Americans move toward arming of tribal militias in Afghanistan, and not everyone approves

Americans move toward arming of tribal militias in Afghanistan, and not everyone approves


Tuesday, November 04, 2008

KABUL: Western officials say they are turning to new strategies in an effort to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the insurgency, but the various initiatives - from negotiating with the Taliban to arming tribal militias - have differing degrees of support from Afghans.

Violence has reached record levels this year and Afghanistan is now considered a deadlier battlefield than Iraq. Insurgents are able to operate openly in areas close to the capital and the central government's popularity is at the lowest point in its history. The situation is prompting a number of strategy reviews in Washington.

Some officials are quietly considering a plan to arm tribal groups, in a move reminiscent of the US strategy in Iraq that is credited with decreasing violence there. "We are seriously looking into using tribes and local communities to provide security," said a US intelligence officer with the international forces.

"It will not work in the same way as Anbar" - the province in Iraq where the US first tried arming tribal militias - "but instead will be part of a general community-based approach," he said. The official added that this will include an effort to strengthen local governance as well as entrusting tribes to manage the security in their areas.

The idea is winning support in some sections of the Afghan government. A senatorial commission recently announced that it is developing a proposal for the increased role of arbakais, traditional Pashtun tribal self-defense forces, under government command.

But many say the plan is fraught with dangers. The plan may only be effective in parts of the country, such as the southeastern provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika that border Pakistan. In these areas, where tribal structures remain strong and the influence of the state is weak, local tribes have already established small arbakais on their own. However, in other parts of the country, such as Kandahar and Helmand, war, Taliban influence and opium cultivation have eroded tribal independence.

A bigger concern is the arming of nongovernment entities in a country rife with warlords and with a long history of militias. Habibullah Rafeh, a political analyst with the Afghanistan Academy of the Sciences, said that such military solutions may not bring peace as they rely on the distribution of more weapons.

Ramazan Amon, a pushcart vendor in Kabul, recalled the last time militias and warlords roamed Afghanistan freely. "They fired rockets at my home, destroying it," he said, referring to battles during the country's civil war in the mid-1990s. "Many of my neighbors were killed ... Our family had to flee our home. I don't want more weapons and militias - it will only cause more fighting."

While the US mulls such options, policymakers in Washington and sections of the Afghan government are also considering negotiations with the Taliban. Last month, Kabul invited former Taliban figures to Saudi Arabia to explore future peace talks with the insurgency. Although the talks cannot be construed as peace negotiations since the former Taliban members were not representatives of the insurgency, some Afghan and Western officials hope this will be the start of a negotiated settlement.

The prospect of Taliban figures entering the government has some people worried. "If the Taliban returns we will revert to feudalism," says Sheila Samimi, manager of the Afghan Women's Network, a local non-governmental organization (NGO).

However, most Afghans say a negotiated settlement may be the only chance for peace.

"We are against Barack Obama's policy of sending more troops," said Fatana Gailani of the Afghanistan Women's Council, another local NGO. "We want reconciliation with the Taliban through a loya jirga," or grand tribal assembly.

"If talks with the Taliban can bring peace, I'll support it," says Shaferazeen, a painter who lost his leg to a rocket attack during the civil war.

Current policy in Washington is opposed to negotiations with the most senior leadership of the insurgency, which the US has blacklisted. The Afghan government, on the other hand, has said that it is willing to negotiate with all insurgents, including Taliban head Mullah Mohammad Omar.

"Those Afghans that are blacklisted must be removed," said Bakhtar Aminzai, an Afghan senator and a leading advocate of negotiations.

While some insurgent leaders, such as guerrilla commander Jalahuddin Haqqani, enjoy a close relationship with Al-Qaeda, other sections, such as Mullah Omar's, may be more independent. The US intelligence officer said that there are tensions between the two groups, and other analysts say that the US is looking to exploit these differences and isolate Al-Qaeda.

Others warn that a split between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban is not likely. The Taliban is still not completely ideologically and financially independent from Al-Qaeda, said Waliullah Rahmani of the Kabul Center for Strategic Studies. Talk of major differences may just be rumors or the maneuverings of various international governments in an attempt to engineer a split, Rahmani added. - IPS

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=97355