Latest in Afghanistan
A primer on the New York Times story about possible changes to the U.S. policy on lethal force.
The case against involvement focuses on the considerable cost of past U.S. efforts and the seeming futility of attempts to improve the situation.
Fear of resurgent terrorist activity is the main reason to remain in Afghanistan, but policymakers and strategists should view continued intervention as a means to a limited objective.
Ultimate success in Afghanistan will depend on a wide variety of factors—including how we define success.
In a scathing New York Times op-ed today, Micah Zenko lays into the Trump administration both for maintaining the “counterproductive” and “immoral” counterterrorism policies of its predecessors (particularly those involving the use of military force), and for making the situation worse for nonc
International law does not provide independent guidance for or limits on the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan. Public scrutiny is the only check.
President Donald Trump intends to order the deployment of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. But even with additional troops, a continued stalemate is the likely outcome.
The Afghan government may be faltering, but the country's elites are too invested to let it fail. Here's how the United States can help them shore up their institutions.
A Q&A about the international partnership-turned-rivalry that has shaped South Asia for decades.
Challenging the ICC’s jurisdiction based on the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) that Afghanistan entered into with the US in 2002 is, in my opinion, the best US option if its goal is to avoid the ICC investigation. But no one has yet presented the SOFA to the ICC Prosecutor.