Troop surge
Deployment of additional U.S. troops continued in early 2010, with 9,000 of the planned 30,000 in place before the end of March and another 18,000 expected by June, with the 101st Airborne Division as the main effort. The Pentagon anticipated that U.S. troops in Afghanistan will outnumber those in Iraq for the first time since 2003.^[248]
The CIA, from a request by General McChrystal, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, planned to increase teams of operatives, including their elite paramilitary officers from Special Activities Division (SAD), with U.S. military special operations forces. This combination worked well in Iraq and is largely credited with the success of that surge.^[249] The CIA also increased its campaign using Hellfire missile strikes on Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. The number of strikes in 2010, 115, more than doubled the 50 drone attacks that occurred in 2009.^[250]
The surge in troops also meant a sixfold increase in Special Forces operations.^[251] There were 700 air strikes in September 2010, alone versus 257 in all of 2009. From July 2010 to October 2010, 300 Taliban commanders and 800 foot soldiers were killed.^[252] Hundreds more insurgent leaders were killed or captured as 2010 came to a close.^[251] General David Petraeus characterized the damage Special Forces were inflicting on the insurgents this way: "We’ve got our teeth in the enemy’s jugular now, and we’re not going to let go."^[253]
The CIA created what would be called Counter-terrorism Pursuit Teams (CTPT) at the beginning of the war.^[254][255] This force grew to over 3,000 soldiers by 2010 and is considered one of the "best Afghan fighting forces".^[255] According to Woodward book Obama's War, Firebase Lilley as one of the nerve centers for the covert war conducted by the CIA's SAD.^[255] These units have not only been highly effective in operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan,^[256] but have expanded their operations into Pakistan.^[257] They were also important factors in both the "counterterrorism plus" and the full "counter-insurgency" options discussed by the Obama administration in the December 2010 review.^[258]

Wikileaks disclosure
Main article: Afghan War documents leak
On 25 July 2010, the release of 91,731 classified documents from the Wikileaks organization was made public. The documents cover U.S. military incident andintelligence reports from January 2004 to December 2009.^[259] Some of these documents included sanitised, and "covered up", accounts of civilian casualties caused by Coalition Forces. The reports also included many references to other incidents involving civilian casualties like the Kunduz airstrike and Nangar Khel incident.^[260] The leaked documents also contain reports of Pakistan collusion with the Taliban. According to Der Spiegel, "the documents clearly show that the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (usually known as the ISI) is the most important accomplice the Taliban has outside of Afghanistan."^[261]

Pakistan and U.S. tensions
Main articles: Pakistan–United States skirmishes and Pakistan–United States relations
Tensions between Pakistan and the U.S. were heightened in late September after several Pakistan Frontier Corps soldiers were killed and wounded. The troops were attacked by a U.S. piloted aircraft that was pursuing Taliban forces near the Afghan-Pakistan border but for unknown reasons opened fire on two different Pakistan border posts. In retaliation for the strike, Pakistan closed the Torkham ground border crossing to NATO supply convoys for an unspecified period. This incident followed the recent release of a video allegedly showing uniformed Pakistan soldiers executing unarmed civilians.^[262] After the Torkham border closing, the Pakistani Taliban attacked the NATO convoys carrying supplies, killing several of the drivers and destroying around 100 tankers.^[263]

2011: U.S. and NATO drawdown
Soldiers from 34th Infantry Division, Task Force Red Bulls, discuss plans to maneuver into Pacha Khak village, Kabul Province, while conducting a dismounted patrol, 7 April 2011
Further information: 2011 in Afghanistan and Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan

Battle of Kandahar
See also: Battle of Kandahar
The Battle of Kandahar was part of an offensive named after the Battle of Bad'r that took place on 13 March 624, between Medina and Mecca. The Battle followed an announcement, 30 April 2011, that Taliban would launch their Spring offensive throughout the country.^[264]
On 7 May 2011, the Taliban launched a major offensive on Government buildings in Kandahar. Around 12:30 pm local time, the Taliban unleashed a major assault on government buildings throughout the city. The Taliban said their goal was to take control of Kandahar city. At least eight locations were attacked: the governor's compound, the mayor's office, the NDS headquarters, three police stations and two high schools.^[265] The battle continued onto a second day, 8 May 2011. The BBC's Bilal Sarwary called it "the worst attack in Kandahar province since the fall of the Taliban government in 2001, and a embarrassment for the Western-backed Afghan government."^[266]

Death of Osama bin Laden
Main article: Death of Osama bin Laden
On 2 May 2011, U.S. officials announced that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a Special Operation (code-named Operation Neptune Spear) to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden, conducted by the CIA and U.S. Navy SEALs, in Pakistan. Crowds gathered outside the White House in Washington, DC, chanting "USA, USA" after the news emerged, and President Barack Obama addressed the nation and the world from the East Room of the White House to tell the world of the operation.^[267]

Withdrawal
On 22 June 2011, President Obama addressed the nation from the White House and announced that 10,000 troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011 and an additional 23,000 troops will leave the country by the summer of 2012. After the withdrawal of 10,000 U.S. troops, only 80,000 left are participating in the war.^[268] In July 2011 Canada withdrew all of its combat troops, and has transitioned to a training role.
Following suit, other NATO countries announced reductions in troop numbers. The United Kingdom has stated that it will gradually start withdrawing some of its troops, however it has not yet specified numbers or dates.^[269] France has announced that it would withdraw roughly 1,000 soldiers by the end of 2012, with 3,000 soldiers remaining in Afghanistan at that point. Several hundreds would gradually come back at the end of 2011 and in the beginning of 2012, when the Afghan National Army takes control of the Surobi district. The remaining troops will continue to operate in Kapisa, and their complete withdrawal is expected by the end of 2014 or earlier if the security in this district is considered good enough.^{[270][271][272]}
Belgium announced they would withdraw half of their force starting January 2012.^[273] Norway announced it had started a withdrawal of its near 500 troops, and would be completely out of Afghanistan by 2014.^[274] Equally, the Spanish Prime Minister has announced the withdrawal of troops beginning in 2012 with a target of up to 40 percent of the current force withdrawing by the end of the first half of 2013, and complete withdrawal by 2014.^[275]

2011 U.S.-NATO attack in Pakistan
On the Peak of Tensions after "Operation Neptune Spear", an accidental, direct attack on Pakistan's armed forces by ISAF forces occurred on 26 November 2011, killing 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan blocked NATO supply and ordered Americans to leave Shamsi Airfield. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the attack was ‘tragic’ and ‘unintended’. "This (regret) is not good enough. We strongly condemn the attacks and reserve the right to take action,” said DG ISPR Major General Athar Abbas, while speaking to the national and international media from abroad on Monday. “This could have serious consequences in the level and extent of our cooperation.^[276]

2012: Strategic Agreement
Further information: 2012 in Afghanistan
Taliban attacks continued at the same rate as they did in 2011, remaining around 28,000 Taliban "enemy initiated" attacks.^[277]

Reformation of the United Front (Northern Alliance)
Ahmad Zia Massoud (left), then as Vice President of Afghanistan, shaking hands with a U.S. Provincial Reconstruction Team at the ceremony for a new road. He is now the chairman of the National Front of Afghanistan

“	If the Taliban are imposed on Afghanistan, there will be resistance.[278]	”

In late 2011 the National Front of Afghanistan (NFA) was created by Ahmad Zia Massoud, Abdul Rashid Dostum and Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq in what many analysts have described as a reformation of the military wing of the United Front (Northern Alliance) to oppose a return of the Taliban to power.^[279] Meanwhile, much of the political wing has reunited under the National Coalition of Afghanistan led by Abdullah Abdullah becoming the main democratic opposition movement in the Afghan parliament.^[280][281] Former head of intelligence, Amrullah Saleh, has created a new movement, Basej-i Milli (Afghanistan Green Trend), with support among the youth mobilizing about 10,000 people in an anti-Taliban demonstration in the capital Kabul in May 2011.^{[282][283][284]}
In January 2012, the National Front of Afghanistan raised concerns about the possibility of a secretive and untransparent deal between the US, Pakistan and the Taliban during a widely publicized meeting in Berlin. U.S. Congressman Louie Gohmert wrote, "These leaders who fought with embedded Special Forces to initially defeat the Taliban represent over 60-percent of the Afghan people, yet are being entirely disregarded by the Obama and Karzai Administrations in negotiations."^[285] After the meeting with US congressmen in Berlin the National Front signed a joint declaration stating among other things:
"We firmly believe that any negotiation with the Taliban can only be acceptable, and therefore effective, if all parties to the conflict are involved in the process. The present form of discussions with the Taliban is flawed, as it excludes anti-Taliban Afghans. It must be recalled that the Taliban extremists and their Al-Qaeda supporters were defeated by Afghans resisting extremism with minimal human embedded support from the United States and International community. The present negotiations with the Taliban fail to take into account the risks, sacrifices and legitimate interests of the Afghans who ended the brutal oppression of all Afghans.^[286]
—National Front Berlin Statement, January 2012

High-profile U.S. military incidents
U.S. Army soldiers prepare to conduct security checks near the Pakistan border, February 2012

Beginning in January 2012 incidents involving US troops occurred which were described by The Sydney Morning Herald as “a series of damaging incidents and disclosures involving American troops in Afghanistan [...].”^[287] These incidents created fractures in the partnership between Afghanistan and the NATO troops operating in the country,^[293] raised the question whether discipline within U.S. troops is breaking down,^[294] undermined "the image of foreign forces in a country where there is already deep resentment owing to civilian deaths and a perception among many Afghans that US troops lack respect for Afghan culture and people"^[295] and strained the relations between Afghanistan and the United States.^[288][289] Besides an incident involving US troops who posed with body parts of dead insurgents and an video apparently showing a US helicopter crew singing "Bye-bye Miss American Pie" before blasting a group of Afghan men with a Hellfire missile^{[295][296][297]} these “high-profile U.S. military incidents in Afghanistan”^[291] also included the 2012 Afghanistan Quran burning protests and the Panjwai shooting spree.

Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement
On 2 May 2012, Afghan President Hamid Karzai and U.S. President Barack Obama signed a strategic partnership agreement between the two countries, after the US president had arrived in Kabul as part of unannounced trip to Afghanistan on the first anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death.^[298] The U.S.-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership Agreement, officially entitled the "Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the United States of America",^[299] provides the long-term framework for the relationship between Afghanistan and the U.S. after the drawdown of U.S. forces in the Afghanistan war.^[300] The Strategic Partnership Agreement went into effect on 4 July 2012 according to an announcement by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 8 July 2012 at the Tokyo Conference on Afghanistan.^[301] On 7 July 2012, as part of the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement, the U.S. designated Afghanistan a major non-NATO ally after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived to Kabul to meet with President Karzai.^[302] On 11 November 2012, as part of the Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement, the U.S. and Afghanistan launched negotiations for a bilateral security agreement.^[303]

NATO Chicago Summit: Troops withdrawal and longterm presence
Further information: 2012 Chicago Summit, 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan, and Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan
On 21 May 2012 the leaders of the NATO-member countries endorsed an exit strategy during the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago.^[24] The NATO-led ISAF Forces will hand over command of all combat missions to Afghan forces by the middle of 2013,^[304] while shifting at the same time from combat to a support role of advising, training and assisting the Afghan security forces^[305][306] and then withdraw most of the 130,000 foreign troops by the end of December 2014.^[304] A new and different NATO mission will then advise, train and assist the Afghan security forces including the Afghan Special Operations Forces.^[305][307]

2013: Withdrawal
2013-01-11 Karzai-Obama-Meeting
In a visit to the United States by Afghan President Hamid Karzai in January 2012 the United States stated that it is open to withdrawing all of its troops by the end of 2014. U.S. Deputy national security adviser Benjamin J. Rhodes said that leaving no troops “would be an option that we would consider,” adding that “the president does not view these negotiations as having a goal of keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”^[308] On January 11, 2012 Afghan President Karzai and U.S. President Obama agreed to accelerate the handover of combat operations from NATO to Afghan forces by spring 2013 rather than summer 2013,^[309]meaning Afghan forces will take the lead in combat operations.^[310] NATO troops will focus on training, advising and assisting their Afghan counterparts, but also fighting alongside them, when needed.^[309] "What's going to happen this spring is that Afghans will be in the lead throughout the country. That doesn't mean that coalition forces including U.S. forces are no longer fighting," Obama said. "They will still be fighting alongside Afghan troops. It does mean though that Afghans will have taken the lead and our presence, the nature of our work will be different. We will be in a training, assisting, advising role."^[310] “We achieved our central goal, or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again,” Obama added. “At the end of this conflict, we are going to be able to say that the sacrifices that were made by those men and women in uniform has brought about the goal that we sought.”^[311]
Obama also stated that he will determine the pace of U.S. combat troops drawdown and their withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 after consultations with commanders on the ground.^[312] He also said any U.S. mission in Afghanistan beyond 2014 would focus solely on counterterrorism operations and training Afghan security forces.^[311][312] According to Obama any agreement on troop withdrawals must include an immunity agreement in which US troops are not subjected to Afghan law.^[313] "I can go to the Afghan people and argue for immunity for U.S. troops in Afghanistan in a way that Afghan sovereignty will not be compromised, in a way that Afghan law will not be compromised," Karzai replied.^[310]
Both leaders also agreed that the United States would hand over full control of Afghan prisoners and prisons to Afghanistan^[310][314] and to pull out American troops from Afghan villages in spring 2013.^[314][315] "The international forces, the American forces, will be no longer present in the villages, that it will be the task of the Afghan forces to provide for the Afghan people in security and protection," the Afghan president said.^[314]

2013-06-18 Security handover from NATO to Afghan forces
On June 18, 2013 the handover of security from NATO to Afghan forces was completed.^{[316][317][318][319]} The International Security Assistance Force formally handed over control of the last 95 districts to Afghan forces at a ceremony attended by President Hamid Karzai and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at a military academy outside Kabul.^[316] Following the handover, Afghan forces will have the lead for security in all 403 districts of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. Before the handover they were responsible for 312 districts nationwide, where 80 percent of Afghanistan's population of nearly 30 million lives.^[317] "Our security and defense forces will now be in the lead," Karzai said. "From here, all security responsibility and all security leadership will be taken by our brave forces. When people see security has been transferred to Afghans, they support the army and police more than before."^[316] Rasmussen said that by taking the lead in security on Tuesday, Afghan forces were completing a five-stage transition process that began in March 2011. "They are doing so with remarkable resolve," he said. "Ten years ago, there were no Afghan national security forces... now you have 350,000 Afghan troops and police, a formidable force."^[316] he security transition signaled an important shift. The U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force is slated to end its mission by the end of 2014, and coalition forces are in the process of closing bases and shipping out equipment.^[319] Rasmussen stated that the focus of ISAF forces will shift fom combat to support and that by the end of 2014 Afghanistan will be fully secured by Afghans. After the handover, 100,000 NATO forces will play a supporting and training role, as Afghan soldiers and police take the lead in the fight against armed groups.^[317] "We will continue to help Afghan troops in operations if needed, but we will no longer plan, execute or lead those operations, and by the end of 2014 our combat mission will be completed," Rasmussen added.^[316]
NATO and the United States are as of November/December 2012 planning their precise configuration of their post 2014 presence.^[320][321] For details regarding this presence and its planning process please see Withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.^[24]
Civilian casualties
There is no single official figure for the overall number of civilians killed by the war since 2001, but estimates for specific years or periods have been published by a number of organizations. According to a report by the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009.^[322] A UN report in June 2011 stated that 2,777 civilians were known to have been killed in 2010, with insurgents being responsible for 75% of the civilian casualties.^[323] Another United Nations report issued in July 2011 said "1,462 non-combatants died" in the first six months of 2011, with insurgents being responsible for 80% of the deaths.^[324] In 2011 a record 3,021 civilians were killed in the ongoing insurgency, the fifth successive annual rise.^[325] Very few people in Afghanistan have been unaffected by the armed conflict there. Those with direct personal experience make up 60% of the population, and most others also report suffering a range of serious hardships. In total, almost everyone (96%) has been affected in some way – either personally or due to the wider consequences of armed conflict.^[326]
However, according to Nicholas Kristoff, improved healthcare resulting from the war has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.^[327]
Refugees
Since the coalition intervention in 2001, more than 5.7 million refugees have returned to Afghanistan^{[1][328][329]} but 2.2 million Afghans remained refugees in 2013^[330] and in January, 2013 the UN estimated that there were 547,550 internally displaced persons within Afghanistan, a 25% increase over the 447,547 IDPs in January, 2012^[330] a figure reflected by Amnesty International when it reported that hundreds of Afghans were forced to flee their homes everyday during 2012.^{[329][331][332]}

Drug trade
Further information: Opium production in Afghanistan
From 1996-1999, the Taliban controlled 96% of Afghanistan's poppy fields and made opium its largest source of taxation.^[333] Taxes on opium exports became one of the mainstays of Taliban income and their war economy.^[333] According to Rashid, "drug money funded the weapons, ammunition and fuel for the war."^[333] In the New York Times, the Finance Minister of the United Front, Wahidullah Sabawoon, declared the Taliban had no annual budget but that they "appeared to spend US$ 300 million a year, nearly all of it on war." He added that the Taliban had come to increasingly rely on three sources of money: "poppy, the Pakistanis and bin Laden."^[333]
By 2000 Afghanistan accounted for an estimated 75% of the world's supply and in 2000 grew an estimated 3276 tonnes of opium from poppy cultivation on 82,171 hectares.^[334] At this juncture Omar passed a decree banning the cultivation of opium, and production dropped to an estimated 74 metric tonnes from poppy cultivation on 1,685 hectares.^[335] Many observers say the ban - which came in a bid for international recognition at the United Nations - was only issued in order to raise opium prices and increase profit from the sale of large existing stockpiles.^[333] The year 1999 had yielded a record crop and had been followed by a lower but still large 2000 harvest.^[333] The trafficking of accumulated stocks by the Taliban continued in 2000 and 2001.^[333] In 2002, the UN mentioned the "existence of significant stocks of opiated accumulated during previous years of bumper harvests."^[333] In September 2001 - before the 11 September attacks against the U.S. – the Taliban allegedly authorized Afghan peasants to sow opium again.^[333]
Soon after the 2001 U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan opium production increased markedly.^[336] By 2005, Afghanistan had regained its position as the world’s No. 1 opium producer and was producing 90% of the world’s opium, most of which is processed into heroin and sold in Europe and Russia.^[337] In 2009, the BBC reported that "UN findings say an opium market worth $65bn (£39bn) funds global terrorism, caters to 15 million addicts, and kills 100,000 people every year."^[338]

Public education
As of 2013, there are 8.2 million Afghan students in school, including 3.2 million girls. This is up from the 1.2 million students that were attending school in 2001, with less than 50,000 of them girls.^[339][340]
Throughout the War in Afghanistan war crimes have been committed by both sides in the conflict. These crimes have included massacres of civilians, bombings of civilian targets, terrorism, use of torture and the murder of prisoners of war. Additional common crimes include theft, arson, and the destruction of property.

Taliban War Crimes
In 2011 the New York Times reported that the Taliban was responsible for 3/4 of all civilian deaths in the War in Afghanistan.^[341][342] In 2013 the UN stated that the Taliban had been placing bombs along transit routes which is a war crime.^[343]
The Taliban has claimed responsibility for attacks on various civilian targets such as markets, aid workers, hotels and schools.

Northern Alliance War Crimes
In December 2001 the Dasht-i-Leili massacre took place, where between 250 and 3,000 Taliban fighters who had surrendered, were shot and/or suffocated to death in metal truck containers whilst being transported by Northern Alliance forces. Reports also place U.S. ground troops at the scene of the massacre.^{[344][345][346]} The Irish documentary Afghan Massacre - the Convoy of Deathinvestigated these allegations and claimed that mass graves of thousands of victims were found by United Nations investigators^[347] and that the Bush administration blocked investigations into the incident.^[348]

U.S. War Crimes
On June 21, 2003 David Passaro, a CIA contractor and U.S. Army Ranger, murdered Abdul Wali, a prisoner at a US base 10 miles south of Asadabad, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan. Passaro was found guilty of one count of felony assault with a dangerous weapon and three counts of misdemeanor assault. He was sentenced to serve 8 years and 4 months in prison.^[349][350]
In 2005, The New York Times obtained a 2,000-page United States Army report concerning the homicides of two unarmed civilian Afghan prisoners by U.S. armed forces in 2002 at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility (also Bagram Collection Point or B.C.P.) in Bagram, Afghanistan. The prisoners, Habibullah and Dilawar, were chained to the ceiling and beaten, which caused their deaths. Military coroners ruled that both the prisoners' deaths were homicides. Autopsies revealed severe trauma to both prisoners' legs, describing the trauma as comparable to being run over by a bus. Seven soldiers were charged.
During the summer of 2010, the military charged five members of the platoon with murder of three Afghan civilians in Kandahar province and collecting their body parts as trophies in what came to be known as the Maywand District murders. In addition, seven soldiers were charged with crimes such as hashish use, impeding an investigation, and attacking the whistleblower Spc. Justin Stoner.
On Sunday, 11 March 2012, the Kandahar massacre occurred when sixteen civilians were killed and six wounded in the Panjwayi District of Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. Nine of the victims were children, and eleven of the dead were from the same family. United States Army Staff Sergeant Robert Bales was taken into custody and charged with 16 counts of premeditated murder. The American and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) authorities apologized for the incident and promised a thorough and quick investigation.
The cost of the war reportedly was a major factor as U.S. officials considered drawing down troops in 2011.^[351] A March 2011 Congressional Research Service report notes the following about Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan: 1) following the Afghanistan surge announcement in 2009, Defense Department spending on Afghanistan has increased 50%, going from $4.4 billion to $6.7 billion a month. During that time, troop strength has gone from 44,000 to 84,000, and it is expected to be at 102,000 for fiscal year 2011; 2) The total operational cost for Afghanistan from the beginning of the conflict in 2001 through 2006 only slightly exceeds the amount spent in 2010 alone – $93.8 billion. The projected total cost relating to Afghanistan from inception to the fiscal year 2011 is expected to be $468 billion.^[352] The estimate for the cost of deploying one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is over US$1 million a year.^[353] In a 2011 news story, the CSMreported, "The United States and other Western nations that have borne the brunt of the cost of the Afghan war have been conspicuously absent from the bidding process on Afghanistan’s mineral deposits, leaving it to mostly to regional powers."^[354]In a 2008 interview, the then-head U.S. Central Command General David H. Petraeus, insisted that the Taliban were gaining strength. He cited the recent uptick in attacks in Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan. Petraeus also insisted that the challenges faced in Afghanistan are more complicated than the ones that were faced in Iraq during his tour and to turn around the recent events this would require removing militant sanctuaries and strongholds, which are widespread inside Afghanistan.^[355] Observers also have argued that the mission in Afghanistan is hampered by a lack of agreement on objectives, a lack of resources, lack of coordination, too much focus on the central government at the expense of local and provincial governments, and too much focus on Afghanistan instead of the region.^[356]
In November 2009, Afghanistan slipped three places in Transparency International's annual index of corruption perceptions, becoming the world's second most-corrupt country ahead of just Somalia.^[357] In the same month, Malalai Joya, a former member of the Afghan Parliament and the author of "Raising My Voice," expressed opposition to an expansion of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and concern about the future of her country. “Eight years ago, the U.S. and NATO – under the banner of women’s rights, human rights, and democracy – occupied my country and pushed us from the frying pan into the fire. Eight years is enough to know better about the corrupt, mafia system of President Hamid Karzai. My people are crushed between two powerful enemies. From the sky, occupation forces bomb and kill civilians ... and on the ground, the Taliban and warlords continue their crimes. It is better that they leave my country; my people are that fed up. Occupation will never bring liberation, and it is impossible to bring democracy by war.”^[358]
Pakistan is playing a central role in Afghanistan. A 2010 report published by the London School of Economics says that Pakistan's ISI has an "official policy" of support to the Taliban. The ISI provides funding and training to the Taliban.^[359] "Pakistan appears to be playing a double-game of astonishing magnitude," the report states.^[359] Amrullah Saleh, former director of Afghanistan's intelligence service, criticised: "We talk about all these proxies [Taliban, Haqqanis] but not the master of proxies, which is the Pakistan army. The question is what does Pakistan’s army want to achieve ...? They want to gain influence in the region"^[360] About the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan he stated: "[T]hey fight for the U.S. national interest but ... without them we will face massacre and disaster and God knows what type of a future Afghanistan will have."^[360] (see video)
Further information: Afghan National Army#Current status
The plan to transfer security responsibility to Afghan forces is the centerpiece of U.S. President Barack Obama's revised Afghanistan strategy.^[361] U.S. policy called for boosting the Afghan National Army to 134,000 soldiers by October 2010. By May 2010 the Afghan Army had accomplished this interim goal and was on track to reach its ultimate number of 171,000 by 2011.^[362] This increase in Afghan troops was intended to allow the U.S. to begin withdrawing American forces in July 2011.^[363] The transfer of security responsibilities could not happen unless the Afghan government and the coalition could recruit, train and retain soldiers.^[361]
At the time, the Afghan National Army had severely limited fighting capacity.^[364] Even the best Afghan units lacked training, discipline and adequate reinforcements. In one new unit in Baghlan Province, soldiers had been found cowering in ditches rather than fighting.^[365] Some were suspected of collaborating with the Taliban against the Americans.^[364] "They don’t have the basics, so they lay down," said Capt. Michael Bell, who was one of a team of U.S. and Hungarian mentors tasked with training Afghan soldiers. "I ran around for an hour trying to get them to shoot, getting fired on. I couldn’t get them to shoot their weapons."^[364] In addition, 9 out of 10 soldiers in the Afghan National Army could not read.^[366]
The Afghan Army was plagued by inefficiency and endemic corruption.^[367] U.S. training efforts were drastically slowed by the corruption, widespread illiteracy, vanishing supplies, and lack of discipline.^[368] U.S. trainers reported missing vehicles, weapons and other military equipment, and outright theft of fuel provided by the U.S.^[364] Death threats were leveled against U.S. officers who tried to stop Afghan soldiers from stealing. Afghan soldiers often found improvised explosive devices and snipped the command wires instead of marking them and waiting for U.S. forces to come to detonate them. The Americans said this just allows the insurgents to return and reconnect them.^[364] U.S. trainers frequently removed the cell phones of Afghan soldiers hours before a mission for fear that the operation would be compromised.^[369] American trainers often spent large amounts of time verifying that Afghan rosters were accurate – that they are not padded with "ghosts" being "paid" by Afghan commanders who quietly collected the bogus wages.^[370]
Desertion has been a significant problem in the Afghan Army. One in every four combat soldiers quit the Afghan Army during the 12-month period ending in September 2009, according to data from the U.S. Defense Department and the Inspector General for Reconstruction in Afghanistan.^[371]
The Afghan National Police provides support to the Afghan army. Police officers in Afghanistan are largely illiterate. Approximately 17 percent of them test positive for illegal drugs. They are widely accused of demanding bribes.^[372] Attempts to build a credible Afghan police force were faltering badly, according to NATO officials, even as they acknowledge that the force would be a crucial piece of the effort to have Afghans manage their own security so American forces could begin leaving.^[373] Taliban infiltration is a constant worry; incompetence an even bigger one.^[373] A quarter of the officers quit every year, making the Afghan government’s goals of substantially building up the police force even harder to achieve.^[373]
Beginning in 2011, insurgent forces in Afghanistan began using a tactic of insider attacks on ISAF and Afghan military forces. In the attacks, Taliban personnel or sympathizers belonging to, or pretending to belong to, the Afghan military or police forces would suddenly attack ISAF personnel, often within the security of ISAF military bases and Afghan government facilities. In 2011, for example, 21 insider attacks killed 35 coalition personnel. Forty-six insider attacks killed 63 and wounded 85 coalition troops, mostly American, in the first 11 months of 2012.^[374]
Public opinion in 2001
When the invasion began in October 2001, polls indicated that about 88% of Americans and about 65% of Britons backed military action in Afghanistan.^[375]
A large-scale 37-nation poll of world opinion carried out by Gallup International in late September 2001 found that large majorities in most countries favored a legal response, in the form of extradition and trial, over a military response to 9/11: Only in three countries out of the 37 surveyed – the U.S., Israel, and India – did majorities favor military action in Afghanistan. In the other 34 countries surveyed, the poll found many clear majorities that favored extradition and trial instead of military action: in the United Kingdom (75%), France (67%), Switzerland (87%), Czech Republic (64%), Lithuania (83%), Panama (80%), Mexico (94%), and other countries.^[376][377]
An Ipsos-Reid poll conducted between November and December 2001 showed that majorities in Canada (66%), France (60%), Germany (60%), Italy (58%), and the U.K. (65%) approved of U.S. airstrikes while majorities in Argentina (77%), China (52%), South Korea (50%), Spain (52%), and Turkey (70%) opposed them.^[378]

Development of public opinion
See also: International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan
In a 47-nation June 2007 survey of global public opinion, the Pew Global Attitudes Project found international opposition to the war. Out of the 47 countries surveyed, 4 had a majority that favoured keeping foreign troops: the U.S. (50%), Israel (59%), Ghana (50%), and Kenya (60%).^[379] In 41 of the 47 countries,pluralities want U.S. and NATO troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.^[379] In 32 out of 47 countries, clear majorities wanted this war over as soon as possible. Majorities in 7 out of 12 NATO member countries say troops should be withdrawn as soon as possible.^[379][380]
A 24-nation Pew Global Attitudes survey in June 2008 similarly found that majorities or pluralities in 21 of 24 countries want the U.S. and NATO to remove their troops from Afghanistan as soon as possible. Only in three out of the 24 countries – the U.S. (50%), Australia (60%), and Britain (48%) – did public opinion lean more toward keeping troops there until the situation has stabilized.^[381][382]
Since that June 2008 global survey, however, public opinion in Australia and Britain has also diverged from that in the U.S., and a majority of Australians and Britons now want their troops to be brought home from Afghanistan. A September 2008 poll found that 56% of Australians opposed the continuation of their country's military involvement in Afghanistan, while 42% support it.^{[383][384][385]} A November 2008 poll found that 68% of Britons want their troops withdrawn within the next 12 months.^{[386][387][388]} On the contrary, in the U.S., a September 2008 Pew survey found that 61% of Americans wanted U.S. troops to stay until the situation has stabilized, while 33% wanted them removed as soon as possible.^[389]
Public opinion was divided over Afghan troop requests, a majority of Americans continued to see a rationale for the use of military force in Afghanistan.^[390]A slight plurality of Americans favored troop increases, with 42%–47% favoringat least some troop increases to satisfy the military's requests, 39%–44% wanting reduction, and 7–9% wanting no changes in troop levels. Just 29% of Democrats favor any troop increases while 57% want to begin reducing troops. 36% of Americans approved of Obama's handling of Afghanistan, including 19% of Republicans, 31% of independents, and 54% of Democrats.^[391]
In a December 2009 Pew Research Center poll, only 32 percent of Americans favored increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while 40 percent favored decreasing them. Almost half of Americans, 49 percent, believed that the U.S. should "mind its own business" internationally and let other countries get along the best they can. That figure was an increase from 30 percent who said that in December 2002.^[392]
In an April 2011 Pew Research Center poll, there was little change in the American public's views about Afghanistan, with about 50% saying that the U.S. military effort was going very well or fairly well and only 44% supporting NATO troop presence in Afghanistan. The new survey shows little change since then – 50% favor removing U.S. and NATO troops as soon as possible while 44% favor maintaining the troops in Afghanistan until the situation is stabilized.^[393]

Afghan opinions
Recent polls of Afghans have found strong opposition to the Taliban and significant support of the American military presence. However the idea of permanent U.S. military bases vexes many people in Afghanistan.^[394]
According to a May 2009 BBC poll, 69% of Afghans surveyed thought it was at least mostly good that the U.S. military came in to remove the Taliban – a decrease from 87% of Afghans surveyed in 2005. 24% thought it was mostly or very bad – up from 9% in 2005. The poll indicated that 63% of Afghans were at least somewhat supportive of a U.S. military presence in the country – down from 78% in 2005. Just 18% supported increasing the U.S. military's presence, while 44% favored reducing it. 90% of Afghans surveyed opposed the presence of Taliban fighters, including 70% who were strongly opposed. By an 82%–4% margin, people said they preferred the current government to Taliban rule.^[395]
In a June 2009 Gallup survey, about half of Afghan respondents felt that additional U.S. forces would help stabilize the security situation in the southern provinces. But opinions varied widely across Afghanistan at the time; residents in the troubled South were mostly mixed or uncertain, while those in the West largely disagreed that more U.S. troops would help the situation.^[396]
In December 2009, many Afghan tribal heads and local leaders from the Pashtun south and east – the heartland of the Taliban insurgency – called for U.S. troop withdrawals. "I don't think we will be able to solve our problems with military force," said Muhammad Qasim, a tribal elder from the southern province of Kandahar. "We can solve them by providing jobs and development and by using local leaders to negotiate with the Taliban."^[397] "If new troops come and are stationed in civilian areas, when they draw Taliban attacks civilians will end up being killed," said Gulbadshah Majidi, a lawmaker and close associate of Mr. Karzai. "This will only increase the distance between Afghans and their government."^[398]
In late January 2010, Afghan protesters took to the streets for three straight days and blocked traffic on a highway that links Kabul and Kandahar. The Afghans were demonstrating in response to the deaths of four men in a NATO-Afghan raid in the village of Ghazni. Ghazni residents insisted that the dead were civilians.^[399]

Protests, demonstrations and rallies
The war has repeatedly been the subject of large protests around the world starting with the large-scale demonstrations in the days leading up to the official launch of Operation Enduring Freedom under George W. Bush in October 2001 and every year since. Many protesters consider the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan to be unjustified aggression.^[400][401] The deaths of Afghan civilians caused directly and indirectly by the U.S. and NATO bombing campaigns is also a major underlying focus of the protests.^[402] New organizations have arisen to oppose the war; for example, in January 2009, Brave New Foundation launched Rethink Afghanistan, a national campaign for non-violent solutions in Afghanistan built around a documentary film by director and political activist Robert Greenwald.^[403] Dozens of organizations planned (and eventually held) a national march for peace in Washington, D.C. on 20 March 2010.^[404][405]
There have been multiple accounts of human rights violations in Afghanistan.^[406]

Taliban
According to a report by the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009.^[322] The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIGRC) called the Taliban's terrorism against the Afghan civilian population a war crime.^[28] According to Amnesty International, the Taliban commit war crimes by targeting civilians, including killing teachers, abducting aid workers and burning school buildings. Amnesty International said that up to 756 civilians were killed in 2006 by bombs, mostly on roads or carried by suicide attackers belonging to the Taliban.^[407] Some religious leaders have condemned Taliban terrorist attacks and said these kinds of attacks are against Islamic ethics.^[28]
During the conflict, NATO has alleged that the Taliban have used civilians as human shields. As an example, NATO pointed to the victims of NATO air strikes in Farah province in May 2009, during which the Afghan government claims up to 150 civilians were killed. NATO stated that it had evidence that the Taliban forced civilians into buildings likely to be targeted by NATO aircraft involved in the battle. US Lieutenant Colonel Greg Julian, a spokesman for General McKiernan, NATO's Afghanistan commander, said of the Taliban's tactics, "This was a deliberate plan by the Taliban to create a civilian casualty crisis. These were not human shields; these were human sacrifices. We have intelligence that points to this."^[408] (NATO has not provided this intelligence to the public.)^{[citation needed]} The increase in Taliban power has also led to increased human rights violations against women in Afghanistan, according to the U.S. State Department.^[409]

White phosphorus use
White phosphorus has been condemned by human rights organizations as cruel and inhumane because it causes severe burns. There are cases that have been confirmed of white phosphorus burns on the bodies of civilians wounded in Afghanistan caused by clashes between U.S. and Taliban forces near Bagram. The U.S. claims at least 44 instances in which militants have used white phosphorus in weapons or attacks.^[410] In May 2009, Colonel Gregory Julian, a spokesman for General McKiernan, the overall commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, confirmed that Western military forces in Afghanistan use white phosphorus to illuminate targets or as an incendiary to destroy bunkers and enemy equipment.^[411][412] US forces used white phosphorus to screen a retreat in theBattle of Ganjgal when regular smoke munitions were not available.^[413] The Afghan government later launched an investigation into the use of white phosphorus munitions.^[414]