Months ago when the first round of military withdrawal process realized by transition of security responsibilities of five areas to Afghan security forces, the cacophony was rising from all military engaged countries that they were serious about withdrawal, even possibly without consideration of its outcomes in 2014. The project has been this that Afghan government has to leave no stone unturned to hold security responsibilities without shouldering from NATO and ISAF forces.

For years, Afghan political and security officials were not caring much about empowerment of Afghan security forces in order to deal with Taliban-led militants alone, because there were 'something' that they opened a security account on US and NATO.

They were certain that international community would not leave Afghanistan, because of their own fear of protection and security. They will try up to the end to eliminate al-Qaeda supporter—Taliban-led militants, which is the main cause of prevalent security and, perhaps, existential threat to Kabul government.

The existence of the threat had built a strong misconception for officials of enjoying consistent technical and financial support from international community, if even they just put hands together and be spectators of anti-insurgency struggle.

The second notion which was spreading like propaganda, meanwhile harmful, was that the US and other major NATO members like Britain had no intention to leave the country but follow their old imperialistic objectives.

Whether those objectives are in contrast with national interest of Afghans or not, but the spread of the very notion could again spark and stoke a national dissent against foreign presence, which has worked quite, sometimes in destructive manner, in the history.

If such a notion becomes widespread, it would have a calamitous impact on the entire process of democracy and Taliban-led militant as the only organized group will again come to power.

Seemingly, the realization of the first round of security transition was made in right time, and exactly perplexed Afghan officials to do much more rather than staying aloof and spectator of US-Taliban war.

And, meanwhile, international community concentrated much on equipment and empowerment of Afghan National Army and other security forces in order to prepare them for direct confrontation with militants. It was a good step and seemingly Afghan National Army has become comparatively strong and can hold independent operations.

In addition, the military withdrawal damaged the propaganda that foreign allies have different intention other than building a strong, independent and politically stable country. After the withdrawal, a new concept has emerged among people that foreign countries are leaving seriously and they wouldn't be here forever.

Then there is no need to hate them and or do anything which end to their forced withdrawal. But they have been here for people's protection and elimination of Taliban and its al-Qaeda ally. After the completion of the mission they will leave the country without hesitation. Thus, people have become comparatively optimistic about intentions of involved countries.

The same concept has had some harmful effects too as some viewed that foreign countries will leave the country and, perhaps, the government wouldn't be able to deal with militants alone. But the statement of US ambassador, Ryan Crocker, can meet the concerns.

In his statement on tenth anniversary of 9/11 attacks, here in Kabul, reiterated his country's long-term commitment to Afghanistan and said the security transition did not mean disengagement. Such statements can prove effective and constructive as Afghan people would receive a kind of security insurance and help the government with confidence.