Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US, NATO Forces Rely on Afghan Warlords for Security
WASHINGTON - The revelation by
the New York Times Wednesday that Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of
Afghan President Hamid Karzai, has long been on the payroll of the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg of
heavy dependence by U.S. and NATO counterinsurgency forces on Afghan
warlords for security, according to a recently published report and
investigations by Australian and Canadian journalists.
U.S. and other NATO
military contingents operating in the provinces of Afghanistan's
predominantly Pashtun south and east have been hiring private militias
controlled by Afghan warlords, according to these sources, to provide
security for their forward operating bases and other bases and to guard
convoys.
Gen.
Stanley A. McChrystal has acknowledged that U.S. and NATO ties with
warlords have been a cause of popular Afghan alienation from foreign
military forces. But the policy is not likely to be reversed anytime
soon, because U.S. and NATO officials still have no alternative to the
security services the warlords provide.
A report published by
the Center on International Cooperation at New York University in
September notes that U.S. and NATO contingents have frequently hired
security providers that are covertly owned by warlords who have
"ready-made" private militias which compete with state institutions for
power.
The report cites examples of major warlords or their
relatives or allies who have been contracted for security services in
four provinces.
In Uruzgan province, both U.S. and Australian
Special Forces have contracted with a private army commanded by Col.
Matiullah Khan, called Kandak Amniante Uruzgan, with 2,000 armed men,
to provide security services on which their bases there depend. That
case was reported in detail in April 2008 by two reporters for The
Australian, Mark Dodd and Jeremy Kelly.
Col. Khan's security
force protects NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)
convoys on the main road from Kandahar to Tarin Kowt, where more than
1,000 Australian troops are based at Camp Holland, according to the The
Australian in April 2008.
Col. Khan gets 340,000 dollars per
month – nearly 4.1 million dollars annually - for getting two convoys
from Kandahar to Tarin Kowt safely each month. Khan, now police chief
in Uruzgan province, evidently got his private army from his uncle Jan
Mohammad Khan, a commander who helped defeat the Taliban in Kandahar in
2001 and was then rewarded by President Karzai by being named governor
of Uruzgan in 2002.
The Australian Defence Force claimed to
The Australian that Col. Khan is paid by the Afghan Ministry of
Interior to provide security on the main highways of Uruzgan province.
The Australian military had previously refused to confirm or deny
Australian payments to Col. Khan.
CanWest News Service's Mike
Blanchfield and Andrew Mayeda reported in November 2007 that the
Canadian military had hired a "General Gulalai" to provide security for
an undisclosed forward operating base. Gulalai is a warlord in southern
Afghanistan who drove the Taliban out of Kandahar in 2001.
The
same reporters revealed that Col. Haji Toorjan, a local warlord allied
with Kandahar governor and major warlord Gul Agha Sherzai, was hired to
provide security for Camp Nathan Smith in Kandahar City, where Canada's
provincial construction team is located.
Blanchfeld and Mayeda
found that the Canadian military had given 29 contracts worth 1.14
million dollars to a company identified as "Sherzai", suggesting
strongly that the former governor of Kandahar, who had become governor
of Nangarhar province, was the owner.
The Canadian military refused to confirm whether Gul Agha Sherzai is indeed the owner.
In
Badakhshan province, Gen. Nazri Mahmed, a warlord who is said to
"control a significant portion of the province's lucrative opium
industry", has the contract to provide security for the German
Provincial Reconstruction Team, according to the NYU report.
The
report suggests that the U.S. and NATO contingents are spending
hundreds of millions of dollars annually on contracts with Afghan
security providers, most of which are local power brokers guilty of
human rights abuses.
In addition to Ahmed Wali Karzai, it names
Hashmat Karzai, another brother of President Karzai, and Hamid Wardak,
the son of Defence Minister Rahim Wardak, as powerful figures who
control private security firms that have gotten security contracts
without registering with the government.
Two anonymous United
Nations sources cited in the report estimate that 1,000 to 1,500
unregistered armed security groups have been "employed, trained, and
armed by ISAF" and "Coalition Forces" for security services. As many as
120,000 armed individuals are estimated by the U.N. sources to belong
to about 5,000 private militias in Afghanistan.
Most Afghan
warlords are widely reviled, mainly because the private armies they
continue to control carry out theft and violence against civilians
without any accountability.
In his initial assessment last
August, Gen. McChrystal referred to "public anger and alienation"
toward ISAF, of which he is commander, as a result of the perception
that ISAF is "complicit" in "widespread corruption and abuse of power".
That
remark suggests that McChrystal, who had carried out the Special
Forces' policy of relying on Afghan warlords for security in the past,
was now expressing concern about its political consequences.
Jake
Sherman, a co-author of the NYU report, was a United Nations political
officer involved in the effort to disarm warlords from 2003 to 2005. He
is sceptical that U.S. policy ties with the warlords will be ended.
"I
don't see how U.S. and other contingents could sustain forward
operating bases without paying these guys," said Sherman in an
interview with IPS.
Beyond their continuing dependence on the
warlords for security services, Sherman sees another reason for keeping
them on the payroll. If the U.S. and NATO military commanders tried to
cut their ties with the private militias, Sherman said the warlords
"would actually become a security threat".
Sherman recalled that
during his period working for the United Nations in northern
Afghanistan, local police were hired to guard a World Food Programme
warehouse in Badakhshan. After a rocket attack on the warehouse, an
investigation quickly turned up the fact that the police themselves had
carried out the attack to pressure the U.N. to hire more guards.
The
present U.S. and NATO dependence on warlord armies is rooted in the
policy of the George W. Bush administration in the early years after
the ouster of the Taliban regime in late 2001.
The Central
Intelligence Agency put the commanders of the forces who had defeated
the Taliban on the payroll and gave them weapons and communications
equipment to help U.S. counterterrorism squads locate any al Qaeda
remnants in Afghanistan.
The commanders used the U.S. support
to consolidate their political control over different provinces or
sub-provincial areas. Human Rights Watch observed in a June 2002 report
on the new relationships forged between the United States and the
warlords, "While the U.S. government does not view this policy as
actively supporting local warlords, the distinction is often lost on
Afghan civilians who see coalition forces openly interacting with the
warlords."
Larry Goodson of the National War College, who
participated in the 2002 process called the Loya Jirga under which the
first post-Taliban Afghan government was established, told IPS he had
recommended from the beginning a "de-warlordisation" process, in which
"we took nasty, sleazy characters and turn them into less nasty, sleazy
bosses."
But the warlords were kept on the payroll, Goodson
recalls, mainly because the troops controlled by the former commanders
were seen as "force multipliers", in a situation where foreign troops
were in short supply.
- Posted in



5 Comments so far
Show AllIRONY of IRONIES.
the NATO US ARMED FORCES of "SEcurity Racketeering"
having jsut announced that the Focus in Afghanistan is now "to SECURE the SAFETY of highly Populated Areas" - about 20 of them
now DEPEND for THEIR safety on afghanis........
uh........
they might as well announce:
"WE - NATO and USA Armed Forces will KEEP YOU , afghanis SAFE --- if afghanis will PROTECT US to do our JOB"
"WE are asking Afghanis to Please NOT shoot at US -- as we OCCUPY your country...so -- in order that WE may KEEP YOU SECURE - please Ensure that WE NATO and AMERICANS are SAFE as we go about OCCUPYING your country"
This is what the racket of war has come too.
Dead or alive, Bin Laden is winning because we have done everything he wanted us to do and exposed the way war rackteers, the weapons merchants and defence industries... suck nations into death of a thousand cuts for the money and for the hell of it. That this has been recorded in universal time is an order for peace and common sense.... If we don't forget.
Don't Make war, Don't kill for peace
Love the revolution
How the Gods must be laughing!!!
$340,000 for protecting two convoys a month! Wow, that's an incredible deal. Blackwater-Halliburton-KBR it'd be at least $4,000,000 a month. But regardless of who's praising Allah correctly or not, these warlords know how to play the game, heroin profits and US middle-class tax dollars. Pipelines flowing, no risk at all for Big Oil, high insurgent, civilian-low U.S body counts, the boogyman Bin Laden still alive, war with no end in sight, Obama is well on his way to a great Imperialist legacy.
The largest, most powerful military the world has ever seen, and the most expensive to the tune of a trillion dollars a year by the time all costs are computed, not just the "basic" $640 billion dollar stipend, has not been able to "pacify" one city in Iraq, Baghdad, and has to pay protection money to warlords in Afghanistan. These wars and occupations are nothing but a tax money suck for the MIC. Our "leaders" so NOT want to end war, and they do not care how long any particular war continues. Follow the dollars.