Allauddin Khan/AP
Afghan policemen stand guard near the Park Palace Hotel after an attack by Taliban militants, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Wednesday, May 13, 2015. Gunmen have stormed a guesthouse in the Afghan capital used by both foreigners and locals, sparking a gun battle with police The attackers targeted Kabul's Park Palace Hotel on Wednesday night Kabul police chief Gen. Abdul Rahman Rahimi says the gunmen were still shooting at his officers.

Taliban attack on Kabul hotel a reminder of a fragile Afghanistan

The US has spent $110 billion on development in Afghanistan since 2002. But the country's future is far from assured. 

A Taliban attack on a party at a hotel in Kabul on Wednesday night killed 14 people – nine of them foreigners – and initiated a siege with Afghan Security Forces that lasted for hours.

The attack on the Park Palace Hotel was the most brazen of this year’s spring fighting season. While an obvious reminder of the challenges facing the security services as US and other NATO allies step back, it's also a reminder of how fragile Afghanistan remains, even after $110 billion in US aid. 

Of that money, $62.5 billion went toward building Afghanistan’s security forces. Yet the Taliban is still potent. And though the country made considerable steps forward over the last decade, much of that money was wasted due to mismanagement, lack of oversight, and corruption.

Whether the US and Afghanistan learn from these mistakes will be critical to on-going efforts to develop the war-torn country. And for the US, any lessons learned could prove vital for future foreign aid and development efforts – provided the negativities aren't airbrushed away. 

“By any objective standard Afghanistan has been transformed, fiscally, politically, and socially from 2001 to today,” says Karl Eikenberry, who served in Afghanistan as both the head of the US-led military coalition and, later, as US ambassador. “Even with impressive gains, you still have a country that, by many indices, is poor and toward the bottom of the scale when you do global comparisons.”

Despite the tens of billions spent on training and equipment, monitoring organizations continue to express concern about the capabilities of Afghanistan's police and military, as well as the country's struggle to pay for their needs. Many predict Kabul still won't be able to fund its security forces without outside assistance by 2024.

Still, over the past 13 years Afghans have undoubtedly seen improvements. Paved roads went from less than 50 miles to nearly 8,000 miles. The average life expectancy climbed from as low as 44 years by some estimates to 60 years. Access to clean drinking water jumped from just 4.8 percent of the population to more than 60 percent. Women, particularly those in cities have experienced unprecedented access to education. During the Taliban’s rule, almost no women were in school and today nearly 3 million are enrolled in schools.

Qualified progress

Still, many of the statistics that herald progress neglect important caveats. For example, of the nearly 8,000 miles of paved roads, the World Bank estimates that about 85 percent of them are now “poor shape and the majority cannot be used by motor vehicles.” And in 2011, when 2.4 Afghan girls were enrolled in school, as many as 19 percent of those 2.4 million students were absent for most of the school year or “permanently absent,” meaning they hadn’t attended school for three years. 
“We spent too much money too fast in too small a country with too little oversight. When you combine those four things you’re going to see a lot of waste,” says John Sopko, Inspector General of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, an organization created by Congress to oversee US spending Afghanistan.

Part of the initial rush to spend came in part from the focus on military operations in the country where long-term sustainability was not always the main concern. For those in the military, Eikenberry says the focus is often on short-term solutions that “stop the shooting.”

“For the United States, efforts in Afghanistan weren’t motivated first and foremost by the efforts to create an accountable government of Afghanistan, a state that functioned well, a robust growing economy, or for the country to build a rich civil society. Those were all byproducts of an effort that began with Al Qaeda,” says Eikenberry.
Moving forward, whether in Afghanistan or other places where the US provides foreign aid, the question will be whether the US can learn from mistakes it made in Afghanistan. The US government and military have written numerous “lessons learned" reports, but Sopko says that all too often they’re ignored when the next crisis rolls around. 

That's an unfortunately old tradition. Sopko points to a 1988 USAID report reviewing their assistance mission in Afghanistan from 1950 to 1979, the year the Soviet Union invaded. Sopko says that report provided a good road map, including marking out the likely pitfalls of a future aid effort in the country. But it was ignored. 

“One of the first lessons learned from Afghanistan is that before anyone starts designing programs in Syria or wherever, read the lessons learned reports that are already out there,” says Sopko.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Taliban attack on Kabul hotel a reminder of a fragile Afghanistan
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today