When the ‘international project’, as Suhrke^[i] qualifies the international engagement in Afghanistan starting in 2001, began, the United Nations (UN) advocated a policy of ‘light international footprint’, steering clear of creating a system of parallel institutions that would undermine local authority.^[ii] This vision stands in stark contrast to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s data for the years 2006 to 2011, which records 786 donor missions to Afghanistan, of which only 47, or 5.98%, were coordinated amongst the different donors.^[iii] Post-2001 Afghanistan hosted a wide range of humanitarian, development and military actors ranging from US and UN agencies to major bilateral donors, International non-governmental organisations (INGOs), and local non-governmental organisations  (NGOs). Yet, as multiple scholars note^[iv], though it was not always clear which actors worked together, it was the dominant political-military actors, primarily the US-led coalition and UN led-peacebuilding structures, who defined the overall aid environment and shaped the incentives under which other actors operated. This essay therefore focuses on the systemic impacts of the politicised and militarised aid architecture within the ‘international project’ for Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014 rather than on individual organisational variations.

The focus of this study will be on the period ranging from 2001 to 2014, as it marks the height of the international intervention in Afghanistan, during which aid flows, military strategy, and political structures became uniquely intertwined. This timeframe spans the US invasion, the subsequent aid and military surge, and the early stages of the international drawdown.

The politicisation and militarisation of humanitarian and development assistance

For the purpose of this essay, a distinction will be established between humanitarian aid, defined by the UN as a form of assistance designed to save lives and alleviate suffering during and after crises such as floods, famine or conflicts, and development aid, which seeks to promote long-term economic, social, environmental, and political transformation.

The above differ in means and in scope, as where development aid seeks sustained improvement, humanitarian aid focuses on short-term relief. However, in many cases including Afghanistan, the boundary between the two immediately eroded, as short-term relief, reconstruction, and state-building were deployed in pursuit of overlapping security and political goals.

When evaluating whether humanitarian and development assistance ‘fuelled’ conflict dynamics, this essay refers to contributions to the outbreak, maintenance, or prolongation of violent conflict. Conversely, to mitigate conflict dynamics means undertaking strategies and actions to address causes of conflict and to change the way those involved act and perceive the issues. Conflict mitigation strategies can be used for conflict prevention, as well as for intervention in conflict and post-conflict scenarios.^[v] This essay will examine whether the politicisation and militarisation of humanitarian and development assistance in Afghanistan (2001–2014) fuelled conflict dynamics more than they mitigated them.

Here, politicisation refers to the strategic reframing of aid, most notably through counterterrorism and stabilisation doctrines, while militarisation describes the integration of aid into military strategy. This is exemplified by NATO’s Comprehensive Approach^[vi], which mandated the fusion of civilian and military instruments, bringing militaries directly into the business of aid delivery.

This essay contends that, in the Afghan context, the merger of humanitarian and development assistance with political and military objectives between 2001 and 2014 ultimately intensified rather than alleviated conflict dynamics. At the core of this outcome lies a deep internal contradiction: the attempt to build peace while waging war. The first section explores the ways in which humanitarian and development assistance became politicised and militarised, while the second identifies the mechanisms through which these processes fuelled conflict.

Strategy driven by shifting geopolitical objectives

The pattern of international engagement in Afghanistan after 2001 was driven less by humanitarian imperatives than by shifting geopolitical priorities. In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the United States launched the Global War on Terror. The subsequent invasion of Afghanistan was presented as a mission to capture Osama bin Laden, eliminate Al-Qaeda’s operations in the country, and topple the Taliban regime that had provided him refuge.^[vii] Crucially, large-scale aid flows only began after the US invasion and within the logic of the War on Terror, making the humanitarian concern ‘coincidental to other motives’ as argued by Chesterman.^[viii] Suhrke similarly notes that the effort expanded due to ‘organisational interests, aid lobbies and a cascading of objectives’.^[ix]

The idea of state-building became justified as an instrument to prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a terrorist haven again. Nation-building, initially anathema to President Bush and the conservative policy establishment in Washington^[x], became politically acceptable only as the prospects of capturing Bin Laden faded and fractures appeared within the US-led coalition.^[xi] The US strategy swiftly escalated from defeating Al-Qaeda to additionally defeating the Taliban and confronting corrupt Afghan officials.^[xii] Around that time, the US strategy shifted to include the UN in reconstruction and state-building efforts^[xiii], to delegate the burden of long-term reconstruction and stabilisation following the initial military intervention.

This strategic expansion occurred alongside a profound misreading by the US government of the political landscape. As Gopal^[xiv] highlights, by early 2002, the US effectively had ‘no enemy’, with Al-Qaeda having fled to Pakistan, the Taliban regime collapsed, and insurgent factions ready to reconcile. However, the US missed opportunities to design an ‘inclusive, post-conflict peace process.’^[xv] On several occasions, Taliban representatives agreed to negotiate directly with the Afghan government, only to find the negotiated agreement rejected by US backers.¹⁶ This refusal reflected the logic of the War on Terror, in which terrorism was treated not as a set of actions but as an inherent identity.^[xvi] Under this framework, negotiation with the Taliban became inconceivable.

Undermining humanitarian neutrality and access

The Taliban rapidly reorganised themselves into a redoubtable insurgency movement. Maintaining and increasing security levels, which, in the early years of the war, had seemed a minimal objective for the US, became an extremely ambitious one.^[xvii] In the process, the US forged alliances with Afghan warlords and other militia actors^[xviii], further entrenching local power dynamics that fed the insurgency. By the first nine months of 2005, there was a major upsurge in insurgent activity, with a growing shift towards ‘soft targets’ such as aid workers, making it, as Goodhand and Sedra note, the deadliest year for the coalition since 2001.^[xix] As previously mentioned, Afghanistan represents a unique setting, as humanitarian and development assistance unfolded not in a post-conflict setting but amid an active, expanding war.^[xx] Persistent insecurity repeatedly undermined reconstruction efforts, while the US’s own strategy shifted with each escalation cycle, creating unstable and often contradictory conditions for aid delivery.^[xxi] The erosion of humanitarian access was therefore not incidental: it was structurally linked to the militarised framing of the intervention.

This deterioration was compounded by the dominance of military priorities within the US approach, as well as the institutional subordination of civilian agencies. In effect, policy was split between two poles: the Department of Defence (DoD), which led the War on Terror, and the State Department (DoS) and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which were nominally responsible for reconstruction. In practice, the military pillar eclipsed the civilian one politically, organisationally, and in budgetary terms.^[xxii] Given that the State Department lacked the resources and expertise necessary for the coordination of the reconstruction effort and that the intervention originated in US national security concerns, the Department of Defence filled the vacuum.^[xxiii] This resulted in a reconstruction model that relied heavily on military tools, consistently undervaluing or overriding diplomacy, governance, and development.^[xxiv]  

This militarisation of aid was visible particularly in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), civilian-military units with a dual security and development function.^[xxv] They were introduced in Afghanistan from early 2002 and played a major role in blurring the lines between civilians and military.^[xxvi] Their mandate was to extend and legitimise the presence of the central Afghan government by improving security and facilitating reconstruction and development.^[xxvii] This placed them squarely at the intersection of aid delivery and counterinsurgency strategy. PRTs engaged directly with local officials and funded projects, bypassing the central Afghan budgetary system. The military often pushed civilian agencies into implementing projects in areas that were too dangerous for them to have a real stabilising effect. As Suhrke argues, this model was not based on achieving a political or humanitarian understanding with the insurgency. Rather, it relied on the assumption that the ‘enemy’ would either be defeated militarily or rendered irrelevant by the stabilising effect of development.^[xxviii]

Mechanisms through which politicised aid fuelled conflict

When the ‘international project’²⁹ was established in 2001, the Afghanistan context had already been factionalised and militarised for more than two decades. In this scenario, aid thus stood no chance of being apolitical.

Empowering warlords and corrupt local elites

Lack of contextual understanding and Washington putting short-term stability ahead of Afghanistan’s development^[xxix] often led to poor project choices that deliberately empowered warlords and local groups whose interest was not compatible with the coalition’s longer term goals of a sustainable peace and a strong central state.^[xxx] Furthermore, decisions were made in favour of one warlord or militia over another, increasing risks of local conflicts and creating additional opportunities for insurgency.

This reality echoed Anderson’s analysis that aid in conflict settings is never neutral, and always becomes part of the war economy. She argues that when aid enters a conflict setting, aid providers face societal ‘connectors’ and ‘dividers’. She contends that the main reason aid has, in many cases, worsened violent conflict dynamics, is because it reinforces dividers.^[xxxi] In the case of Afghanistan, the prioritisation of counter-terrorism and flow of resources benefited and gave legitimacy to predatory actors.^[xxxii] Controlling checkpoints, logistics, territory, looting, and black markets further blurred the line between aid and the political economy of conflict.^[xxxiii] A forensic accounting study of thousands of US DoD contracts in Afghanistan between 2010 and 2012, estimated that around 40% of funds were stolen and diverted by insurgents or corrupt governmental elites.^[xxxiv]

By accepting abusive and corrupt power holders, the coalition encouraged elite capture, understood here as the theft or diversion of public resources by elites^[xxxv], and further undermined the legitimacy of the Afghan government. Warlords profited from government funding and aid projects to build patronage networks.^[xxxvi] Washington, in turn, rewarded local powerbrokers by letting them obtain power in the nascent local and national government institutions.^[xxxvii] This approach went directly against the simultaneous attempt by the coalition to centralise and legitimise the Afghan State.

Corruption became entrenched and systemic, with Afghanistan ranking 176th out of 180 countries evaluated in the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2008.^[xxxviii] However, despite growing awareness of the situation, US policy for several years acted as if corruption was an Afghan cultural problem rather than a consequence of flooding the country with money and defence contracts that it did not have the capacity to absorb, coupled with a lack of oversight.^[xxxix] On average, in 2005-2006, Afghan ministries were only able to spend around 50% of the money that had been allocated to them^[xl], creating limitless opportunities for fraud and bribery. The CIA, military, and other agencies used cash and lucrative contracts to buy the allegiance of warlords, initially as a short-term tactic against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

This strategic compromise was documented in the confidential SIGAR ‘Lessons Learned’ interviews (also known as ‘The Afghanistan Papers’), which were released in the Washington Post in 2019, following a lengthy legal battle.^[xli] US officials admitted that the coalition had tolerated widespread corruption and the empowerment of strongmen because it was deemed a necessary means to a worthy end.^[xlii] Aid bypassing national institutions unintentionally prolonged state weakness and fragility, depriving the state of necessary reforms. The state became totally dependent on foreign funds and military forces for survival, creating a ‘rentier state’^[xliii], where accountability lay with the donors rather than with the citizens.

Short-termism, unrealistic timelines tied to political decision cycles

The challenges faced by the international community in Afghanistan were deeply rooted in unrealistic explicit timelines dictated by external political cycles, resulting in structural contradictions and unsustainable outcomes within the state-building project.^[xliv] The Washington-led intervention consistently underestimated the time required for rebuilding due to an inability to accurately estimate the necessary duration and resources.^[xlv] The deepening involvement of the international community led by the US, was viewed as being ‘not dissimilar’ to the way Gelb qualified US government involvement in Vietnam: a deliberate deepening involvement, deeming it ‘vital not to lose’^[xlvi] Afghanistan, fearing a threat to its global power and domestic backlash. This involvement was partly sustained by the ‘investment trap’, used by the US and its allies to justify additional spending and commitments through previous substantial investment.^[xlvii]

All throughout the observed period, the effort suffered from a prioritisation of short-term goals, and along the escalating war, the demand for ‘rapid and visible results’ only increased.^[xlviii] Significant examples of this political expediency were visible ahead of the 2004 presidential election in Afghanistan, when many projects were hastily initiated, sacrificing quality standards for speed.^[xlix]

Although all US reconstruction projects were intended to be sustainable, Afghan personnel often lacked the resources and capacity to meet US expectations for quick results.^[l] The short-     term focus was reinforced by counterproductive personnel policies which destroyed the institutional memory necessary for complex, long-term stabilisation work. High staff turnover rates, often based on six-month or one-year schedules before being rotated out^[li], hindered the mission’s success significantly by preventing the development of country expertise and institutional memory. This also meant that there was no continuity of oversight when personnel passed the torch to their successors. The effect was so destructive that the reconstruction effort essentially experienced a yearly return to square one as newly arriving staff made the same mistakes as their predecessors.

This lack of expertise meant that US officials were often unable to carry out adequate monitoring and evaluation or implement effective conditions. This, in addition to pre-existing inter-donor divisions, made it difficult for different agencies to coordinate their programmes and have a positive and durable impact on the ground.^[lii] Conversely, it was extremely easy for Afghan elites to exploit donor programmes for their own short-term goals.^[liii]

Short-termism and the need for projects to be completed regardless of their impact on the ground^[liv] have led to the establishment of a parallel state of sorts. Foreign advisors and consultants compensated for the government’s capacity deficit while donors tended to circumvent the government in an attempt to accelerate the reconstruction rate.^[lv] The working conditions offered by international organisations have become more attractive than those offered by the government, resulting in the loss of its most qualified workers to these organisations.

Following President Obama’s inauguration, the US increased its focus on Afghanistan, resulting in a surge of military and civilian aid starting around 2009, with each strategy review convincing the US government more troops were needed on the ground.^[lvi] By 2010, US reconstruction spending was equivalent to more than 100 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP, or more than double the country’s estimated maximum absorptive capacity.^[lvii]

However, in late 2010, the Obama administration did a more thorough policy review, which led President Obama to announce troop withdrawal with an end date of 2014. Unsurprisingly, this led to a plethora of scrambled operations whether military or civilian, trying to clear areas of insurgents, stabilise them and move on. These operations most often barely outlasted the departure of the coalition forces.^[lviii]

Conclusion

This essay does not intend to claim that humanitarian and development aid delivered between 2001 and 2014 did not mitigate some aspects of the conflict. It does however argue that these gains were fragile, short-lived, and overshadowed by the conflict-amplifying structures. This is well illustrated by the fact that by 2010-2011, a decade into the ‘international project’^[lix], Afghanistan was one of the most aid-dependent countries in the world.^[lx] By 2014, the issues appeared to outweigh the progress made in terms of cost and suffering, and there was a stark contrast between the ambitious project undertaken and its results.

The scope of this essay prevents us from fully exploring the extent to which international aid has fuelled conflict in Afghanistan within the studied timeframe. The issues that warranted more in-depth analysis are the failed state and the impossibility to legitimise the new state, narcotics trafficking and uneven aid distribution.

The case of the international intervention in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014 has left us with several lessons for future interventions. First, there is a need for international actors to understand the national context before designing their intervention strategy. This knowledge should include the country’s history and community dynamics, to align the aid architecture with the realities of the conflict rather than with the way external actors perceive it. Furthermore, there is a necessity for a clear distinction between aid, whether humanitarian or developmental, and military operations and organisations. Similarly, there must be a clear distinction between aid and a donor country’s own political goals.

We can conclude that the politicisation and militarisation of aid in Afghanistan fuelled rather than mitigated conflict dynamics. The evolving US military objectives, coupled with an increasingly blurred distinction between the various types of aid, counterinsurgency and political stabilisation, meant that aid was consistently shaped by strategic imperatives rather than the needs of the Afghan people. A lack of coherent strategy, local ownership, an inclusive peace settlement and commitment to long-term institution building resulted in aid exacerbating the very issues it aimed to address.

---

^[i] Suhrke, 2011

^[ii] Brahimi, 2007, pp. 4-5; Suhrke, 2011, p. 19    

^[iii] OECD, 2011, Appendix pp.114-137

^[iv] Suhrke 2011; SIGAR 2021

^[v] Equitas, 2018, pp. 9-11

^[vi] Kobieracki, 2007

^[vii] Suhrke, 2011

^[viii] Chesterman, 2001, p. 1    

^[ix] Suhrke, 2011, p. 5    

^[x] Suhrke, 2011

^[xi] Chesterman, 2003

^[xii] SIGAR, 2021

^[xiii] Chesterman, 2003; Suhrke, 2011, pp. 6-10

^[xiv] Gopal, 2014

^[xv] Rubin, 2019

^[xvi] Gopal, 2014

^[xvii] SIGAR, 2021; Dobbins et al., 2007

^[xviii] Gopal, 2014

^[xix] Ibid

^[xx] Goodhand and Sedra, 2007, p. 39    

^[xxi] Goodhand and Sedra, 2007

^[xxii] SIGAR, 2021, pp. 10-14

^[xxiii] Suhrke, 2011

^[xxiv] SIGAR, 2021

^[xxv] Suhrke, 2006

^[xxvi] Ibid

^[xxvii] Suhrke, 2006, p. 18    

^[xxviii] Suhrke, 2011

^[xxix] Giustozzi, 2009; Goodhand and Sedra, 2007

^[xxx] Goodhand and Sedra, 2007

^[xxxi] Anderson, 1999

^[xxxii] Ibid

^[xxxiii]Anderson, 1999; Kaldor, 2012

^[xxxiv] Whitlock, 2019

^[xxxv] SIGAR, 2021, p. 34

^[xxxvi] Giustozzi, 2009, pp. 89-90    

^[xxxvii] Ibid

^[xxxviii] Transparency International, 2008

^[xxxix] SIGAR, 2018, pp. 64–65

^[xl] Giustozzi, 2010

^[xli] Whitlock, 2019

^[xlii] Ibid

^[xliii] Suhrke, 2006, p. 6    

^[xliv] SIGAR, 2021

^[xlv] Ibid

^[xlvi] Suhrke, 2011, p. 4    

^[xlvii] Suhrke, 2011

^[xlviii] Suhrke, 2011, p. 226     ; SIGAR, 2021, pp. 28-30

^[xlix] Goodhand and Sedra, 2007, pp. 65-66

^[l] SIGAR, 2021, pp. 40-43

^[li] Ibid, p. 49

^[lii] Goodhand and Sedra, 2007

^[liii] Ibid

^[liv] SIGAR, 2021, p. 32

^[lv] Goodhand and Sedra, 2007, pp. 68-75

^[lvi] Suhrke, 2011, p. 59    

^[lvii] SIGAR, 2016, p. 31

^[lviii] SIGAR, 2021, pp. 34-39

^[lix] Suhrke, 2011

^[lx] World Bank, 2010

Bibliography

Anderson, Mary B. 1999. Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace, or War. Editorial: Boulder, CO: Rienner.

Barber, Martin. 2014. “Afghanistan: The Missed Opportunities.” In Blinded by Humanity: Inside the UN’s Humanitarian Operations. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Bizhan, Nematullah. 2025. “How Foreign Intervention Paradoxes Have Harmed Afghanistan.” The Development Policy Centre Blog (Blog). https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/how-foreign-intervention- paradoxes-have-harmed/docview/3039959704/se-2.    

Brahimi, Lakhdar. 2007. “State Building in Crisis and Post-Conflict Countries.” https://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/Brahimi%20UNPAN026305.pdf.

Chesterman, Simon. 2003. “Humanitarian Intervention and Afghanistan.” In Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations, pp. 163-175. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199267219.003.0009.

Dobbins, James; Jones, Seth; Crane, Keith, and Cole Degrasse, Beth. 2007. The Beginner’s Guide to Nation-Building. Santa Monica, CA: Rand National Security Research Division. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG557.pdf.

Equitas – International Centre for Human Rights Education. 2018. “Conflict Mitigation Using a Human Rights-Based Approach a Guide for Taking Action to Mitigate Religious and Ethnic Conflict.” pp.9-11. https://equitas.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/04/Conflict-mitigation-using-a-human-rights-based-approach- A-guide-for-taking-action-to-mitigate-religious-and-ethnic-conflict.pdf,

Giustozzi, Antonio. 2010. “Don’t Call That Warlord a Warlord.” Foreign Policy     . https://foreignpolicy.com/2010/02/25/dont-call-that-warlord-a-warlord/.

Giustozzi, Antonio. 2012. Empires of Mud: Wars and Warlords in Afghanistan. London: Hurst    

Goodhand, Jonathan, and      Sedra, Mark. 2007. “Bribes or Bargains? Peace Conditionalities and ‘Post-Conflict’ Reconstruction in Afghanistan.” International Peacekeeping. Vol. 14 (1), pp.41-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310601114251.

Gopal, Anand. 2014. “How the US Created the Afghan War—and Then Lost It.” The Nation. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-us-created- afghan-war-and-then-lost-it/.

Kaldor, Mary.  2012. New and Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Polity, pp.94-184.

Kobieracki, Adam. 2007. “The Comprehensive Approach: NATO Responses from an Operational Standpoint – the Case of Afghanistan.” Connections: The Quarterly Journal,6 (2): pp. 87-94. https://doi.org/10.11610/connections.06.2.05.

Newberg, Paula. 1999. “Politics at the Heart: The Architecture of Humanitarian Assistance to Afghanistan.” Carnegieendowment.org.     https://carnegieendowment.org/research/1999/07/politics-at-the-heart-the- architecture-of-humanitarian-assistance-to-afghanistan?lang=en.

Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development. 2012. “Aid Effectiveness 2011: Progress in Implementing the Paris Declaration.” Oecd. Paris: OECD. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2012/03/aid-effectiveness-2011_g1g1530a/9789264125780-en.pdf

Rubin, Barnett R. 2019. “Negotiations Are the Best Way to End the War in Afghanistan.” Foreign Affairs. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/afghanistan/negotiations-are-best-way-end-war- afghanistan.

Shearer, David. 2000. “Aiding or Abetting? Humanitarian Aid and Its Economic Role in Civil War.” In Greed and Grievance : Economic Agendas in Civil Wars, edited by Mats Berdal and David Malone. Lynne Rienner      Publishers. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kcl/detail.action?docID=6561779.

SIGAR. 2016. “Corruption in Conflict: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan” Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1016886.pdf

SIGAR. 2018. “Stabilization: Lessons from the U.S. Experience in Afghanistan”, Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1139426.pdf

SIGAR. 2021. “What We Need to Learn: Lessons from Twenty Years of Afghanistan Reconstruction.” Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo159506/pdf/GOVPUB-S-PURL-gpo159506.pdf

Stephens , Joe, and Ottaway, David. 2005. “A Rebuilding Plan Full of Cracks.” Washingtonpost.com, 2005. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/11/19/AR2005111901248.html.

Suhrke, Astri. 2006. “When More Is Less: Aiding Statebuilding in Afghanistan.”FRIDE. https://www.cmi.no/publications/2402-when-more-is-less.

Suhrke, Astri. 2011. When More Is Less     : The International Project in Afghanistan. New York: Columbia University Press.

Transparency International. 2008. “2008 – Corruption Perception Index.” Transparency.org. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2008.

Whitlock, Craig. 2019. “Consumed by Corruption.” The Washington Post, December 9, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan- papers/afghanistan-war-corruption-government/.

World Bank. 2010. Afghanistan Public Expenditure Review 2010 : Second Generation of Public Expenditure Reforms. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/08ada5c4- f0f0-5d0e-9d72-acf4ec496670/content.