][44]
Bosnia-Herzegovina 66 23 June 2021[45]
Bulgaria 117 24 June 2021[46]
Croatia 107 (in February 2020)[47] 13 September 2020[48]
Czech Republic 52 27 June 2021[49]
Denmark 135 22 June 2021[44]
Estonia 45 23 June 2021[50]
Finland 20 8 June 2021[51]
France 266 28 August 2021[52]
Georgia 860 28 June 2021[49]
Germany 1,300 29 June 2021[53]
Greece 11 4 July 2021
Hungary 8 8 June 2021[54]
Iceland 3 (in June 2019)[55] Specific date unknown,

but withdrawn by October 2019

Ireland 7 (in March 2016) 6 March 2016[56]
Italy 895 29 June 2021[57]
Latvia 2 3 July 2021[58][citation needed]
Lithuania 40 Late June 2021[59][60]
Luxembourg 2 19 May 2021[61]
Mongolia 233 07 June 2021[62][63]
Montenegro 32 2021
Netherlands 160 24 June 2021[44]
New Zealand 6 29 March 2021[64]
North Macedonia 17 29 June 2021[65]
Norway 101 26 June 2021[44]
Poland 290 30 June 2021[66]
Portugal 174 23 May 2021[67]
Romania 619 26 June 2021[44]
Slovakia 25 16 June 2021[68]
Slovenia 6 20 May 2021[69]
Spain 24 13 May 2021[70]
Sweden 16 25 May 2021[70]
Turkey 600 27 August 2021[71]
Ukraine 21 5 June 2021[72]
United Kingdom 750 28 August 2021[73]
United States 3,500[74] 30 August 2021[75]
Total 0 10,624

List of commanders

[edit]

The Commander of Resolute Support reported to NATO through the Commander of Joint Forces Command – Brunssum, who reported to the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).[76]

The USFOR-A Commander reports to the Commander, United States Central Command (CENTCOM), who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. This reporting relationship is prescribed in 10 USC Section 164(d)(1). The Resolute Support Mission Commander (COMRS) does not have a direct reporting relationship with the Secretary of Defense.

No. Commander Term
Portrait Name Took office Left office Duration
1
John F. Campbell
General
John F. Campbell
(born 1957)		December 28, 2014March 2, 20161 year, 65 days
2
John W. Nicholson Jr.
General
John W. Nicholson Jr.
(born 1957)		March 2, 2016September 2, 20182 years, 184 days
3
Austin S. Miller
General
Austin S. Miller
(born 1961)		September 2, 2018July 12, 20212 years, 313 days
4
Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr.
General
Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr.
(born 1956 or 1957)		July 12, 2021August 31, 202150 days

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Resolute Support Mission

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) was a NATO-led, non-combat mission in Afghanistan that operated from 1 January 2015 until early September 2021, succeeding the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and focusing exclusively on training, advising, and assisting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) as well as relevant government institutions.[1] Established at the invitation of the Afghan government and in coordination with the United States' Operation Freedom's Sentinel, RSM sought to foster self-sustaining Afghan security capabilities capable of independently defending the country and safeguarding its population against internal threats.[1] The mission involved contributions from NATO Allies and operational partners, maintaining approximately 13,000 to 16,000 personnel primarily based in Kabul and regional training centers.[1] RSM emphasized capacity-building in areas such as strategic planning, budgeting, transparency, rule of law, and force generation for the ANDSF, which included the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, with the goal of transitioning full security responsibility to Afghan forces.[1] While official NATO reports highlighted progress in these domains, independent U.S. government assessments, including those from the Government Accountability Office, documented some improvements in fundamental capabilities but underscored ongoing deficiencies in logistics, sustainment, and overall effectiveness that hindered long-term viability.[2] The mission's termination stemmed from NATO Allies' April 2021 decision to withdraw forces by 1 May, aligned with the U.S.-Taliban Doha Agreement of February 2020 and a consensus that no purely military solution existed, though this withdrawal precipitated the swift disintegration of the ANDSF and the Afghan government's collapse in August 2021, revealing the fragility of the trained forces absent continued external support.[1][3]

Establishment

Legal and Political Basis

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) was established as a non-combat NATO-led operation following the conclusion of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mandate on 31 December 2014, with political endorsement formalized at the NATO Wales Summit on 4-5 September 2014. At the summit, NATO heads of state and government, in consultation with the Afghan government, agreed to transition to a train, advise, and assist (TAA) mission aimed at enabling Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) self-sufficiency, reversing prior defense spending declines and committing to sustained alliance support for Afghanistan's stability.[4][5] This decision built on earlier planning from the 2012 Chicago Summit, reflecting a U.S.-led shift under President Obama from direct combat operations to advisory roles, while securing commitments from 39 allies and partners for over 11,000 troops to sustain the mission post-2016.[6][7] Legally, RSM operated under a bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between NATO and the Afghan government in Kabul on 30 September 2014, which provided the framework for troop presence, operational authority, and immunity provisions, ratified by Afghanistan's parliament thereafter.[1] The United Nations Security Council further endorsed this arrangement through Resolution 2189, unanimously adopted on 12 December 2014, which welcomed the NATO-Afghanistan agreement, authorized RSM's TAA activities in coordination with Afghan authorities, and emphasized the mission's role in supporting Afghan sovereignty without direct combat engagement.[8][9] The mission launched on 1 January 2015 at the explicit invitation of the Afghan government, underscoring its consensual political foundation amid ongoing Taliban threats.[1]

Transition from ISAF

The transition from the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) was outlined in the NATO Wales Summit Declaration on September 4, 2014, where Allied heads of state and government committed to establishing a non-combat mission focused on training, advising, and assisting Afghan national defense and security institutions to enable long-term self-sufficiency.[10] [6] This agreement followed the 2012 Chicago Summit's framework for gradually transferring security lead to Afghan forces, culminating in the full transition of responsibilities by December 2014.[11] ISAF's mandate, which had encompassed combat operations since 2001, formally concluded on December 28, 2014, with a handover ceremony at the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan headquarters in Kabul, attended by representatives from NATO Allies and Afghan officials.[12] [13] At that point, ISAF's troop strength had drawn down from a peak of approximately 130,000 in 2012 to around 13,000, reflecting the phased reduction in direct engagement.[14] RSM launched on January 1, 2015, as the successor operation, operating under a United Nations Security Council mandate renewed annually and emphasizing institutional capacity-building over combat roles.[1] [15] The shift prioritized advising at corps level and above, alongside support for Afghan security force logistics and sustainment, with initial troop commitments from 28 NATO Allies and partners totaling about 12,000 personnel.[1] This reconfiguration aimed to address persistent insurgent threats while avoiding indefinite foreign combat presence, though it faced challenges from ongoing Taliban attacks that tested Afghan forces' nascent independence.[14]

Mandate and Objectives

Core Training, Advising, and Assistance Roles

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) primarily conducted non-combat operations centered on training, advising, and assisting the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), including the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP), to enable them to independently maintain security against insurgent threats.[16] These roles were executed through NATO-led structures such as the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A) for institutional capacity building and eight regional Train, Advise, and Assist Commands (TAACs) embedded with Afghan units to deliver on-the-ground support.[17] The mission's advising efforts targeted leadership development, operational planning, and sustainment capabilities without direct involvement in combat operations.[1] Training initiatives under RSM focused on professionalizing ANDSF personnel through formal instruction in tactics, leadership, and specialized skills, often delivered at Afghan military academies, training centers, and in-unit sessions led by coalition advisors.[18] Advisors emphasized building capabilities in areas such as counter-improvised explosive device measures, medical evacuation, and aviation maintenance to reduce reliance on foreign support.[19] By 2017, RSM had trained thousands of Afghan special operations forces, enhancing their regional effectiveness through partnered exercises and equipment familiarization.[20] Advising roles involved embedding coalition personnel at multiple echelons to mentor Afghan commanders on decision-making, intelligence analysis, and force integration, with a shift toward higher-level institutional advising at the Ministries of Defense and Interior for policy and resource management.[19] Operational advising occurred at corps and zone levels via TAACs, where advisors facilitated joint planning and logistics coordination, while tactical advising supported brigade and kandak (battalion-equivalent) units in executing missions.[17] This layered approach aimed to foster independent command structures, though challenges in advisor alignment persisted into 2020. Assistance components provided material and logistical support, including equipment sustainment and infrastructure development, to bolster ANDSF operational readiness without assuming combat functions.[1] RSM advisors assisted in reforming procurement processes and air support integration, contributing to ANDSF capabilities like the 17,000-strong special forces by mid-decade.[20] These efforts were coordinated to align with Afghan-led operations, emphasizing long-term self-sufficiency over direct intervention.[7]

Strategic Goals for Afghan Self-Sufficiency

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM), established in 2015, pursued strategic goals aimed at fostering Afghan self-sufficiency primarily through non-combat training, advising, and assistance to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) and key institutions. The core objective was to develop capable, sustainable ANDSF units and ministries capable of independently securing the country against internal threats, thereby enabling a transition from coalition dependency to Afghan-led security operations.[1][2] This entailed building professional forces with effective command structures, logistics sustainment, and operational readiness, without direct NATO involvement in combat roles.[21] A primary focus was institutional capacity-building within the Afghan Ministries of Defense (MOD) and Interior (MOI), targeting "decisive enablers" such as leadership training, financial management, human resources, and equipment maintenance systems to achieve long-term self-reliance.[22] Advisors worked to align these efforts with Afghanistan's 2017 four-year roadmap for security and defense sector reforms, emphasizing affordable, sustainable force development that could operate with reduced international financial support—projected to cover up to 80% of ANDSF sustainment costs by 2024 under initial plans.[23] At operational levels, goals included advising corps and brigade commanders on planning, intelligence sharing, and counterinsurgency tactics to enhance ANDSF effectiveness in contested areas.[24] These objectives were framed as prerequisites for broader Afghan self-sufficiency, including governance stability and economic viability, with NATO committing to conditions-based withdrawal tied to verifiable progress in ANDSF autonomy.[1] However, official assessments from the U.S. Government Accountability Office emphasized that self-sustainability required addressing systemic challenges like corruption and attrition, which RSM sought to mitigate through targeted advisory programs rather than direct intervention.[2]

Operational Framework

Deployment Scale and Locations

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) began with approximately 13,000 personnel deployed in Afghanistan as of January 2015, drawn from NATO Allies and partner nations focused on non-combat training, advising, and assistance roles.[1] This force level increased to around 16,000 troops by 2017, following pledges from contributing countries to bolster capacity-building efforts for Afghan security forces.[1] The United States accounted for the majority of troops, contributing roughly 12,000 at the mission's start, which declined to about 8,500 by February 2020 in line with U.S. policy shifts toward reduced presence.[25] Further U.S. adjustments reduced personnel to approximately 8,600 by mid-2020, reflecting ongoing transitions amid negotiations with the Taliban.[22] RSM's deployments followed a hub-and-spokes operational framework to enable efficient advising across Afghanistan, with the central hub headquartered at Camp Resolute Support in Kabul and supported by Bagram Airfield.[1] Four regional spokes extended this structure: Mazar-e Sharif in the north for northern command support, Herat in the west, Kandahar in the south, and Laghman in the east, targeting key population centers and security zones.[1] Advisors and trainers were embedded with Afghan National Defense and Security Forces units at various levels, including provincial and district sites, though concentrations remained at secure bases to minimize risks while maximizing institutional training in urban and regional hubs.[1] This dispersed yet centralized model facilitated coverage of Afghanistan's diverse terrain without large-scale combat patrols, adapting to the mission's advisory mandate until the withdrawal in July 2021.[1]

Contributing Nations and Force Contributions

The Resolute Support Mission drew contributions from 36 NATO Allies and partner nations, with troop levels varying over the mission's duration from an initial approximately 13,000 personnel in 2015 to a peak of around 16,000 by 2017 before drawing down to roughly 9,500 by early 2021 amid U.S.-led reductions.[1][16] The United States maintained the largest overall presence, though its RSM-specific commitment stood at 2,500 troops as of February 2021, reflecting a shift toward bilateral advisory roles outside the NATO framework.[16] Other major NATO contributors included Germany (1,300 troops), Italy (895), the United Kingdom (750), and Turkey (600), while partners like Georgia (860) and Romania (619) provided significant numbers relative to their size.[16] These forces were primarily focused on training, advising, and assisting Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, with contributions encompassing staff officers, trainers, logistics support, and force protection units rather than combat roles.[16] Troop numbers reported reflect each nation's total presence in Afghanistan supporting RSM objectives, based on self-reported data from contributing countries, and fluctuated due to national commitments, rotations, and security conditions.[16] Smaller contributors, such as Albania (99 troops) and Denmark (135), emphasized specialized advisory roles.[16]
NationTroops (as of February 2021)
Albania99
Armenia121
Australia80
Austria16
Azerbaijan120
Belgium72
Bosnia and Herzegovina66
Bulgaria117
Czech Republic52
Denmark135
Estonia45
Finland20
Georgia860
Germany1,300
Greece11
Hungary8
Italy895
Latvia2
Lithuania40
Luxembourg2
Mongolia233
Netherlands160
New Zealand6
North Macedonia17
Norway101
Poland290
Portugal174
Romania619
Slovakia25
Slovenia6
Spain24
Sweden16
Turkey600
Ukraine10
United Kingdom750
United States2,500
Total9,592
Contributions from non-NATO partners like Australia, Georgia, and Mongolia highlighted broader international support for Afghan capacity-building, though their numbers were constrained by domestic political and resource limits.[16] By mission's end in August 2021, rapid withdrawals synchronized with the U.S. exit reduced multinational forces to near zero, underscoring the mission's dependence on sustained allied commitments.[1]

Command Structure and Key Leaders

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) operated under NATO's military command structure, with the Commander, Resolute Support (COMRS) serving as the senior operational authority in Afghanistan, dual-hatted as Commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A). The COMRS reported to the Commander of Joint Force Command Brunssum, who in turn reported to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) at NATO headquarters in Mons, Belgium. This hierarchy ensured alignment with NATO's strategic direction while allowing theater-level flexibility for training, advising, and assisting Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF).[1][26] Operationally, RSM's structure centered on a headquarters in Kabul, augmented by regional commands known as Train, Advise, and Assist Commands (TAACs). These included TAAC-Capital in Kabul for ministry-level support; TAAC-North in Mazar-e Sharif; TAAC-West in Herat; TAAC-South in Kandahar; and TAAC-East in Laghman Province. Each TAAC focused on corps-level advising for Afghan army and police units, with specialized elements for air, special operations, and logistics. A critical subordinate command was the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A), headquartered in Kabul, which handled equipping, sustaining, and institution-building for the ANDSF, including budget oversight and infrastructure development.[16][27] Successive COMRS provided continuity amid evolving conditions. U.S. Army General John F. Campbell, previously ISAF commander, led RSM from its inception on January 1, 2015, until handing over command on March 2, 2016.[1] U.S. Army General John W. Nicholson Jr. then commanded from March 2, 2016, to September 2, 2018, emphasizing corps-level sustainability and countering Taliban resurgence.[26][28] U.S. Army General Austin S. Miller assumed command on September 2, 2018, and led through the mission's drawdown, overseeing approximately 16,000 troops at peak and coordinating the final withdrawal announced in April 2021.[28][23] Miller's tenure included dual oversight of CSTC-A, where leaders like U.S. Army Lt. Gen. James B. Rainey (from October 2018) directed ANDSF materiel and training pipelines. Deputies, often multinational, supported COMRS in areas like civilian advising and logistics, with rotations from contributing nations such as Germany and Italy.[23]

Key Activities and Achievements

Training Programs and Capacity Development

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) implemented training programs through five regional Train, Advise, and Assist Commands (TAACs)—Capital, East, North, South, and West—embedded advisors with Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) units to deliver on-site instruction in tactics, leadership, and operations at corps and brigade levels.[22] These efforts emphasized practical advising over direct combat, with U.S. and NATO personnel focusing on enabling ANDSF self-reliance in areas such as logistics, intelligence, and command structures.[1] Institutional capacity development targeted Afghan ministries of defense and interior, supporting reforms in force generation, recruiting, personnel management, and specialized training for the Afghan Air Force via TAAC-Air.[1] Programs included literacy training for recruits, given that up to 80% of ANDSF personnel initially lacked basic reading skills, alongside courses in budgeting, planning, and accountability to foster sustainable governance.[2] By 2017, RSM advising contributed to the Afghan special operations forces reaching approximately 17,000 personnel, described by U.S. officials as the region's most capable due to enhanced equipping and partnering.[29] Mobile training teams extended efforts to remote areas, providing targeted assistance in counterinsurgency tactics and equipment maintenance from 2015 onward.[30] However, SIGAR assessments noted persistent gaps in ANDSF sustainment, with high attrition rates—averaging 20-30% annually—and corruption undermining trained capabilities despite institutional inputs.[31] GAO reports from 2018 indicated some progress in fundamental skills like aviation maintenance but highlighted incomplete data on overall training outcomes.[2]

Institutional Reforms and Support

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) emphasized institutional capacity-building within the Afghan Ministries of Defense (MoD) and Interior (MoI) as a core component of its non-combat mandate, aiming to foster self-sustaining governance over Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) operations. Advisors embedded in these ministries provided training, advice, and assistance (TAA) on key functions such as strategic planning, human resource management, budgeting, procurement, and logistics sustainment, with efforts structured around eight essential functions, including dedicated ministerial advisory teams. This support sought to transition ANDSF from combat dependency to independent institutional viability, as outlined in NATO's mission framework launched on January 1, 2015.[16][22] By 2018, RSM intensified TAA to MoD and MoI leadership to enhance Kabul's security posture, focusing on leadership development, resource allocation, and command-and-control improvements amid persistent insurgent threats. NATO-led efforts included advising on national military strategy formulation and ministerial reforms to reduce corruption and improve accountability, with progress reported in joint statements acknowledging advancements in Afghan security institutions' capacity-building. For instance, U.S. Department of Defense assessments highlighted ongoing work to enable ministry-led planning and sustainment, though institutional weaknesses like payroll ghosting and procurement inefficiencies persisted despite advisory interventions.[32][21][22] Quantifiable support included deploying specialized advisor teams—such as Ministry of Defense Advisors (MoDA)—to oversee reforms in areas like financial transparency and personnel systems, contributing to reported milestones like the Afghan government's assumption of greater budgeting responsibility by 2020. However, evaluations from the mission's duration, including NATO's own lessons-learned reviews, indicated that while tactical training advanced, deeper institutional reforms faced systemic barriers including ethnic factionalism and fiscal dependency on foreign aid, limiting long-term efficacy. These efforts represented a shift from direct combat support under ISAF to ministerial-level sustainability, though ultimate outcomes were constrained by Afghan internal dynamics.[33][22]

Quantifiable Security and Governance Outcomes

The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) operated below authorized strength throughout the Resolute Support Mission (RSM), with actual personnel levels averaging 10-15% short of targets; for instance, in January 2018, assigned forces totaled about 313,000 against an authorized 352,000, reflecting chronic under-manning exacerbated by recruitment and retention challenges.[34] [35] Attrition rates hovered at 1.5-2% monthly during the early mission years, driven predominantly by absenteeism (over 70% of cases) rather than battlefield deaths, which undermined unit cohesion and operational readiness despite RSM advising efforts.[36] [37] ANDSF casualties remained high, with Resolute Support estimating around 5,000 killed and 15,000 wounded in 2016 alone, and annual figures sustaining at 20,000-30,000 combined killed and wounded through much of the period, indicating insurgents maintained offensive momentum and ANDSF struggled to secure gains independently.[38] SIGAR reports noted that such losses, coupled with low morale and incomplete training pipelines, prevented the development of self-sustaining forces capable of denying Taliban safe havens without coalition enablers.[39] Taliban territorial influence expanded progressively, from controlling or contesting roughly 20-30% of districts in 2015 to over 50% by mid-2021, as measured by independent assessments tracking district-level dynamics, underscoring limited RSM impact on stabilizing contested areas.[40] In governance, corruption persisted as a core inhibitor, with Afghanistan's score on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index stagnating at 15-16 out of 100 from 2015 to 2020, ranking it consistently among the world's most corrupt states (e.g., 174th out of 180 in 2018), despite RSM-supported anti-corruption initiatives like vetting procedures for ANDSF appointments.[41] [42] SIGAR evaluations found that graft in ministries of defense and interior diverted resources—such as fuel and "ghost soldier" payrolls—eroding institutional trust and operational effectiveness, with minimal verifiable reductions in high-level prosecutions or systemic reforms during the mission.[43] Afghan government control over population centers and revenue collection weakened in parallel with security trends, as Taliban shadow governance filled vacuums in rural districts, limiting central authority to urban enclaves by mission end.[44]

Challenges and Criticisms

Persistent Security Threats and Casualties

The Taliban insurgency constituted the primary persistent security threat to the Resolute Support Mission (RSM), manifesting through sustained guerrilla tactics including ambushes, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, and indirect fire on Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) bases where RSM advisors were embedded.[22] The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISIS-K), an emerging affiliate, amplified risks with high-profile suicide bombings and targeted strikes against military personnel, civilians, and minorities, particularly in eastern and northern provinces like Nangarhar and Kunar, where it vied for territorial control against both Taliban and ANDSF elements.[45] [46] These threats persisted unabated from RSM's inception in January 2015 through its termination in August 2021, undermining Afghan self-sufficiency goals by exploiting ANDSF vulnerabilities such as poor intelligence coordination and equipment shortages.[22] Insider attacks, or "green-on-blue" incidents where Afghan personnel turned weapons on coalition advisors, emerged as a acute risk to RSM's train-advise-assist model, eroding trust and operational tempo. Notable examples include the January 2015 killing of the first U.S. service member in RSM by an Afghan gunman; the May 2016 deaths of two NATO soldiers in Helmand Province; the June 2017 wounding of seven U.S. personnel in an attack claimed as insider by Taliban; the March 2017 wounding of U.S. soldiers during advising; the January 2019 shooting of NATO advisors by Afghan border guards in Herat; and the July 2019 deaths of two U.S. service members in an apparent insider attack.[47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Such events, though fewer than during the prior ISAF era, highlighted ongoing ideological infiltration and morale issues within ANDSF ranks, with NATO attributing many to Taliban coercion or radicalization.[53] Coalition casualties remained relatively low due to RSM's non-combat posture and force protection measures, totaling approximately 100-150 hostile deaths across NATO and partner nations from 2015 to 2021, a sharp decline from ISAF peaks but still indicative of embedded risks.[54] In contrast, ANDSF forces endured devastating attrition, with over 6,700 killed in the first 11 months of 2016 alone and annual rates exceeding 20,000 killed or wounded by 2017-2018, driven by Taliban territorial gains and ISIS-K bombings that outpaced RSM-enabled improvements in Afghan air support and special operations.[55] [56] These disparities underscored causal factors like ANDSF desertions (peaking at 30-40% annually), corruption in logistics, and insufficient will to hold contested areas, rendering persistent threats a core challenge to mission efficacy despite billions invested in capacity building.[22]

Debates on Effectiveness and Sustainability

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) aimed to foster self-reliant Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) through training, advising, and assisting, yet debates persist over its effectiveness in building combat-ready units capable of independent operations. Proponents, including U.S. military commanders, cited measurable progress such as improved ANDSF capabilities in areas like aviation maintenance and special operations, with coalition advisors embedding at various levels to enhance tactical proficiency.[19] However, independent assessments from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) emphasized systemic shortcomings, noting that despite training hundreds of thousands of personnel during the RSM period, operational effectiveness was hampered by pervasive corruption, including ghost soldiers inflating reported strengths, and leadership failures that prioritized patronage over merit.[57] By 2018, while ANDSF forces demonstrated some gains in holding key urban areas, Taliban control expanded to over half of Afghanistan's districts, underscoring limited translation of training into sustained territorial control.[19] Sustainability debates centered on the ANDSF's structural dependence on external support, rendering long-term viability questionable even before the 2021 withdrawal. Annual attrition rates, often exceeding 20% for the Afghan National Army due to desertions, casualties, and inadequate pay, eroded force strength despite recruitment efforts, with SIGAR reporting that one-third of the army was lost between 2013 and 2016 alone—a trend persisting into the RSM era.[58] Financially, the ANDSF required approximately $4-5 billion annually for operations, far beyond Afghanistan's domestic revenue capacity, leading to chronic underfunding, delayed salaries, and reliance on U.S.-provided logistics like fuel and air support, which masked underlying deficiencies.[59] Critics, including Dutch evaluators, argued that RSM's focus on institutional advising overlooked entrenched corruption networks within the Afghan government, which diverted resources and undermined morale, while NATO's non-combat mandate limited direct intervention against these issues.[60] The rapid ANDSF collapse in August 2021, with many units surrendering without significant resistance after coalition departure, empirically validated concerns that sustainability was illusory without indefinite foreign backing, as nearly $90 billion in cumulative U.S. security assistance failed to yield resilient institutions.[59]

Role of Afghan Internal Dynamics

Endemic corruption within Afghan governance structures significantly hampered the Resolute Support Mission's (RSM) objectives of building sustainable security institutions, as funds allocated for training and equipping Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) were routinely diverted through patronage networks and ghost payrolls. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) documented that corruption eroded ANDSF morale and operational effectiveness, with officials fabricating personnel records to siphon salaries—estimated at up to 40% of payroll in some units—leaving troops unpaid and leading to widespread desertions.[61] [44] This systemic graft, rooted in pre-existing tribal and elite loyalties rather than merit-based systems, persisted despite RSM advisories on anti-corruption reforms, as Afghan leaders prioritized personal networks over accountability, ultimately weakening force cohesion and combat readiness.[42] Political infighting at the highest levels exacerbated these challenges, with the 2014 National Unity Government formed after disputed elections between President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah fostering parallel power structures that stalled unified decision-making on security reforms. SIGAR assessments noted that this rivalry delayed cabinet formations and resource allocations critical to RSM-supported institutional development, such as logistics and intelligence integration, as competing factions withheld cooperation to undermine rivals.[62] [63] By 2020, ongoing disputes over electoral fraud and power-sharing further fragmented governance, reducing Afghan ownership of RSM training programs and contributing to inconsistent implementation of advised strategies.[64] Ethnic and tribal divisions compounded these issues within the ANDSF, where historical imbalances—such as Tajik and Uzbek overrepresentation in officer corps stemming from Northern Alliance legacies—fostered resentment among Pashtun recruits, who comprised the Taliban heartland and were underrepresented despite recruitment quotas. SIGAR reports highlighted how these fissures led to factionalized units prone to ethnic-based mutinies and selective enlistment, undermining RSM efforts to create a national army; for instance, Pashtun desertion rates remained high due to perceived discrimination and loyalty to tribal kin over central command.[61] [65] Illiteracy rates exceeding 80% in rural recruits amplified reliance on ethnic intermediaries for command, perpetuating patronage over professionalization and rendering RSM's tactical advising vulnerable to internal sabotage.[61] These dynamics, independent of external threats, revealed causal limits to foreign-led capacity building, as Afghan internal incentives favored short-term elite survival over long-term state-building.[44]

Termination and Aftermath

Decision-Making and Withdrawal Timeline

The decision to terminate the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) stemmed from the United States' bilateral negotiations with the Taliban, culminating in the Doha Agreement signed on February 29, 2020, which committed the U.S. to withdraw all its forces from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, in exchange for Taliban pledges on counterterrorism and intra-Afghan talks. Although NATO was not a direct party to the agreement, the alliance's presence in Afghanistan, including RSM, was predominantly U.S.-led and logistically dependent on American support, making NATO's continuation untenable without U.S. forces.[66] NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg emphasized that the alliance would align its posture with the U.S., stating in early 2020 that NATO's mission would end if the U.S. departed. Following the inauguration of President Joe Biden, the U.S. administration conducted a review of the Doha Agreement, citing insufficient Taliban compliance on violence reduction and prisoner releases but opting to proceed with withdrawal to end America's longest war. On April 14, 2021, Biden announced the full U.S. troop drawdown, reducing from approximately 2,500 personnel and completing evacuation by September 11, 2021—extending the original May 1 deadline by four months. Concurrently, NATO's North Atlantic Council issued a ministerial statement endorsing coordinated withdrawal, initiating RSM force reductions starting May 1, 2021, and targeting completion within a few months to avoid any attacks on allied troops during the process.[67] The withdrawal proceeded amid escalating Taliban advances, with NATO allies drawing down troops in tandem: for instance, the U.S. reduced its RSM contingent to zero by July 2021, followed by remaining partners.[68] All RSM forces were withdrawn by late August 2021, formally terminating the mission on September 1, 2021, as confirmed by NATO after the U.S. completion on August 30.[66] This timeline reflected a consensus-driven NATO decision process, reliant on the U.S. bilateral framework rather than independent alliance-wide negotiations with Afghan stakeholders.[69]

Rapid Collapse of Afghan Forces

The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), comprising approximately 352,000 authorized personnel as of early 2021 including the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP), demonstrated limited capacity to operate independently following the completion of the Resolute Support Mission in 2020 and the subsequent U.S.-led withdrawal. The Taliban's major offensive commenced on May 1, 2021, coinciding with the U.S. evacuation of Bagram Airfield, leading to the swift capitulation of district centers and provincial capitals; by August 6, cities such as Zaranj and Sheberghan had fallen, followed by Herat on August 12 and Kandahar on August 13, often with minimal combat as ANDSF units surrendered en masse or fled.[70] Kabul itself surrendered on August 15, 2021, after President Ashraf Ghani fled the country, marking the effective dissolution of the ANDSF without a decisive battle for the capital.[44] A primary causal factor was the ANDSF's structural dependency on U.S. and NATO-provided enablers, including close air support, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, logistics, and maintenance, which Resolute Support had not fully transitioned to Afghan self-sufficiency despite years of advisory efforts; the abrupt withdrawal of these capabilities—accelerated by the 2020 U.S.-Taliban Doha Agreement and President Biden's extension to August 31, 2021—rendered forward bases untenable and induced operational paralysis. SIGAR assessments identified this as the single most critical precipitant, compounded by ANDSF attrition rates exceeding 100,000 personnel in the prior year due to desertions, casualties, and "ghost soldiers" inflating payrolls through systemic corruption that diverted billions in U.S. aid.[71] Internal Afghan dynamics exacerbated the fragility: leadership at senior levels, including the Ministry of Defense and ANA corps commanders, exhibited poor decision-making, ethnic favoritism (favoring northern Tajik and Uzbek elements over Pashtun recruits), and a reluctance to deploy reserves or reinforce threatened areas, fostering widespread demoralization and capitulation incentives offered by Taliban negotiators promising amnesty. Taliban psychological operations, leveraging the perceived inevitability of U.S. abandonment signaled by the Doha deal's prisoner releases and reduction in ANDSF operations, further eroded will to fight; units in provinces like Helmand and Ghazni surrendered intact with equipment, contributing to a cascade effect where collapsing rear areas isolated forward positions.[71][72] Quantifiable indicators of pre-collapse weakness included the ANDSF's inability to hold more than 50% of district centers without coalition support by mid-2021, with casualty rates sustained at 20,000–30,000 annually prior to the offensive, underscoring that Resolute Support's training—while producing tactical proficiency in some elite units like commandos—failed to instill sustainable institutional resilience against corruption and patronage-driven command structures. Post-collapse analyses by SIGAR and military evaluators emphasize that these endogenous failures, rather than exogenous Taliban military superiority alone, determined the rapidity of the unraveling, as insurgents exploited existing fissures rather than overpowering a cohesive defense.[73][74]

Immediate Humanitarian and Strategic Consequences

The termination of the Resolute Support Mission in early September 2021, following the completion of NATO troop withdrawals by August 30, triggered a rapid humanitarian emergency in Afghanistan as the Taliban seized Kabul on August 15. Between August 14 and 30, U.S. and coalition forces evacuated approximately 124,000 individuals from Kabul International Airport amid chaotic scenes of desperation, including crowds storming the tarmac and fatalities from falls during attempted boardings.[75] This exodus primarily involved Afghan allies, U.S. citizens, and vulnerable groups fearing Taliban reprisals, but left behind an estimated hundreds of thousands who had aided NATO efforts and now faced targeted persecution.[76] The immediate post-takeover period saw acute food insecurity surge from over 30 percent of the population beforehand to more than 40 percent, exacerbated by the freeze of Afghan central bank assets abroad and the collapse of international funding flows.[77] Economic contraction deepened as banking systems halted, leading to cash shortages and a spike in poverty; UNHCR operations scaled up to assist over 916,000 displaced persons in 2021 alone, with internal displacement reaching millions due to Taliban advances and reprisal killings.[78] Vulnerable populations, particularly women, ethnic minorities, and former government officials, encountered swift restrictions on movement and employment, compounding risks of famine and disease in urban centers like Kabul where aid access was disrupted.[79] Strategically, the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces—trained under RSM at a cost exceeding $88 billion in U.S. funding alone—disintegrated without sustained NATO presence, ceding control to the Taliban in weeks despite numerical superiority and equipment advantages, highlighting failures in fostering independent operational resilience.[76] The withdrawal eroded NATO's deterrence posture, as evidenced by the Taliban's unbroken offensive momentum post-July 2021, enabling al-Qaeda affiliates to regroup and ISIS-K to exploit the vacuum for attacks like the August 26 Kabul airport bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members and over 170 Afghans.[80] Regionally, it emboldened jihadist networks across South Asia and Central Asia while straining alliances, with European partners criticizing the uncoordinated U.S.-led exit for undermining collective credibility and complicating future burden-sharing in interventions. The outcome validated pre-withdrawal assessments of heightened terrorism export risks, as Taliban safe havens reemerged without counterterrorism enablers like RSM's intelligence-sharing infrastructure.[81]

Legacy and Analysis

Long-Term Evaluations of Impact

Long-term evaluations of the Resolute Support Mission (RSM), primarily from U.S. oversight bodies like the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and NATO's own Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre (JALLC), highlight its failure to foster sustainable Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) capable of independent operations. Despite training over 300,000 personnel and providing advanced equipment, the ANDSF collapsed within weeks of NATO's withdrawal in August 2021, as Taliban forces captured Kabul on August 15 after overrunning provincial capitals with minimal resistance. SIGAR's 2022 evaluation attributes this to systemic dependencies on U.S. enablers—such as airstrikes (reduced from 7,423 in 2019 to 1,631 in 2020) and logistics—rather than genuine self-sufficiency, with Afghan forces rarely conducting independent missions during RSM.[82][59] A core critique is the "mirror-imaging" approach, where U.S. and NATO advisors modeled ANDSF structures on Western militaries ill-suited to Afghanistan's terrain, corruption, and ethnic fractures, leading to inflated metrics like reported troop strengths of 352,000 in December 2020 that masked "ghost soldiers" and actual effective forces estimated at 40,000–50,000. Over $88 billion in U.S. security assistance since 2002, including RSM's focus on institutional advising from 2015 to 2021, failed to instill ownership or combat readiness, exacerbated by short advisor rotations (6–12 months), inconsistent coordination among 36 NATO contributors, and persistent corruption siphoning funds—such as the $750 million annual salary support that sustained payrolls but not loyalty. NATO's JALLC review acknowledges these gaps, noting RSM's 2017 security roadmap emphasized leadership and anti-corruption but yielded limited enduring capabilities amid high ANDSF attrition (up to 33% annually for the Afghan National Army).[31][33] Post-2021 outcomes underscore negligible positive legacy in security and governance: Taliban consolidation enabled ISIS-K resurgence, with attacks like the August 26, 2021, Kabul airport bombing killing 13 U.S. service members and over 170 Afghans, while governance reverted to centralized theocratic control without the democratic institutions RSM indirectly supported. SIGAR analyses, drawing on empirical data over multiple administrations, emphasize causal factors like Afghan leadership failures under President Ghani—frequent command changes and no cohesive national strategy—over external variables, rejecting narratives of sudden collapse in favor of predictable unsustainability from dependency and morale erosion post-U.S.-Taliban Doha Agreement (February 2020). Independent Dutch evaluations similarly deem RSM's progress overstated, with limited effectiveness due to internal Afghan dynamics and inadequate adaptation to local realities. These assessments, prioritizing data from field reports and audits, contrast with potentially optimistic NATO self-reviews by highlighting how input-focused metrics obscured outputs like operational independence.[82][83][33]

Lessons for Future Interventions

The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) highlighted the limitations of security sector assistance in environments lacking indigenous political cohesion and governance reforms. Despite training over 300,000 Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) personnel and expending approximately $88 billion in U.S. funds alone on sustainment from 2015 to 2021, the ANDSF disintegrated rapidly after NATO's withdrawal in August 2021, underscoring that military capacity-building cannot compensate for internal corruption, desertions, and leadership failures.[31] Lessons emphasize the need for interventions to prioritize verifiable political preconditions, such as anti-corruption mechanisms and unified command structures, before scaling advisory efforts.[62] A primary takeaway is the peril of decoupling security assistance from broader state-building realities. RSM advisors embedded with ANDSF units reported persistent issues like "ghost soldiers" inflating payrolls by up to 40% in some units, diverting funds from operational readiness, yet U.S. and NATO metrics focused on throughput—such as hours trained—rather than outcomes like combat effectiveness against Taliban incursions.[57] Future missions should integrate real-time auditing and condition-based funding, withholding support until host-nation forces demonstrate self-sustained logistics and accountability, as evidenced by the ANDSF's collapse when external air support and contracting ceased.[31] This approach aligns with causal factors like dependency on foreign enablers, which SIGAR identified as eroding ANDSF morale and capability over time.[62] External sanctuaries for insurgents proved insurmountable without regional diplomatic leverage. The Taliban's resurgence, fueled by operations from Pakistan-based havens, outpaced RSM gains despite cross-border strikes; U.S. intelligence estimated 70-80% of Taliban attacks originated from Pakistan in 2018-2020.[62] Interventions must precondition engagement on host-nation or ally commitments to seal borders and disrupt supply lines, avoiding the RSM-era reliance on ineffective negotiations like the 2020 Doha Agreement, which excluded Afghan stakeholders and emboldened withdrawals.[62] Sustainability demands realistic assessments over optimistic reporting. RSM's shift to non-combat advising in 2015 correlated with Taliban territorial control rising from 7% in 2015 to 47% by 2021, per U.S. estimates, revealing flaws in progress indicators that ignored qualitative factors like ethnic factionalism within the ANDSF.[31] Planners for future operations should employ independent, on-ground validation of host capabilities, eschewing self-reported data prone to inflation, and build in phased drawdowns tied to empirical benchmarks such as independent offensive operations.[57] Civil-military disconnects amplified failures, with RSM's focus on security neglecting parallel governance reforms essential for force loyalty. SIGAR audits found that $19 billion in direct ANDSF funding from 2015-2020 was undermined by unchecked executive interference in military appointments, leading to politicized commands.[31] Holistic strategies must synchronize advisory roles across sectors, enforcing host compliance with merit-based systems to prevent the patronage networks that precipitated surrenders in 2021.[62]

References

  1. Topic: Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan (2015-2021) - NATO
  2. [PDF] Some Improvements Reported in Afghan Forces' Capabilities, but ...
  3. [PDF] Assessing the Capabilities and Effectiveness of the Afghan National ...
  4. Wales Summit Declaration on Afghanistan : Issued by ... - NATO
  5. NATO reaffirms continued support to Afghanistan, 04-Sep.-2014
  6. FACT SHEET: Wales Summit – NATO's Changing Role in Afghanistan
  7. FACT SHEET: NATO's Enduring Commitment to Afghanistan
  8. [PDF] S/RES/2189 (2014) - Security Council
  9. Adoption of Resolution on Resolute Support Mission (Afghanistan)
  10. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_112517.htm
  11. Inteqal: Transition to Afghan lead (2011-2014) - NATO
  12. Transition ceremony kicks off Resolute Support Mission - NATO
  13. U.S. formally ends the war in Afghanistan - CBS News
  14. ISAF's mission in Afghanistan (2001-2014) - NATO
  15. NATO agrees launch of Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan
  16. [PDF] Resolute Support Mission - NATO
  17. Resolute Support [NATO] - GlobalSecurity.org
  18. Resolute Support trains its people, improving advisor training
  19. [PDF] Some Improvements Reported in Afghan Forces' Capabilities, but ...
  20. Resolute Support commander: More troops needed to break Afghan ...
  21. Joint Statement on the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan
  22. [PDF] Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan - DoD
  23. [PDF] Resolute Support Mission - NATO
  24. [PDF] Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan
  25. NATO Eyes Troop Reductions in Afghanistan as U.S. Draws Down
  26. [PDF] John W. Nicholson, USA Nominee to Commander, Resolute Support ...
  27. The continuing mission in Afghanistan | Article - Army.mil
  28. Change of Command at NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in ...
  29. More Troops Needed to Break Afghan 'Stalemate' - Centcom
  30. Afghanistan: Mobile Train/Advise/Assist Team from the NATO-led ...
  31. [PDF] Lessons From U.S. Security Sector Assistance Efforts In Afghanistan
  32. [PDF] AFGHANISTAN - DoD
  33. [PDF] Train, Advise, and Assist Lessons from Resolute Support Mission
  34. [PDF] Operation Freedom's Sentinel, Report to the United States Congress
  35. The Insider | InsideDefense.com
  36. [PDF] Afghanistan National Defense and Security Forces
  37. Operation Freedom's Sentinel and our continued security investment ...
  38. NATO Works To Reduce ANDSF Casualties | Afghanistan News
  39. [PDF] Lessons From U.S. Security Sector Assistance Efforts In Afghanistan
  40. Mapping Taliban Control in Afghanistan - FDD's Long War Journal
  41. Afghanistan - Transparency.org
  42. [PDF] SIGAR 16-58-LL Corruption in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. ...
  43. [PDF] The Afghan Government Made Progress in Meeting its Anti
  44. [PDF] SIGAR 23-05-IP Why the Afghan Government Collapsed
  45. Country Reports on Terrorism 2020: Afghanistan - State Department
  46. [PDF] operation freedom's sentinel - Office of Inspector General
  47. Blog Archive » Afghanistan 'Green-on-Blue' Insider Attacks
  48. Afghanistan: Nato soldiers killed in 'green-on-blue' attack - BBC News
  49. 7 U.S. Service Members Wounded In 'Insider Attack' In Afghanistan
  50. American soldiers wounded in Afghan 'insider attack' - Al Jazeera
  51. Afghan forces open fire on NATO advisors at base in Herat
  52. Two Americans Killed in Apparent Insider Attack in Afghanistan - VOA
  53. Insider attacks as one of the main threats to resolute support ...
  54. Map Of Coalition Countries That Lost At Least 1 Solider Helping US ...
  55. [PDF] us costs to date for the war in afghanistan, 2001-2021
  56. [PDF] AFGHANISTAN BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COM
  57. [PDF] reconstructing the afghan national defense and security forces
  58. Lessons learned from 15 years in Afghanistan: SIGAR
  59. [PDF] INTERIM REPORT - NATO SFA COE
  60. [PDF] Between wish and reality
  61. [PDF] Reconstructing the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces
  62. [PDF] What We Need to Learn: Lessons from Twenty Years of Afghanistan ...
  63. Afghanistan: The Future of the National Unity Government
  64. Resolving the Ghani-Abdullah impasse in Afghanistan | Brookings
  65. Afghan army struggles with ethnic divisions - NBC News
  66. NATO and Afghanistan
  67. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_183146.htm
  68. Top U.S. commander in Afghanistan says steps to end ... - Reuters
  69. NATO Allies decide to start withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan
  70. The shocking speed of the Taliban's advance: A visual timeline
  71. Lessons from the Collapse of Afghanistan's Security Forces
  72. Why Did the Afghan Army Evaporate? - RUSI
  73. Deconstructing the Collapse of Afghanistan National Security and ...
  74. [PDF] Deconstructing the Collapse of Afghanistan National Security and ...
  75. [PDF] OIG's Review of the Department of State's Evacuation of U.S. ...
  76. Taliban Takeover: Humanitarian Implications and ... - CSIS
  77. Afghanistan: Humanitarian Crisis Needs Urgent Response
  78. Afghanistan Refugee Crisis Explained - USA for UNHCR
  79. Instability in Afghanistan | Global Conflict Tracker
  80. [PDF] Preparing for the Consequences of Withdrawal from Afghanistan
  81. Operationally Agile but Strategically Lacking: NATO's Bruising Years ...
  82. https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/evaluations/SIGAR-22-22-IP.pdf
  83. Results – Evaluation of the Dutch Contribution to Resolute Support
User Avatar
No comments yet.