On March 11, an assailant in Afghan police uniform killed two American special operations personnel and several members of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in eastern Afghanistan – the latest in a series of insider attacks that have undermined the military mission in Afghanistan and strained ties between the Afghan government and its foreign allies.

Insider or green-on-blue attacks began to escalate in 2009, when Improvised Explosive Devices or IEDs were the prime reason behind coalition casualties. Since then, insider attacks have largely taken over as the signature means for coalition casualties. In 2012 alone, over 40 insider attacks have claimed the lives of 61 coalition soldiers and left another 81 seriously injured. Last October, Taliban’s fugitive leader Mullah Omar praised the insider attacks as “the most effective weapon against the enemy.”

Unlike IEDs, understanding the root causes of insider attacks is highly nuanced and not much research has been done in this regard. Initially, the Afghan government appeared more inclined to speculate on the underlying causes of these attacks as the individual acts of resentment within the ANSF, triggered largely in response to Western-caused civilian causalities and perceived or actual disrespect to culturally sensitive issues. Personal animosity and mockery among members of the Afghan and coalition forces also features as an important driver behind the insider attacks. Recently, however, the Afghan government seems less hesitant to suggest that the patronage of foreign intelligence agencies, particularly those of Pakistan and Iran, is likely behind these attacks. On their part, coalition forces blame the ANSF’s corrupt and insufficient screening and recruitment procedures as an important factor.

These explanations miss important features of insider attacks, since personal resentment, recruitment flaws, psychological challenges and the impact of Taliban propaganda are more symptoms than causes of the attacks. The triggers cause emotional and spontaneous violence driven by individual responses to perceived insults by coalition soldiers. Spontaneous emotional violence is only one reflection of a broader blurred social anomie.

Insider attacks are expressions of a broader social mindset. While anthropological tools have been applied to learn about populations and territories, studies of the collective identities in Afghanistan manufactured by the war and violent history has been deeply excluded. These socially conscious and purposive mindsets drive popular disdain and indignation against international forces and the Western world at large. As such, the insider attacks are only a practical application of the whole sentimental realm of the society.

Such mindsets have evolved over the last three decades as a result of radical socio-political transformation. This combined with the culturally institutionalized obligation to enact violent revenge as means for restitution of inflicted loss seems likely to keep generating violent reactive impulses and conducts against international forces and their civilian and military mentors. Thus, the insider attacks have become part of a complex trajectory of violent reactions that is in service of a particular mindset and is presumably perpetually threatened.

Addressing and minimizing the various causes could potentially curb the frequency of attacks, but eliminating them altogether could result from tackling the root causes of an alienation threatened mindset forged by violence and in and out groups. Education and psycho-social interventions can therefore play a critical role.

Additionally, the frequency of violent attacks by trained Afghan soldiers against their Western allies underscores fundamental fault lines. These attacks harm the trust formed between Afghan and international forces and in turn hamper long- term partnerships. Certain measures adopted by coalition force to prevent future attacks such as carrying a loaded gun around the clock only serves to further polarize the situation and widen the trust deficit. Reduced trust between Kabul and the West will leave the Afghan State with no option except to be entrapped in the political and military hegemony of the regional powers that are seeking their ill defined strategic depths in Afghanistan.

Insider attacks pose profound implications for the ANSF’s image as a cohesive national entity. The attacks illustrate a fragmented and infiltrated ANSF, raising questions about their ability and commitment to shoulder security responsibilities beyond 2014. Moreover, the coping measures adopted by the Afghan government, including assigning counterintelligence assets to the front lines and yet another wave of reform to the recruitment process negatively impact ANSF morale run. These measures can lead to a national army lacking trust, integrity and commitment as the protector of Afghanistan as a sovereign country.

On the other end, insider attacks boost the Taliban’s morale and give them yet another reason to speculate that they can bring Western forces to their knees. Adopting such propaganda is vital nutrition for the Taliban after losing mid-level commanders in controversial night raids. Further, insider attacks offer the Taliban the opportunity to glorify their unconventional and dehumanizing struggle for power. The Taliban can use cessation of insider attacks as a bargaining chip to strongly enter the political mainstream through a political settlement.

In sum it can be stated that more than individual motives or technical fault lines, the drivers behind insider attacks are more related to the collective social anomie that is caused by the inflicted socio-ideological transformation of the society.

Atal Ahmadzai writes on the contemporary issues of Afghanistan from time to time.

Oscar-nominated film Buzkashi Boys did not win an Academy Award Sunday night in the Best Live Action Short Film category, but young amateur actors Jawanmard Paiz and Fawad Mohammadi, along with the film’s director, Sam French, and Afghan-American producer, Ariel Nasr, made history and deserve high tribute for capturing the special nomination. Not only did they walk the red carpet, but they also made good use of their visit to the US to speak about change, hope and fear in their country.

They join several other artists of Afghan origin who have made headlines over the past year, or have been recognized on the global stage for their talent and creativity. However, to the extent that Afghan artists have made gains over the last decade, they also face several types of challenges in the transitional years ahead.

Among the most accomplished of Afghan artists is Atiq Rahimi, author and film director based in France, for his Prix Goncourt-winning book and movie Sange Sabour (the patience stone). Rahimi made history in 2008 when he won France’s most prestigious literary award. Portraying gender complexities in the Afghan war setting, Rahimi recently told Newsweek, “When I go to Afghanistan, I meet women of extraordinary might. They have a presence, socially, politically, culturally speaking.” Challenging social taboos, Rahimi said, “It was important to me for men to know how women suffer, dream, feel, and desire.”

Another filmmaker, Barmak Akram, made history at the Sundance Film Festival this year, when his film Wajhma (an Afghan Love Story), shot entirely in Afghanistan, won the Screenwriting Award World Cinema Dramatic at the festival in Park City, Utah. The movie successfully treats the contradictions of modern life in Kabul. Akram depicts in documentary reality style the perils of love and relationships when faced with tradition and societal expectations.

On the musical stage, Omar Akram (no relations to Barmak) received a prestigious Grammy Award for Best New Age Album at the music industry’s most important award ceremony. Akram’s album, Echoes of Love, reflects a personal journey that touches the soul and is inspired by Eastern, Western and Latin musical traditions. As a pianist and composer, his achievement is bound to encourage many young Afghans who are musically inclined. Upon hearing of his nomination, Akram said: “Our first album came out in 2002… So here we are being nominated, finally being recognized for something that we have worked so hard on. It’s very exciting.”

Ariana Delawari is already a role-model for the younger generation. The Afghan-American musician and multi-media artist has been recognized for her artistic creativity. Her original works feature a blend of Western and Afghan music and reflect her deep emotional attachment to her ancestry. Her most well-known album, Lion of Panjshir, was produced by movie director David Lynch. Her documentary We Came Home won an International Jury Award at the Sao Paolo Film Festival in 2011.

Last but not least, more than two dozen students, the majority of them selected from orphanages by Afghanistan’s National Institute of Music took the US by storm when they performed in February to packed audiences at the Kennedy Center in Washington and Carnegie Hall in New York. Their concert included selections of traditional Afghan and Indian music, and a recasting of Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons by William Harvey using traditional instruments. The young men and women who are part of this orchestra will be heading back to Afghanistan with a new worldview and priceless memories.

As in sports and academia, the artists mentioned above and many more who are striving to do the best possible under the circumstances in their respective fields, are positive role models in a society where they are sorely lacking.

Afghans, like many other nationalities, have and continue to show that there is no limit to creativity and high-level artistic achievement. These unprecedented accomplishments witnessed over the past year were made possible by personal drive, political, social and artistic freedom, empowerment and mobility. Civil society activity, in media in particular, has acted as an engine of change and new thinking in Afghanistan.

These rights and freedoms face challenges from governmental manipulation and the excesses associated with radicalized and oppressive mindsets. It is evident that Afghan tradition does not negate or dismiss art as part of human life as long as it is not destructive or demeaning.

It will be necessary to protect and support this sector as Afghanistan goes through political, security, economic and social transition over the next few years. It is mainly a responsibility for Afghans to protect and support, but there is still a need for international engagement to stand by these efforts.

The Afghan government is also slowly realizing that it cannot ignore the under-current of change. Ruling circles realize that these accomplishments are intrinsically tied to national sovereignty and pride. The best option is for partisan politics to avoid manipulation and to allow these natural talents to flourish and carve their own path. Not only do these artists and agents for change provide a counter-image to the narrative expressed by cynics and spoilers, but they also are a source of pride today and hope for the future.

We congratulate all of them for their accomplishments.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, four Secretaries of State – including the current Secretary – and the same number of Secretaries of Defense have dealt with various issues surrounding the war in Afghanistan but none have come close to claiming a breakthrough on the battlefield or the diplomatic arena. However, with the end of the UN-mandated NATO combat mission in sight by 2014, an opportunity exists for the new appointees (the Defense nomination still in-process) to see real progress with one or both tracks. What might such progress look like and eventually be considered as relative success for the principals and the Obama administration overall?

In 2009, Hillary Clinton, during her own Senate nomination hearing, listed Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East, at the “forefront of the challenges that the new administration will face.” As the U.S. was contemplating a troop surge and hoping to engage Pakistan to play a more helpful role, Clinton stipulated the need for an endpoint to the war in Afghanistan. An endpoint was set during her tenure as Secretary of State, but the regional dynamics, with very few exceptions, is still as bothersome as it was a few years ago.

On her way out, Clinton pointed out that restoring American leadership was the cornerstone of her legacy. In the interviews she gave to U.S. news outlets, there was very little mention of Afghanistan. But she indicated that she would continue to champion gender rights, with an emphasis on Afghanistan.

Now that John Kerry is at State, he will be reminded of his own remarks during Clinton’s 2009 hearing, when he expressed an analogy and drew parallels between the Vietnam and the Afghan war. He insisted on the need to implement a global counterinsurgency campaign, striving to understand “different” people and cultures and building the “successful structures of [Afghan] governance.” Kerry highlighted the need to change the United States’ approach to Afghanistan, most significantly, taking into consideration the tribal nature of Afghan society.

President Hamid Karzai’s visit last month to Washington was highlighted by yet another withdrawal announcement, but left decisions to be solidified regarding how engaged the U.S. and its allies will remain beyond 2014, and how it might deal with a laundry list of tasks, and just as importantly, with an uncertain Afghan future.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama announced that 34,000 American troops will return home from Afghanistan over the next year, leaving less than 33,000 until the end of mission. As the U.S. and NATO allies move towards ending the combat mission, the State Department’s role will become even more important in meeting the U.S.’s diplomatic and complex regional objectives dealing with political overtures, shared interests, and prevent efforts to sabotage those interests.

Furthermore, if the now-negotiated Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) between Washington and Kabul is reached, several U.S. agencies will need to coordinate their efforts to assure that Washington pursues a focused counterterrorism strategy and provides adequate training and support to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) so that – in the words of President Obama – “the country does not again slip into chaos.”

Secretary Kerry will have to engage many in the region and beyond to play a constructive role. As a member of the Senate since 1985 and former Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Kerry is no stranger to geopolitical issues and Afghanistan, specifically. He made multiple trips to Afghanistan and was successful in convincing President Karzai to participate in a run-off election in 2009. In his own Senate confirmation hearing, Kerry posited that the first priority with regard to Afghanistan was making sure that Afghan forces are equipped to take the security lead and “maintain a capacity to prevent the kind of basing for terrorism, which took us there in the first place.” Kerry’s consistent stance is that a pure military victory in Afghanistan is out of sight and a political resolution and reconciliation is Washington’s best bet, even though it is a more lengthy approach.

However, Kerry’s strongest words were about the Afghan elections, stating that a smooth U.S. withdrawal hinges on Afghans holding credible elections and not just reconciliation efforts to draw the Taliban to lay down their arms.

Determining the difference between Kerry and Clinton’s policy objectives with regard to Afghanistan might be too soon, and some may even argue that what Clinton dealt with back in 2009 is very different from what Kerry has inherited. Nonetheless, if U.S. engagement in Afghanistan is to succeed beyond military means, Secretary Kerry should heed the following four recommendations:

The first is to reinforce the idea that Afghans can control their future by taking ownership of their country. Three decades of war have led most to operate in survival mode with unease for what the future may hold. With an eye on 2014, anxiety has increased among Afghans that civil war may break out once international forces leave. The “me versus the world” mindset needs to be undermined with strategies that instill messages of cooperation. Unclear about their future, people in Afghanistan are hesitant to expand their businesses, create new ventures and are looking for ways to leave the country. While there are existing programs that work by providing a grant or loan for a business, for example, followed by training, such programs need to be expanded. Therefore, the U.S. must build the confidence of the Afghan people with campaigns that focus on their ability to determine the trajectory of the future of their country.

The second recommendation is to continue to marginalize the extremists and subversive and irreconcilable elements of the Taliban and other groups, and help reintegrate those who wish to work toward a peaceful Afghanistan. Secretary Kerry can make this a significant aspect of the U.S.’s counterterrorism strategy. Additionally, the U.S.-Afghan Strategic Partnership Agreement signed in May 2012, which called for reaching a Bilateral Security Agreement can help shape relations between the two countries along economic, security, political and cultural lines.

The third recommendation is to reinforce efforts by Afghans to build strong civil society organizations and political institutions that can start aiming to be incorruptible, acknowledging in the process that this takes time and that democracy is not borne in a vacuum. Socio-political transition is just as imperative as a security one, and rule of law must be prioritized, with Afghans engaged in public discourse without being threatened by corrupt officials. One way this might be accomplished is supporting a vigorous debate on constitutional reform. The international community must caveat the aid it presently provides to pressure the Afghan government to consider constitutional and political reform, and providing more systemic accountability, bridging the gap with the citizenry.

The final recommendation is to avoid the use of nation building as an abstract strategy to build cooperation and cohesion. Rural audiences, that comprise more than 70 percent of the total Afghan population, cannot relate to campaigns that emphasize national institutions. Nation building strategies have failed and should not be pursued further because it remains a predominantly urban phenomenon advocated by political figures and opposed by rural leaders and their followers.

A focus on building the confidence of the Afghan people will enable them to secure their country, hold their government accountable, institute socio-political safeguards to root out corruption, focus on education, and build their structures and institutions with a certain level of foreign assistance – leaving them empowered and able to declare that they are involved in change with some assistance, but no interference.

Farzana Nabi is a social scientist who has performed extensive analysis of Afghanistan’s social, political, and military affairs for the U.S. Dept. of Defense, NATO, and various government institutions. She is a founding member of Afghan Analytica and serves on its editorial board.

Last Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stepped down after serving for four years as America’s top diplomat. While some analysts examine her legacy, others wonder whether she will run for the presidency in 2016. Regardless of her legacy and intentions in four years, Clinton leaves behind “high heels” to fill and many positive achievements in the areas of foreign policy formulation and rebuilding relations. Over the years, Clinton has become a household name to many, but as she returns to private life, she will be remembered for her strong outreach and formidable presence. Chief among her unwavering dedications has been her work to advance the role of women and girls, including those in Afghanistan.

Secretary Clinton created the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues (S/GWI) under the able leadership of Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, Melanne Verveer. The Office seeks to ensure that women’s issues are fully integrated in the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy. S/GWI works to promote stability, peace and development by empowering women politically, socially and economically in challenging countries. Since its inception in 2009, it has strived to hold governments accountable for the systematic oppression of girls and women, and fought for their education in emerging countries. Secretary Clinton made this clear when the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1325 that stated that “women are still largely shut out of the negotiations that seek to end conflicts, even though women and children are the primary victims of 21st century conflict.”

Ambassador Verveer, a force of her own, has been particularly instrumental in promoting women’s rights in Afghanistan and other post-conflict nations. Verveer continues to connect women’s rights champions in Afghanistan with policymakers and civil society leaders who are committed to ensuring that Afghanistan does not once again experience the oppressive policies of the past.

While Washington has pledged not to support a peace process with the Taliban that could jeopardize fundamental gender rights gains, there are growing concerns among many in Afghanistan that those accomplishments will be increasingly undermined once international forces leave in 2014. Violence towards women has been steadily increasing in Afghanistan while rights activists continue signaling the dire situation Afghan women and girls face across Afghanistan. In December, a well-known Afghan women’s advocate was murdered. Most recently, it was reported that Gulnaz, a young rape victim that was jailed for adultery, has been forced to marry her attacker to escape imprisonment. In March 2012, Human Rights Watch highlighted the plight of women and girls in prisons and juvenile detention centers accused of “moral crimes” – something that often involve fleeing from unlawful forced marriage or domestic violence.

Concerned about the future of Afghan women, Clinton, in her last few hours as Secretary of State, pledged to keep the “issue front and center” by staying on as co-chair of the U.S.-Afghan Women’s Council. The Council, based out of Georgetown University is a public-private partnership created in 2002 by Presidents George W. Bush and Hamid Karzai, connecting the two governments, the private sector, academia, and civil society organizations to develop and implement initiatives in support of Afghan women and children. The Council uses its networks to identify needs in Afghanistan, convene interested partners, and help broker connections for implementation.

Secretary Clinton made sure her work in empowering women continues. On January 30, President Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum to strengthen and expand U.S. government capacity and coordination across all agencies to better promote gender equality and empower women and girls. In the Memorandum, President Obama reaffirmed that “promoting gender equality and advancing the status of all women and girls around the world remains one of the greatest unmet challenges of our time, and one that is vital to achieving our overall foreign policy objectives.” The Memo holds promise for future support to Afghan women that any funding to Afghanistan will ensure better coordination by U.S. agencies to empower women and girls leading up to and beyond 2014.

Meanwhile, the Afghan government and society in general also need to do their part to make sure that not only are the gains protected, but that laws are enforced, new opportunities are created, and women and girls continue to prosper. More importantly, no political compromise that undermines gender rights should be tolerated as part of reconciliation deal-making.

While great strides have been made to promote the rights and opportunities for Afghan women and girls, many incidents surrounding the security and rights of Afghan women over the years necessitate the need for strengthened and renewed commitment by Kabul and Washington to ensure that women are in the words of Secretary Clinton “front and center” in the transition process. Time will tell what the future holds for Afghan women and girls, but it brings comfort to many in Afghanistan and abroad that strong and committed advocates stand beside them in the challenging years ahead.

Hodei Sultan, a founding member of Afghan Analytica, is a Program Officer for the Afghanistan and Pakistan Program at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). The views reflected here are her own.

Much to his displeasure, President Hamid Karzai travelled to London on a British airline on Saturday to attend the third Afghanistan-UK-Pakistan trilateral summit to discuss regional peace and security issues. President Karzai’s preference was to fly KamAir but some countries purportedly refused the embattled Afghan airline to enter their airspace.

The U.S. military has blacklisted KamAir for their alleged role in smuggling Afghan narcotics to Central Asia. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) recently reported quoting anonymous U.S. military officials that the Afghan airline was transporting domestically-produced drugs to countries like Tajikistan.

The WSJ story infuriated President Karzai who chaired a heated Cabinet meeting last week and criticized the U.S. military for irresponsibly accusing KamAir of drug smuggling through a media report. This was followed by a diplomatic note from Afghanistan’s Foreign Ministry to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul requesting evidence of KamAir’s alleged wrongdoing.

Given the sensitive intelligence-cum-military nature of the issue, Washington is unlikely to make public or even share the evidence implicating KamAir in illicit drug trafficking. This means the Afghan government’s calls for evidence will land nowhere and instead make KamAir yet another matter of contention in relations between Kabul and Washington.

KamAir vehemently denies drug smuggling and has already started to suffer from the indictment. Its reputation as a passenger airline has been tarnished and its ability to commute passengers, even the Afghan President, has been increasingly curtailed.

If indeed KamAir is implicit in drugs smuggling, the black-listing not only tarnishes U.S.-Afghan relations but will also have corrosive impact on the fledging Afghan economy. Despite Afghanistan’s role as the world’s leading opium producing country, the Afghan economy relies heavily on income and import taxes. KamAir is one of the two major privately-owned airlines in Afghanistan, and provided a significant amount of revenue.

Set up in 2003, KamAir is Afghanistan’s first-ever private airline whose owner, Zamarai Kamgar, received his very first Boeing 727 from Uzbek leader General Abdul Rashid Dostum in exchange for supplying Dostum’s militias with food and fuel in the 1990s.

To share or to leak?

It is difficult to speculate whether the intelligence linking KamAir to drug trafficking was an unauthorized leak to the media. Unlike the Wikileaks revelations, the WSJ story has the hallmarks of a purposeful and authorized dissemination of sensitive intelligence information.

There could be all sorts of speculations as to why the U.S. government decided to share the KamAir narco-trafficking case with a media outlet before discussing it with the Afghan government. Calling the U.S. approach damaging, Afghan officials complain that instead of leaking the reports to the media, the U.S. government should have shared its concerns with Afghan government first so it could act. Such an approach seems logical, given the important relations Washington and Kabul share, the two governments should be able to privately discuss and resolve mutual problems and concerns than surprising each other through the media.

Much of this is an outcome of the ineffective governance in Kabul, especially President Karzai’s reluctance to prosecute cases of corruption. For example, in December 2010, Gen. David Petraeus, then commander of U.S.-NATO forces in Afghanistan, warned President Karzai about massive corruption in a military hospital in Kabul. President Karzai’s inaction enabled the head of the military hospital, who had allegedly embezzled millions of dollars, to walk out clean. However, after pressing President Karzai for years to tackle rampant corruption and seeing no tangible results, the U.S. preference now may be to publicly indict and blacklist individuals and entities that are alleged to have a role in the intractable Afghan graft.

President Karzai has been leading one of the world’s most corrupt states for more than a decade now. Had U.S. officials informed the Afghan government about KamAir’s alleged illicit activities before they appeared in the media, the Kabul government was more likely to just angrily deny the allegations than to take any meaningful action. But now that the KamAir case is in the open, it is more important for the Afghan government to address the problem than to continue its criticisms of Washington for publicizing it in order to ensure that this case is not treated like other corruption cases of the past.

Hawa Dawi is an Afghan journalist and writer. She can be reached at wasdawi@gmail.com