Afghan National Security ForcesEdit

The Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) were the core security apparatus of Afghanistan during the era of the Islamic Republic, created to defend the country's sovereignty, uphold public order, and enable the civilian government to govern effectively. Trained and equipped with substantial international assistance, the ANSF were envisioned as a professional, capable force able to counter insurgency, deter external threats, and support governance at the local level. Core parts of the ANSF included the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, the Afghan Air Force, and specialized security units, with operational oversight by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior alongside a parallel intelligence apparatus, the National Directorate of Security.

The ANSF existed in the context of a broader international effort to stabilize Afghanistan. NATO and partner nations supported the ANSF through the ISAF era and later the Resolute Support Mission, focusing on training, equipping, and advising Afghan forces so that they could assume primary responsibility for security. This effort reflected a broader foreign policy approach that prioritized stabilizing Afghanistan, reducing the threat of transnational terrorism, and enabling Afghan political sovereignty without a persistent foreign combat presence on the ground.

Formation and mandate

The security forces were established in the wake of the 2001 Bonn Agreement and subsequent constitutional processes, with the goal of defending Afghanistan against insurgent groups and supporting civilian authorities in maintaining order and rule of law.
The ANA and ANP were designed to be demographically representative, professionalized through training and parameterized by a doctrine oriented toward counterinsurgency and conventional defense, while remaining under the civilian-led ministries responsible for defense and interior security.
The ANSF were tasked with not only military defense but also stabilizing communities, protecting critical infrastructure, and supporting governance initiatives at the local level. This included cooperating with local authorities, facilitating reconstruction, and enabling the delivery of public services.

Structure and components

Afghan National Army (Afghan National Army): The ground forces, organized into units capable of combined-arms operations, training with international partners, and undertaking counterinsurgency campaigns in coordination with police and intelligence.
Afghan National Police (Afghan National Police): The civilian-leaning security force responsible for urban and rural policing, border security in some areas, and public order operations, typically operating under the Ministry of Interior.
Afghan Special Security Forces / Special Operations Forces: Elite units trained for powerful, targeted operations against high-threat insurgent and terrorist threats, including raids and precision counterterrorism missions.
Afghan Air Force (Afghan Air Force): The air component responsible for air mobility, close air support in coordination with ground forces, and reconnaissance—critical for rapid response and intelligence-driven operations.
National Directorate of Security (National Directorate of Security): The primary civilian intelligence service, providing strategic and operational intelligence to Afghan security efforts and cooperating with external partners during joint campaigns.
The ANSF functioned as an integrated system, with interoperability facilitated by joint training programs, command-and-control practices, and shared doctrine and equipment pipelines supported by international partners.

Training and international support

A sustained program of training, mentoring, and equipping was provided by the United States and allied countries through missions such as the Resolute Support Mission and, earlier, ISAF. The aim was to professionalize forces, enhance logistics and maintenance, and broaden the reach of Afghan security operations.
International support covered not only arms and equipment but also organizational reforms, logistics networks, and governance-related training to improve civilian oversight, human rights standards, and the rule of law within security operations.
The partnership model emphasized building Afghan ownership and sustainability, with the goal of enabling the ANSF to operate with increasing autonomy while maintaining a credible deterrent against insurgent threats.

Role in conflicts and operations

During the mid-2000s to mid-2010s, the ANSF became the primary security mechanism for counterinsurgency operations, reducing the Taliban’s territorial footholds in many districts and providing the framework for civilian governance to take root in areas previously under insurgent control.
As insurgent activity evolved, the ANSF adapted with combined-arms tactics, urban policing strategies, and special operations capabilities designed to disrupt and degrade insurgent networks, often with significant external air and logistical support.
The period saw noteworthy improvements in professionalization, beyond merely tactical success, including command-and-control reforms and attempts to expand female participation in certain security roles, under a broader policy framework aimed at inclusive governance.
The security challenge intensified in the late 2010s, with the Taliban adapting to COIN efforts and exploiting governance gaps. This culminated in a rapid and contested phase of the conflict as international forces reduced their direct presence and conditions on the ground shifted with peace talks and a withdrawal timetable.

Challenges and debates

Sustainability and fiscal constraints: The long-term viability of the ANSF depended on reliable funding, maintenance of equipment, and consistent morale. Critics noted that transfer of responsibility without durable domestic political support or sustainable budgets could undermine effectiveness.
Governance legitimacy and corruption: The effectiveness of security operations was intertwined with civilian governance, rule of law, and corruption concerns. Critics argued that without credible governance and anti-corruption measures, security gains could be eroded from within.
Desertions and retention: High turnover and morale issues affected readiness. Advocates argued that a professional career path, merit-based advancement, and adequate compensation were essential to maintaining an effective force.
Human rights and civilian protection: Accountability for civilian casualties and respect for human rights were ongoing concerns in some security operations. Supporters contended that the priority was defeating insurgents while pursuing disciplined, rules-based operations aligned with Afghanistan’s legal framework.
Foreign intervention and sovereignty debates: A persistent point in policy discussions is the balance between foreign military assistance and Afghan sovereignty. Proponents of a strong, homegrown security force argued that external support should be time-limited and strictly aligned with Afghan ownership and governance, while critics warned against overreliance on foreign forces or mission creep.
Woke criticisms and policy debates: From a pragmatic perspective, some observers contend that the central objective of security forces is to prevent and defeat insurgents and provide stable governance; while human rights and inclusion concerns are legitimate, they must be pursued in a way that does not undermine the primary mission. Proponents argue that a narrow focus on social program mandates can distract from defeating threats, while acknowledging that stable governance and rights protections are ultimately inseparable from lasting security. This view emphasizes measurable security outcomes, civilian protection, and sustainable institutions as the path to durable peace.

Post-2021 developments

With the Taliban’s 2021 takeover, the formal ANSF as an integrated national security apparatus effectively ceased to function in the same, internationally recognized capacity. Some personnel dispersed, defected, or integrated into the new security architecture established by the de facto authorities, and the security landscape in Afghanistan underwent a fundamental reorganization.
International partners reassessed the balance between security capacity and political settlement, while domestic and regional dynamics shaped the ongoing security debates. The long-term trajectory of Afghanistan’s security institutions remains tied to political legitimacy, economic resilience, and the ability to provide security and governance that communities can rely on.