Ahmad Masood / Reuters

Afghan women clad in burqas walk past a tree in Bagram, north of Kabul on Jan. 3, 2012.

 KABUL, Afghanistan – With increased pressure for a U.S. and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and potential peace talks with the Taliban, many Afghan women fear their newfound rights could be jeopardized.

Since 2001, Afghan women have made many gains after years of being ostracized and banished from society under the Taliban. Now women are back in the workforce, back in schools and have a sizable representation in the government – things that were all forbidden during the Taliban’s five-year rule.

But the gains are fragile and only represent a small percentage of the population. 
 
According to one United Nations estimate, nearly 90 percent of Afghan women suffer from some sort of domestic abuse – some analysts believe that number may be even higher –  making Afghanistan one of the most dangerous places to be a woman.   

And although the Afghan constitution provides women equal rights, various government agencies, institutions and many individuals do not abide by those rules.

The latest shocking example of that is the news that a young woman in northern Afghanistan was murdered by her husband and mother-in-law for giving birth to a third daughter and not a son.

Stories like that one, as well as fears about what negotiations with the Taliban could mean for women’s rights, have urged Afghan female parliamentarian, Shinkai Karokhail, and dozens of Afghan women activists from all walks of life, to share their concerns with President Hamid Karzai to try to make him an active player in their plight.

Pushing for action
“Day by day we are a witness of more violence against women around the country,” Karokhail said. “Not only women should raise their voice, what about the president [him]self?” 

This past month Karzai invited the women activists to his palace along with religious leaders from the country.  Karzai requested the religious leadership’s attendance because he knows they are the most influential element in this conservative Islamic society.  The group of women shared stories of the hardships faced by Afghan females, presenting him with a photo album of women and girls maimed, exploited or killed because of cultural and religious ignorance.

According to those who attended the meeting, the pictures and stories “visibly moved” the president. And it drove him to suggest that religious leaders work with women to encourage awareness among Afghans about the importance of women’s rights.
 
“[They] have to give awareness of the real Islam,” Karokhail said of Afghanistan’s religious elite. “Because in Islam we have lots of rights for women, but what Afghans are doing [is the] opposite of that.”
 
Karzai announced this past weekend that he will hold a conference in February focused on Eliminating Violence against Women, an announcement welcomed by the international community. 

Ahmad Masood / Reuters

Women and children wait for transportation as it snows in Kabul on Jan. 22.

Karokhail hopes by working with religious elders they can begin an awareness campaign by using the media, mosques and even the legislature to educate Afghans that the Islamic religion forbids such treatment of women.

Uphill battle to end violence against women
But it’s not just the Taliban they have to convince. Their mission is to help change a cultural mindset – a mentality that has been affected by three-decades of constant war.

On the streets of Kabul, the country’s capital, 35-year-old Shekaib, an Afghan man, admitted to NBC News that women have been treated badly by the various regimes that took control.

“Their rights have been stepped on,” Shekaib said. “The international community helped many Afghan women raise their voices against those who stepped on their rights.”
 
But he says that if the international community abandons the cause for Afghan women when the foreigners leave, those women will suffer from the same hands they spoke up against.

“I am sure if they leave the situation will get bad and unsafe for [women],” he said. 
 
Although foreign governments and their militaries now seldom bring up the plight of Afghan women as they try to wind down their efforts in Afghanistan.  Afghan women and their supporters know that if they don’t keep speaking up and fighting for their own rights their future may be as bleak as their past.
 
“Women have the most to lose,” said Manezha Naderi the executive director for “Women for Afghan Women” which provides shelter for abused women throughout the country.  “History has shown that they lose the most – their education, their freedom and the same thing can happen again.”
 
Naderi, an Afghan-American, has been working in Afghanistan since 2003 and is worried by the lack of interest shown lately by the international community.
 
“Afghan women are human beings and Afghan women were part of the reason we came here,” she says.  “We have a responsibility to make it right for the women and children.”
 
Naderi has made Afghanistan her home now and is raising three daughters here.  She says she can’t give up on this cause because she is now fighting for them as well. 
 
“I’m not going to give up now, or tomorrow, or ever in my life,” she said.  “Women’s rights can’t be shoved under the rug.”
 
She just hopes the world will listen.

ISLAMABAD - After a decade of diplomatic crises, see-sawing tensions, and increasing frustration on both sides, 2012 promises to mark the re-defining moment for the alliance between the U.S. and Pakistan.

The last decade has seen a growing sense of dissatisfaction in American circles at Pakistan's unwillingness or inability to tackle its extremist elements in the way the U.S. wishes, combined with deepening resentment in Pakistan about what's seen as America's "imperial" attitude.

Asif Hassan / AFP - Getty Images

Women supporters of Pakistani political and Islamic party Jammat-e-Islami (JI), stage an anti-US protest rally in Karachi on December 20.

To that end, Pakistan recently kicked a leg out from under the American mission in neighboring Afghanistan, shutting down the NATO supply routes after a deadly cross-border attack in late November in which 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed at two border posts. After a year of diplomatic clashes and public tongue-lashings, it is this incident that seems to have caused the most severe rupture in relations and made the alliance much more difficult to mend.

• STORY: Pentagon admits errors in deadly Pakistan air strike

The U.S. military investigation into the episode found that Pakistani troops had fired first, but laid blame with both sides for an inherent mistrust and subsequent miscommunications that led to the exchange of fire. The Pakistan military, which declined to participate in the American investigation, has yet to release its own detailed findings, but did issue a terse statement in response to the initial U.S. release, calling their inquiry "short on facts." 

Documents shared with NBC News from the Pakistan military's internal incident briefing show a significant divergence of narratives that could prove problematic for the two countries to ultimately reconcile. 

The U.S. report, based on an unclassified version released publicly last week, stated the Pakistan military "did not provide information identifying" the locations of the border posts that were attacked. In contrast, the Pakistani military's incident briefing concluded: "It is not possible that ISAF/NATO did not know these to be our posts." A Pakistani military official told NBC News in early December that the posts had been established "almost three months ago," and "soon after" they were established, "ISAF forces are notified through Liaison Officer at BCC [Border Coordination Center] and were provided with all necessary information."

The timeline established in the U.S. report includes the determination that the first shots were fired from Pakistan's side of the border, stating that "Machine gun and mortar fire…from the border ridge line was the catalyst for engagement." Subsequent firing by Coalition forces, the investigation found, "was executed in self defense." Pakistani officials have maintained, both in public statements and in internal military documents, that the attack "was an unprovoked act of blatant aggression."

• STORY: Air strike tension could hurt war on terror

Though cross border attacks have occurred before, the reaction by Pakistan's establishment to this latest attack has been much more fierce than in years past -- a function, some analysts say, of the higher death toll, as well as the country's current state of affairs. 

Defense analyst Ayesha Siddiqa, author of "Military Inc.", believes Pakistan's own evolution over the last decade contributed to its response.

"It no longer sees itself as this tiny, timid country, always on the defensive," said Siddiqa. "It's a country which has a medium-sized military power, nuclear weapons, and the vanity which comes with having this non-conventional defense. So it wants to be taken more seriously. And it doesn't want to compromise on that."

The U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, insists that despite the tensions, the lines of communication "at the highest civilian and military levels" remain open. 

"General Dempsey has spoken with General Kayani. General Mattis has spoken with Kayani. I have met with Foreign Minister Khar," said Munter. "We are committed to our relationship." 

Slideshow: Pakistan: A nation in turmoil

Faisal Mahmood / Reuters

Images of daily life, political pursuits, religious rites and deadly violence.

Launch slideshow

That relationship, according to Pakistani military and government officials, will have to take on a different form in the year ahead.

"The arrangement will now be formalized and reduced to writing," said a Pakistani government official. "Even if the Government was to restore some concessions, the Army will not forget the spilling of blood."

Pakistan's Parliamentary Committee on National Security is said to be reviewing the US-Pakistan relationship and is preparing recommendations to present to the government. Back-channel negotiations are reportedly ongoing at all levels, but so far, the supply lines remain closed and the public sentiment remains strongly anti-American. 

Siddiqa believes the longer this continues, the more difficult it will be to bring on board the general population with any attempt to reconcile political and military relations. 

"There is this narrative that's been built, vis-a-vis the U.S. in the past four or five years," said Siddiqa. "It's been so negative, that socially, it will be difficult to build back up that relationship."

In these early days of the new year, there is not yet a clear indication of how and when that rebuilding will occur. 

"We could not be good allies," said one Pakistani military official. "At least let us be better strangers."

Veteran journalist Fakhar Rehman reports from Pakistan's tribal areas. He believes many people in his homeland saw the U.S. reaction to 9/11 as an attack on Islam.

By Fakhar Rehman, NBC News

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — When I turned on my television at home on September 11, 2001, I was stunned to see passenger planes hitting symbols of America's financial and military strength.

My journalistic instincts kicked in and I contacted Sohail Shaheen, the Taliban Embassy spokesman in Islamabad. "Are you watching TV?" I asked him. His reply was, "No." I explained the breaking news that was unfolding on-air. He denied the Taliban were involved. I told him to get ready — the whole world would soon be focusing on Afghanistan. At the time, I did not realize that the focus would eventually turn to my own country of Pakistan.

Thousands pay respects to 9/11 victims

Covering the "War on Terror" as a Pakistani journalist over the last decade, I've found myself in many unexpected situations. One week after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, I received a call from the Taliban to pick up my visa from their Embassy in Islamabad. Once there, I was told they were taking me to Jalalabad — immediately. I called my family, got on the bus with the Taliban and spent the next three days wearing the same clothes while interviewing Taliban members and reporting from Afghanistan. Thank God, I returned home safely.

As a Muslim, the 9/11 attacks pushed me to probe my own religion and try to offer assessments in the debate on Islam and extremism. I've always believed that no religion supports killing. Extremism has nothing to do with any religion; it's a reaction, an outburst of feelings for a person who passes through certain difficulties and sees no other way. But, like many Pakistanis and others around the world, I did consider the U.S. action after 9/11 to be too big. President George W. Bush's decision to call it a "crusade" led to a great divide in the Muslim world. The evil men who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks could then be called "warriors" in this "crusade," and not "criminals," as they should have been. People here saw the U.S. reaction as an attack on Islam.

Islamists protest in Pakistan on 9/11 anniversary

Over the last 10 years, I've watched Pakistan became a divided nation. Everyone now has to define himself by where he falls on the line of extremist, liberal, or moderate. The country now looks like a war zone, with checkpoints and security barriers in all the main cities. Suicide attacks were an unknown phenomenon here — the first in years was the assassination attempt on President Pervez Musharraf in December 2003. Now they happen all the time.

Thousands of people have been killed here, children have been orphaned and entire families have been uprooted — insecurity has become the dominant feeling in the last 10 years. No-go zones, checkpoints, anti-terror courts — these are all everyday things in Pakistanis' lives. They never were before 9/11.

'This will be a long war'
There has been a loss of personal freedom. Never ever before were journalists regarded with suspicion but now I am regularly searched. My right to move and report freely has been curtailed but I see this profession as a way to continue fighting for those rights for all.

The U.S. was right to punish the 9/11 perpetrators but it laid the wrong foundation for its "crusade." As a result, Pakistani society has become more segmented, pushing Islamist and liberal political parties further apart. The Pakistan Army has to fight terrorists while trying to convince the masses it's not fighting a war against Islamists.

'American response was more deadly than 9/11' 

Ten years ago I met a Taliban fighter on that trip to Jalalabad and I asked him how they would face a war against America. "Our fighters have already moved into the mountains," he said. "This will be a long war and we are ready."

The fight is still on. But despite the changes I've seen in my own country, I still believe Pakistan will emerge a strong and stable nation.

NBC’s Jim Maceda has worked as an embedded journalist with U.S. soldiers, sailors and marines dozens of times in Afghanistan over the  last 10 years. That close contact with service members led to his series "Far from Home," on NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams.

The following story about John Nicholson stands above the rest for Maceda. For him, Nicholson has become not only a friend, but a bellwether for the U.S. military effort in Afghanistan.

By Jim Maceda, NBC News Correspondent

I first met John Nicholson, a lanky 50-something Ranger and paratrooper, when he was a colonel and about to command the largest U.S. Army air assault since Vietnam.  The operation was called Mountain Lion. The objective was to clear out the Taliban from the Korengal Valley, a key infiltration route for Taliban insurgents crossing into Afghanistan from safe havens in Pakistan. To do this, he would have five battalions, a massive nighttime helicopter insert and some element of surprise.

When I asked Nicholson how he intended to rid the valley of the Taliban, his answer reflected the swagger of a commander in his first battle in Afghanistan.

“We’re going to kill or capture every single one of them,” he replied flatly.  That was April, 2006. 

After many battles, dozens of losses and hundreds of wounded, the same John Nicholson, now a major general in his third Afghan deployment, said something different about winning the war. “You can kill, capture or force an enemy to flee, but the best way is to get him over to your side,” he said last January.

By 2011, the kinetic bluster of 2006 had morphed into talk of soft power and reconciliation. His shift in tactics reflects the changing war from a conventional air and ground battle, to a counter-terrorism policing operation and then to a full-blown counterinsurgency.

Along the way, Nicholson has ticked-off a number of military firsts.  He led the first U.S. brigade in eastern Afghanistan, along the border with Pakistan. He was the first U.S. general to be based in southern Afghanistan, the Taliban’s heartland. And he helped set up the first series of tiny U.S. outposts, so-called bullet magnets, along insurgent lines near Pakistan that later took names like Restrepo. 

John, or Mick as his friends call him, never lost his commitment.

“We’re not only protecting our homeland and our way of life,” he reflected back in December 2008. “We’re also in a struggle for the future of the Islamic population of the world.  Whether they embrace a moderate or radical form of Islam will be important to my  country, important to my children and worthy of our efforts.”

A man with a calling
There are reasons why Nicholson sounds like a man who’s found his calling. His Scottish namesake and distant relative, John Nicholson, put down rebellions in India for queen and country more than 150 years ago.

And fate has certainly played an active role in making Nicholson a modern-day warrior: On 9/11, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into his office and killed many of his closest colleagues as it ripped through the Pentagon’s rings.  But Nicholson wasn’t there that day; instead he was moving into a house with his family after a last-minute change of plans.

“And that’s why I’m sitting here today,” he told me sitting outside his headquarters at Kandahar Air Field in late 2009.

Devout, but no Christian soldier, Nicholson doesn't wear his religion like he does his stars. But he does see a higher purpose. 

“I have no doubt this was the will of God looking out for me. He wanted me to serve my country, here in Afghanistan, doing what I do. I’m grateful to have that purpose,” he said in the mountains of Kunar province in the spring of 2006.  Since then, few Americans have served longer, or harder, in Afghanistan. Few know more about the country or how difficult it is to succeed there.

When asked, the three pillars of counter-insurgency roll off Nicholson’s tongue: “First, we separate the enemy from the people; second, we connect the government, and improvements, with the people; thirdly, the people will support their government and reject the enemy.”

He's become more nuanced in the intervening years, especially when it comes to connecting Afghans with good, honest and representative government.  Nicholson’s learned the hard way – he had to deal with a series of Taliban assassinations of Afghan friends and government officials, as well as deeply corrupt presidential elections. 

“Improvements in governance are tough,’’ he admitted last year. “They’re very subjective and it’s hard to get results.”

For a major general who now spends nearly every waking hour plotting the U.S. mission in Afghanistan through 2014, Nicholson lives a spartan existence: two light meals a day, an hour at the gym, four to five hours of sleep and no frills “hooch” at NATO’s headquarters in Kabul he calls home.

Prized possessions
Two of his most prized possessions are always nearby: a battle-scarred Bible he got as a “plebe” at West Point in 1975 and a photo of his two children.  Caroline just graduated from Princeton and John III is a high school junior. Nicholson prefers to talk about their sacrifice,  not his.

“It’s a unique hardship for them,” he said in December 2009, referring to his multiple deployments to a remote and dangerous  place. “They don’t have many friends in the same situation.  But they both understand and support what I’m doing, which doesn’t make it any less difficult.’’

Even more challenging, Nicholson and his wife of 24 years split up after his last deployment. He says the pressures of long – and scary – absences were just too much for the marriage to bear.

I’ve asked Nicholson many times why he keeps going back. “Who else is gonna do it?” he always answers.

But if you push this military professional, you realize it has everything to do with the 41 killed and 350 wounded under his first command back in 2006. “I have a moral obligation to my soldiers who’ve sacrificed so much here to come back and deliver on what they’ve done,” he said almost four years later. 

And despite the drawdown, and the political and the economic pressures back home to end the war, Nicholson still deeply believes the war can be won. “If victory means preventing Afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for terror, then we are winning. The Afghan security forces are winning. And the Afghan people are winning,” he likes to say.

True, it may be the words and wishes of an eternal optimist. But, if anything, Nicholson is brutally honest. And unless he and other war planners conclude that “we're” losing, it's unlikely we'll see any radical change in the U.S. effort in Afghanistan any time soon.

Click to see the videos in Jim Maceda's series: "Far From Home: The War in Afghanistan"

 
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker discussed the attacks of 9/11, the ongoing fight to defeat the Taliban and why the U.S. needs to stay engaged in the fight there with NBC News' Atia Abawi.

"We are fighting the same adversary that gave al-Qaida the space and shelter to plan 9/11 -- and the Taliban haven't become kinder or gentler in the meantime," said Crocker. "They are still a formidable adversary and I have every expectation that if they were somehow to retake this country because we got tired of the fight, al-Qaida would be back in business in Afghanistan. I saw 9/11 once, I never want to see it another 9/11 again."

Click on the video above to watch the full interview.