Why couldn’t Amrullah Saleh’s resistance continue from within the government?
Author: Razmanda, Analyst, especially for Sangar
Amrullah Saleh has been one of Afghanistan’s prominent political and security figures over the past two decades, a man who emerged from the heart of resistance against the Taliban. From his youth, he fought among the ranks of the Mujahideen and later rose to head Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security. This background made him a symbol of resistance, a fighter against corruption, and a steadfast opponent of extremism. Yet Afghan politics—with its networks of power, structural corruption, and numerous internal and external players—forced him toward pragmatism and entry into government structures. This duality between idealism and realism both enhanced his political appeal and legitimacy, and at the same time imposed many constraints on his activity.
In his public speeches, Saleh spoke primarily of values, principles, and ideals of resistance. His words often highlighted independence, national dignity, resistance, and integrity, while rarely mentioning the behind-the-scenes deals of politics. This idealist language made him, in the eyes of many citizens—especially among the younger generation—a symbol of the fight against corruption and opposition to the Taliban. His idealist stance became his symbolic capital: people knew him as the “face of resistance” and trusted him in a way few other Afghan politicians enjoyed.
However, Afghan politics is an arena of bitter realities. Ineffective power structures, ethnic and political networks, and the influence of external actors left little room for idealists. To make a real impact and advance his vision, Saleh was compelled to join the formal system of power, even though it was riddled with contradictions and corruption. His presence in Ashraf Ghani’s government and his acceptance of the vice presidency starkly reflected this paradox: a man who had long criticized ineffective governments was now forced to act within such a system and make difficult decisions.
For some of his supporters, this was “necessary pragmatism” that would allow him to confront the Taliban from within the state. For others, it was “a concession to a failing system” and a departure from principles. This duality shaped how Saleh was perceived: among the people, he was still viewed as an idealist and anti-corruption figure, while in political circles, attention shifted more to his pragmatism and security-centered approach. This had two consequences: first, popularity and social legitimacy, since people saw him as a symbol of resistance; second, political isolation, since Afghanistan’s power structure leaves little room for someone to remain both an idealist and a politician.
Saleh tried to bridge this gap. He sought to link the ideals of resistance against the Taliban with the realities of governance: to resist the Taliban from within the state, to advance security and anti-corruption reforms, while also preserving the values of resistance. This approach was evident in his speeches, where he emphasized the “continuation of resistance from within the government.” But Afghanistan’s complex conditions, the government’s weak political will, and internal and external pressures made this strategy fragile.
The fall of Kabul in August 2021 became a critical test of this approach. Ashraf Ghani’s government collapsed, the army and security institutions disintegrated, and the Taliban once again seized power. Saleh, who declared himself acting president, was forced to retreat to Panjshir and once again raise the flag of resistance. This revealed how tenuous the link between ideals and reality had been: the state had failed to institutionalize the ideals of resistance, and resistance itself had failed to transform into official policy from within the government. Saleh’s experience offers a clear picture of the vulnerability of idealist politics within Afghanistan’s ineffective structures.
Amrullah Saleh’s persona transcends his personal biography: he became a symbol of the perpetual conflict between ideals and realities in Afghan politics. His example shows that even leaders born from resistance are compelled to enter the game of power, to adapt to structural constraints, and at times to compromise on principles. At the same time, his experience serves as a reminder that without institutionalizing ideals in the state and society, no politician can achieve lasting success by relying solely on the symbol of resistance.
From Saleh’s experience, three main dimensions of this struggle can be identified:
The symbolic dimension, where the capital of resistance can create social legitimacy, but without institutionalization, quickly fades;
The structural dimension, where the capacity to realize ideals is limited and politicians are forced into compromise or pragmatism;
The personal dimension, where a politician must constantly balance loyalty to principles with the necessity of survival in the political arena—a difficult balance that brings both popularity and vulnerability.
This situation creates both opportunities and constraints. The opportunity lies in the fact that an idealist politician can gain public trust and initiate reforms. The constraint lies in the fact that every practical step can be perceived as a betrayal of principles, thereby eroding social capital.
Saleh walked this path, experiencing both admiration and harsh criticism. His persona is a mirror of Afghan politics: a country with lofty ideals and fragile structures, with a people thirsty for justice and a state plagued by corruption and ethnic rivalries. Among the people, he remains known as an idealist and anti-corruption figure; among political elites, as a pragmatist with a security-centered outlook. This duality was both his strength and his weakness. His story demonstrates that for Afghanistan to break this cycle, it must institutionalize the values of resistance and political ethics within its official structures, so that politicians are not forced to choose between ideals and reality.
From this perspective, Saleh’s experience is not merely the biography of one politician, but an instructive case for a new generation of Afghan leaders. If future leaders wish to preserve idealism while also succeeding in practice, they must already begin building transparent, accountable, and resilient institutions that can translate the people’s ideals into sustainable and practical policy. Only then will the balance between ideals and reality move from a painful struggle to a constructive interaction.
