EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afghan Future Threatened by Ex-Warlords in Gov't
KABUL - Warlords helped drive the Russians from Afghanistan, then shelled Kabul into ruins in a bloody civil war after the Soviets left.
"Chairman Karzai, I reaffirm to you today that the United States will continue to be a friend to the Afghan people in all the challenges that lie ahead," said then-President Bush in his remarks during a joint press conference. (White House photo by Paul Morse, 28 January 2002) Now they are back in positions of power, in part because the U.S. relied on them in 2001 to help oust the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks. President Hamid Karzai later reached out to them to shore up his own power base as America turned its attention to Iraq after the Taliban's rout.
With the Taliban resurging, the entrenched power of the warlords is complicating Karzai's promises to rid his new government of corruption and cronies, steps seen as critical to building support among Afghans against the insurgents.
"You can't build a new political system with old politicians accused of war crimes," said lawmaker Ramazan Bashardost, who finished third in the country's fraud-marred August election. "You can't have peace with warlords in control."
Two of Karzai's vice presidents - Mohammed Qasim Fahim and Karim Khalili - are ex-warlords. His outgoing military adviser, Abdul Rashid Dostum, has been accused of overseeing the suffocation deaths of up to 2,000 Taliban prisoners during the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
The term warlord is applied to the commanders of the Afghan resistance who fell out with each other after the defeat of the Soviets. They see themselves as political figures and patriots who defend their people in areas of the country where the central government has little or no control. They often refer to themselves as "mujahadeen," which means holy warriors.
Karzai sought support from those branded as warlords to bolster his weak power base, win re-election and build alliances with ethnic groups. He has defended those ties publicly, pointing out that the U.S. backed the same people eight years ago when it engineered the war to oust the Taliban and brought Karzai to power.
But the U.S. and its allies fear that the continued strength of the warlords undermines government authority. It is hard to convince ordinary Afghans to obey the laws, pay their taxes and support the government when it is dominated by men who flounted the rules to amass power and fortunes.
International pressure is mounting on Karzai to rid his government of corruption and sideline the warlords. Leaders of the U.S., Britain and other troop-contributing countries cannot ask their own soldiers to risk their lives for a corrupt government.
"I am not prepared to put the lives of British men and women in harm's way for a government that does not stand up against corruption," Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Friday.
Last week, Kai Eide, the U.N. mission chief in Afghanistan, suggested time was running out. "We can't afford any longer a situation where warlords and power brokers play their own games," he said. "We have to have ... significant reform."
And Obama told the Afghan leader last week that assurances of reform had to be backed up with action.
Presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada defended Karzai, saying he has appointed to government posts Afghans from all walks of life and from all political backgrounds. He said "the path of inclusivity" was crucial for stability.
A nationwide survey by the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, however, found 76 percent of the 4,151 polled believed security would improve if war criminals were brought to justice. Only 8 percent felt it would decrease security and 13 percent said they did not know. The remaining 3 percent were missing.
Removing them from government is "by far the most important issue facing the country today," said Brad Adams, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch.
The New York-based rights group has called for several senior officials in Karzai's administration to be tried for war crimes alongside some of Washington's biggest enemies, like Taliban leader Mullah Omar and insurgent chief Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.
Faction leaders defend their roles in the civil war of the 1990s, which broke out when the pro-Soviet government collapsed following the departure of Moscow's troops. Some of them held out against the Taliban after the Islamist movement seized Kabul in 1996. The Bush administration supported them in the 2001 attack against the Taliban, enabling the U.S. to oust the Islamists from power without committing large numbers of U.S. ground troops.
But some of the alleged crimes attributed to the warlords were so odious that Washington could not ignore them. Witnesses claim Dostum's forces placed Taliban prisoners in sealed cargo containers and suffocated them to death before burying them en masse, according to a State Department report. Dostum denies involvement in the deaths.
The U.S. and its allies pressured Karzai into firing Fahim, his new vice president, as defense minister and dropping him from the ticket in the 2004 election. He tapped him again as his running-mate this year, a move that helped split the opposition vote.
All that has encouraged a climate of impunity that has trickled down through Afghan society. Rights groups accuse soldiers and police loyal to warlords of kidnapping, extortion, robbery and the rape of women, girls and boys.
In the countryside, local commanders "run their own fiefdoms with illegal militias, intimidate people into paying them taxes, extract bribes, steal land, trade drugs," said John Dempsey of the U.S. Institute of Peace. "They essentially rule with impunity and no government official, no judge, no policeman can stand up to them."
Karzai has tried to rein in warlords before, dispatching his finance minister to haul back sacks of cash from governors reluctant to pay tax to the central government.
But removing strongmen from power or putting them on trial is risky: it could inflame ethnic tensions and alienate regional commanders whose support both Kabul and Washington need to contain the burgeoning insurgency.
A September report released by New York University's Center on International Cooperation said the NATO-led coalition is fueling the problem by relying on militias loyal to local commanders - some involved in rights abuses and drug trafficking - in an effort to bolster security.
The war plan advanced by America's top Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, mentions "regional power brokers" with "loyal armed followers," but does not advocate removing them. The U.S. used local armed groups in Iraq to fight al-Qaida and similar militias in Afghanistan have been successful in providing intelligence about the Taliban.
Karzai has been pressured to take action before. In 2005, he was pushed to approve a reconciliation and justice plan that included a vetting system to keep grave rights abusers out of government. But almost none of it was implemented, Dempsey said. Even building a monument or declaring a holiday for war victims was deemed too controversial because Afghanistan and its international backers feared examining the past too closely could destabilize the fragile government.
Sima Samar, chairwoman of the country's human rights commission, said warlords do not necessarily have to be tried. They could face truth commissions, or start by simply apologizing.
There is a lack of political will in bringing them to justice, she said. "We will never have sustainable peace until we tackle our past."
Another presidential spokesman, Hamed Elmi, said commanders like Fahim should be praised. They "played a vital role defending our country against the Soviet occupation and the Taliban. And for the last eight years, they've supported the U.S. in the war on terror."
He said Afghanistan's criminal justice system is ready to try anyone for rights abuses, "but so far, we've seen no proof they've done anything wrong."
Human Rights Watch has documented the indiscriminate killing of civilians by militias loyal to both Fahim and Khalili during the 1990s, which it says constitute war crimes. The group interviewed scores of witnesses accusing militias of murder, pillage and the abduction of ethnic rivals in violation of international humanitarian law.
Akbar Bai, a leader of the country's Turkmen minority - who Dostum beat and briefly kidnapped last year after storming his Kabul home with 100 armed fighters - said the U.S. and its Afghan allies are "fighting the wrong war."
"Karzai's No. 1 problem is the warlords," said Bai, who was released only after government troops surrounded Dostum's mansion. "If you don't remove these people from power, you'll never see peace in Afghanistan."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

19 Comments so far
Show AllSo "Abdul Rashid Dostum, has been accused of overseeing the suffocation deaths of up to 2,000 Taliban prisoners during the 2001 U.S.-led invasion."
Does anyone remember Operation Desert Storm 1991 when advancing U.S. troops buried Iraqi conscripts alive in their trenches? I do.
In Afghanistan in 2002 the U.S. deliberately used the War Lords on the ground to over throw the Taliban instead of using U.S. troops to do it. The main U.S. contribution were massive bombing and air support, as well as providing weapons, logistics and finances for the War Lords. The War Lords were bought (i.e corruption) right from the start.
By using the War Lords to do their dirty work the U.S. gave them real power; the subsequent elections were a "Democratic" fig leaf right from the start...Karzai NEVER had any real power on the ground. So then, how hypocritical it is to turn Karzai into some kind of scapegoat for the inevitable U.S. failures we now see; Karzai never had any say in creating this War Lord power base to start with; the U.S. created them as a force. Truth is that if Karzai tried to tackle them now, they would probably have him assassinated.
In Vietnam, Diem was criticised for being too absolutist and unwilling to listen to and bend with potential allies, so the U.S. had him assassinated. Karzai on the other hand is considered too willing to compromise with those around him. In both cases these are merely excuses made to explain why wrong wars are going badly for the U.S.. The real reason they go badly is that the U.S. is/was in the wrong in both cases and more and more locals join to fight against the U.S., Britain, Australia,....etc.
We should just go home.
If you're in a hole, stop digging.
.
Excellent recap. Have you read Pepe Escobar's latest? http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html
The war plan advanced by America's top Warlord, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, mentions "Republican power brokers" with "loyal armed followers," but does not advocate removing them.
Obama has been pressured to take action before. In 2009, he was pushed to approve a reconciliation and justice plan that included a vetting system to keep grave rights abusers out of the US government. But almost none of it was implemented, Dempsey said. Even building a monument or declaring a holiday for war victims was deemed too controversial because the USA and its corporate backers feared examining the past too closely could destabilize the fragile government.
Sima Samar, chairwoman of the country's human rights commission, said Bushies do not necessarily have to be tried. They could face truth commissions, or start by simply apologizing.
There is a lack of political will in bringing them to justice, she said. "We will never have sustainable peace until we tackle our past."
Well said.
However, I don't see the Jew York Times or the Kosher Post printing it any time soon.
Gee Obama gets away with only looking Forward, why is not Karzai allowed the same corrupt privelege?
Was not Warlord Gates involved in all the Iraq war crimes, which includes the criminal Iraq war itself?
Apparently Karzai *is* allowed this privilege.
something of a pattern is clear..in a tragically farcical way:
THE USA invades a country - under false and changing pretenses - all of them false - in order to "reshape" and of course dominate a country ....
and ends up giving "victory" to those it declares as enemies which are part of its constantly shape-shifting excuses for invasions and occupations.
example:
INVADE IRAQ - WMDs' - shifting to "saddam is hitler" -- ReSULT? Shiites RULE...more allied and loyal to fellow Shiites in IRAN..
INVADE AFGHANISTAN - "al qaeda was there - and this is the GOOD war and the RIGHT war"...who benefits? KARZAI and Warlords who will NEVER trust the USA and NEVER permit it to control them
INVADE (beginning to) PAKISTAN -
"al qaeda and taliban are there TOO"..TALIBAN and other PASHTUNS still win...
they are literally playing the USA around their fingers like some dumb big bumbling idiot that thinks it's so smart and clever....
We tend to install very bad rulers in the countries the U.S. controls! Saddam is a good example, so is Pinochet.
That's because the goal is access to that countries resources through their government. So we install the best person for that purpose.
you are right of course.
I should also add - that my home country, the philippines , was under the same kind of treatment - by the USA - though not necessarily installing him , protected and supported his dictatorship for 25 years after it was clear that the people wanted a new leadership after his 2 terms...Ferdinand Marcos.
the USA supported him all the way with his own torture and secret detention and disappearing regime - until the people revolted and in 3 days kicked him out of office and neutralized his army to turn against him ...but the LEGACY that he and his "PATRON" USA -- has left the country in economic ruin - still reeling today from his decades of selling it out to US and other multinationals and his and his cronies' corruptions that bled the country dry ....
which was a vast difference from what it was when he first took office in the 1960's - where the philippines was , in asia, considered one of the most progressive and most economically stable countries...even Asia's "breadbasket" --
into what is now asia's BIGGEST Rice importer!
all of that -- the work of Marcos and his IMF , World bank, US instigated patronage.
that's how the USA operates.
it's not just the philippines - -practically all of South and Latin America has felt that US "manifest destiny" THievery and brutality.
the philippines was actually the FIRST "far abroad" experiment of the USA in the early 20th century for this kind of Global Imperialism -- all the way to Theodore Roosevelt and even before. and it was in the philippines that the USA applied its what are known today as the first "concentration camps" - later imitated by the Nazis...including the razing of entire towns - and killing "everyone that is over 10 years old" whereever the US army pointed....
and was the country that first made MARK TWAIN rail out against US IMPERIALISM through his newsletters.
AFGHANISTAN , and next Pakistan and next Iran, etc. etc.
are just the most current of a LONG, LONG line of countries that USA EMPIRE has tried to subjugate, exploit, ravage and leave in ruins!
Come on now; Good Warlords are hard to find. Dostom comes from a broken home.
With the Pakistan Army actually in South Waziristan, some of these fighters, even a few real AQ may drop down from the passes into Afghanistan for winter.
Rawalpindi, Kabul? Interesting enough that the Taliban find both defenseless.
How will Unocal protect it pipedreams with Afghanistan overrun by indiginous warlords and gangsters?
The quilt of lies and excuses that the US government (both in its republican and democrat form) has stitched together so that it may pursue the interests of OUR warlords seems to be unraveling. Even Obama has to pretend to 'think about it'.
I heard some pundit on TV explaining how evil Saddam was, invading countries for his own self interest. I laughed so hard I cried. I'm still crying. I'll start laughing again when our warlords meet the same fate that befell Sadam Hussein.
When people in most of the world hear the word 'terrorism' they think of the evil men inhabiting Washington DC and those who fund them. I'm all for fighting terrorists.
Neither the AP article nor any of the reader comments, so far, mentioned Hamid Karzai's drug lord brother who's known to be a very violent individual, seeming much like the war lords the article focuses on. Brother, and governor of some Afghan province today, unless this has recently changed. Major drug "lord".
So, since we have that dark truth for reality, how is it the AP or anyone else really expects Hamid Karzai to do anything about the war lords in the U.S. puppet government there? After all, if he's to handle this as should happen, then it should include his brother.
Do people expect that to happen? Not unless the Obama admin., the U.S. government, requires it and makes sure that it does happen; I believe.
so -- obama and his western allies are now talking and complaining about the corruption in afghanistan....
which their own interferences complicated and fed....
maybe obama and his Nato allies and their corporations ought to look closer to home and remind themselves about the CORRUPT USA/NATO PRACTICE of meddling and invading and "warring" in the affairs of countries for their resources?....
Uncle Sam and NATO are also War Lords not much different from their Afghan counterparts. The soldiers are vastly different though, with Sammy and his Natos at a distinct disadvantage despite superior firepower. The decade-long economic draft built an unstable fighting force, one essentially incapable of garrisoning a large region and controling it, which was the same problem in Vietnam. The primary goal of a Sammy or Natoan soldier is to finsih the tour in one piece, which means taking as little risk as possible, while the Afghan is motivated to drive the invader from his country and will continue until that goal is achieved--and he has history on his side. And the Sammys and Natoans probably haven't a clue as to what they are being used as Pawns for. If they knew, I think few would fight. Read Pepe Escobar's latest to find out for yourself.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/Escobar.html
PERFECTLY put Karlof!
the BIGGEST WARLORDS are the USA, NATO and the european invaders in these lands far from their own confines.
heck - these warlords are right now confering in washington and the pentagon and their courtiers are making "laws" in congress for how to make MORE WAR....military and economic.
it's in their DNA. they can;t have their "prosperity" without stealing land and resources from other countries and people...it's been the history of the "world" according to their behavior..period.
I really don't see much difference between Afghanistan and the US. Afghanistan and the whole English speaking world for that matter.
Did Karzai win the Masters, or what's with the faggy looking green jacket?
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY