Resolute Support MissionEdit
The Resolute Support Mission (RSM) was a NATO-led international effort in Afghanistan that began in 2015 to train, advise, and assist the Afghan security forces and civilian institutions. It marked a shift from combat operations to capacity-building and governance support, with no large-scale foreign combat troops deployed on Afghan soil. The mission operated in the context of a long-running struggle to stabilize the country after years of conflict and to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a sanctuary for international terrorism. The RSM concluded in 2021 as part of the broader drawdown of international forces and the transition of security responsibilities to Afghanistan’s own institutions. In its footprint, the mission interacted with a wide array of local actors, regional partners, and international supporters, aiming to help Afghan authorities sustain security, legitimacy, and governance.
From the outset, the mission worked within the framework of the Bilateral Security Agreement between the government of Afghanistan and key international partners, and it operated under the political and military umbrella of NATO with contributions from multiple partner nations. The goal was to enable Afghan security forces to assume full responsibility for their country’s security while strengthening civilian institutions to support stability and the rule of law. The structure emphasized professionalization, reform of security sector institutions, and a steady transfer of expertise to Afghan counterparts, including the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, and other security and judicial-administrative bodies. The mission also sought to bolster the Afghan state’s legitimacy by promoting governance, anti-corruption reforms, and civilian-military coordination at provincial and district levels.
Establishment and mandate
The RSM was established to replace large-scale combat operations with a long-term, advisory, and training role. Its mandate centered on capability-building rather than frontline combat missions, with advisory teams embedded in Afghan security institutions and ministries. The approach was designed to cultivate sustainable security forces that could operate with increasing autonomy, while civilian institutions worked on governance, justice, and public administration.
The mission operated across multiple Afghanistan provinces, coordinating with Afghan ministries, the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces leadership, and regional partners. It placed emphasis on professionalization, logistics, planning, air governance, intelligence, and sector-specific reforms intended to improve the effectiveness and accountability of security forces.
The RSM’s activities encompassed mentoring of senior officers, advising on doctrine and training pipelines, and assisting with reform of procurement, budgeting, and personnel systems. While foreign troops did not engage in large-scale combat, the mission maintained capabilities for protective security and support to coalition partners as needed, all within the legal and political frameworks of the participating nations.
Regional and global dimensions included coordination with Pakistan, Russia, and other neighbors to manage cross-border security concerns, borders, and insurgent movements, as well as engagement with international organizations and donors supporting reconstruction and governance.
Structure, scope, and operations
The core component of the RSM centered on advisory teams, mentors, and subject-matter experts embedded with Afghan security agencies and ministries. The aim was to pass on best practices in training, operations planning, logistics, medical support, and civil-m military coordination.
The mission emphasized civilian-military integration, with parallel programs aimed at anti-corruption measures, civilian oversight of security forces, and community engagement to build legitimacy and trust in state institutions.
Security cooperation under the RSM was conducted with a focus on interoperability between Afghan forces and international partners, enabling Afghan units to operate more effectively with and without foreign support. The arrangement sought to reduce volatility and prevent the emergence of security vacuums in key districts and provincial capitals.
The operational environment included ongoing counterterrorism efforts against insurgent networks, notably groups aligned with or inspired by extremist ideologies, as well as efforts to counter narcotics and organized crime that funded insurgent activity. The RSM’s role was to strengthen state capacity to address these threats through training, information-sharing, and strategic planning.
Military and civilian authorities stressed a focus on the rule of law, human rights, and the protection of civilians. The RSM supported reforms intended to align Afghan security practices with international standards, while recognizing the constraints of local security dynamics and the realities of an ongoing insurgency.
Achievements and limitations
Support for professionalization and reform yielded improvements in specific security-sector functions, including planning processes, logistics management, and command-and-control practices. Training and mentorship helped Afghan professionals develop capabilities in areas such as medical evacuation, counter-IED (improvised explosive device) operations, and logistics coordination.
The mission contributed to the creation and reinforcement of some capable Afghan security units and improved coordination between security forces and civilian authorities in certain provinces. This helped to stabilize some districts and support governance initiatives at the local level.
Critics argued that the RSM faced structural constraints that limited its long-term impact. Persistent challenges included corruption, persistent governance weaknesses, uneven local legitimacy, and uneven morale within Afghan forces. They noted that without sustained political will and comprehensive domestic reforms, capacity-building could not fully translate into durable security and governance outcomes.
A recurring debate centered on whether a capability-building mission could achieve strategic security goals without broader political settlements, credible governance, and regional cooperation. From a pragmatic vantage, detractors argued that without parallel reforms in governance, anti-corruption measures, and durable funding, the security gains from training and advice risked erosion over time.
The mission operated in a complex environment where insurgent groups adapted to changing circumstances, including shifts in cross-border dynamics and regional diplomacy. The capacity of Afghan institutions to sustain reform in the face of sustained insurgency and fiscal pressures remained a central question.
Strategic debates and controversies
Proponents of the RSM argued that a professional, capable Afghan security apparatus was essential to preventing Afghanistan from becoming a sanctuary for global terrorist networks. They asserted that training, mentoring, and governance reform were legitimate and necessary instruments of foreign policy aimed at preventing mass casualty attacks and regional destabilization. They emphasized the importance of Afghan ownership and the gradual, condition-based transfer of responsibilities.
Critics contended that the mission’s resources could not overcome deep-seated governance deficits, endemic corruption, and the strategic incentives driving Afghan political incentives. They argued that without credible, sustained political settlements, foreign-led capacity-building could only achieve limited, reversible gains and that a prolonged foreign footprint risked dependency and misalignment with Afghan realities.
A noted point of contention concerns the balance between security-focused objectives and the promotion of social and political reforms. Advocates of a stronger emphasis on governance and rule-of-law reform argued that security alone could not secure lasting stability and that without accountable institutions, security gains would be fragile. Proponents of a tighter, more limited mission argued that the priority should be national self-sufficiency, rapid conclusion of foreign combat missions, and respect for Afghan sovereignty.
Critics of what they saw as mission creep posited that a focus on “nation-building” could dilute security objectives and prolong engagement without delivering durable political settlements. Supporters countered that security is a prerequisite for any meaningful political compromise, arguing that without a capable state, negotiations with insurgent actors would be destabilizing or impractical.
The broader regional context also shaped debate. Some argued that the mission should have pursued more aggressive regional diplomacy or more substantial pressure on neighboring states to curb cross-border insurgent support; others argued that diplomacy and regional stability were essential complements to on-the-ground capacity-building.
Regional and global impacts
The RSM’s presence influenced regional security dynamics by sustaining a Western-backed security framework that constrained insurgent activity in some areas and underwrote local governance efforts. It also contributed to a broader narrative about the international community’s willingness to support Afghan sovereignty while encouraging local ownership.
The mission intersected with broader debates about the role of international coalitions in stabilizing fragile states. Its experience informed subsequent discussions on how to structure similar missions—balancing training, advisory, and governance support with clear exit strategies and accountable outcomes.
As part of the transition, discussions centered on how to maintain continuity of security and governance reform after foreign troops draw down. This included considerations of funding, equipment, and institutional reform priorities that would help Afghan authorities sustain security gains.