The Taliban has strengthened in the southern provinces of Afghanistan since 2005 and progress in the region is heading in the wrong direction, according to experts at a security policy forum hosted Wednesday by George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs.
"The downhill trend started when the U.S. turned over command to [NATO], which caused the Taliban to shift their strategy of attack," said retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David Barno.
The perception in the region is that NATO is weaker than the U.S. presence there, he said.
"There is a major counterinsurgency going on due to the U.S. exit, and the ability for NATO to stay in this effort long-term is problematic," Barno said.
A recent survey found that just over half of Afghans have confidence in the security situation there, a figure that is down compared to another survey conducted two years ago, according to Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth, who moderated the forum.
"Another requirement for success is public support and participation," Inderfurth said.
There are also persistent issues in the region to consider when assessing any progress in Afghanistan, according to Larry Goodson, the Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower Chair of National Security at the U.S. Army War College. "It is a country of profound ethno-linguistic cleavages rubbed raw due to ongoing warfare, and the country has profound economic weaknesses."
Afghanistan's religions are interpreted by local tribal leaders, which can create movements like the Taliban, Goodson said.
"It may be the battle ground in the 21st century," he said. "Western democracy is a hard fit for Afghanistan. It's not that it can't happen - it's that the cultural realities have pushed against it for a long time and rooting it will take a long time."
Staying power is a big problem now because NATO is there and the United States did not recognize the risk of failure. This is substantial because if one country begins to pull out, Afghanistan will unravel, Goodson said.
"Leadership is the critical element here, and the bigger issue for me is structuring that leadership," he said. "You can't build democracy or human capacity where things have been destroyed. The only way to change Afghanistan is to stay."
One way to maintain this stability is through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams program that began in 2002 when the United States wanted to operate in the countryside, said Robert Perito, senior program officer at the Center for Post-Conflict Peace and Stability Operations.
The purpose of the program is to extend the authority of the central government into the provinces.
"PRT is a kind of secure platform where operations can be run like food and housing assistance," Perito said.
James Lebovic, a professor of political science and international affairs at GW, said he was pessimistic about the country's future.
"My hunch is that conditions will continue to disintegrate, and they [Afghans] will be left holding the bag," he said.
