More

Hamid Karzai's Brother Only Tip Of Iceberg Of U.S. Dependence On Afghan Warlords: IPS

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 03:30 PM ET

Ahmed Wali Karzai

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON, Oct 29 (IPS) - 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.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Read more from Inter Press Service.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

By Gareth Porter WASHINGTON, Oct 29 (IPS) - 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 ...
By Gareth Porter WASHINGTON, Oct 29 (IPS) - 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 ...
Filed by Hanna Ingber Win  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 21
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:36 AM on 11/02/2009
"We gotta get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do!
We gotta get out of this place, cause girl there's a better life for me and you!"
02:44 PM on 10/30/2009
Its Obama's failed drug war now.
With a puppet THUGOCRACY.
Say the Afghanistan troops are trained and leave.

PUT IN THE PEACE CORP IT DOES MORE FOR 1/20 THE COST!!!
08:38 AM on 10/30/2009
Gives new meaning to "in bed with the enemy"
06:50 AM on 10/30/2009
A mitigating factor, from the perspective of counterinsurgency doctrine, is that many of these Northern Alliance warlords are ethnic minorities -- Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara -- operating in southern provinces that are overwhelmingly populated by the ethnic Pashtun majority. Also, many of these warlords are Shia Muslims in territories where most of the population is Sunni.

Pakistan has a geopolitical interest in preventing Afghanistan from becoming a sphere of influence for its regional rivals: India, Iran, and Russia. The Northern Alliance has strong ties to Iran and to a lesser extent Russia, and the institutional paranoia in Pakistan is such that they can see ties to India in anything vaguely foreign.

American support for the Northern Alliance and their embedding in the Karzai regime is geopolitically problematic. They aren't liked by most of the Afghan population or by the Pakistani establishment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:52 AM on 11/01/2009
What a mess.
We gave air support to the Northern Alliance warlords to overthrow the Taliban government, but the N.A. appears to be incapable of governing in the Pashtun areas. So, what is the answer, besides turning the clock back and deciding against going to war with the Pashtun?

How did we go from giving air support to the Northern Alliance, in 2001, to using our own troops in Pashtun areas? What does what we are doing now have to do with preventing al Qaeda from reestablishing a public presence in the area, and how does what we are doing now help our national interest?
And, lastly, how much are we spending on this war, and who is going to pay for it? I have a feeling that we should be talking about how funding these wars is ruining our economy and our society.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:35 AM on 10/30/2009
You mean we've been outsourcing our warlord jobs too?
11:29 PM on 10/29/2009
And some people wonder why some of the NATO countries are saying enough is enough. We extradite drug dealers from Colombia and Mexico. Why is Karzai's brother not in jail?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
olgraydawg
10:34 PM on 10/29/2009
Trouble figuring out how to get out? Bring back the draft. Let's see how long it takes us to leave.Al-Qaida, not the Taliban. There are less than 100 Al-Qaida and we have how many troops there? These numbers make no sense.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alexandre Laudet
07:04 PM on 10/29/2009
and we expect fair elections over there on Nov 7? there is corruption everywhere but that's A LOT of very big corruption...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:48 PM on 10/29/2009
Is the point that we should not be engaging the Afghan warlords? Is that supposed to make sense?

One has to deal with the power structure that exists. We were willing to use the warlords to bring down the Taliban in 2001, so why wouldn't we want to engage them now? In fact, why don't we go back to using our air force to support the warlords, and let them do the fighting? It is their country, and if they are no longer interested in fighting for it, then why should we?

Why not let the warlords handle the Taliban, and we worry about keeping al Qaeda hidden in their caves?
06:25 PM on 10/29/2009
You need to read your history "mamacat". The Taliban rose in the 1990's in large part as a popular uprising against the excesses, violence, corruption, and atrocities that were being committed by many of the same war-lords and militias that NATO is now lying in bed with. These people are not "leaders"; they are unprincipled thugs and criminals, who run their own private militias and drug operations for their personal benefit and interests. They helped created Afghanistan's own version of hell on earth long before the Taliban showed up, and it is why the Taliban had such strong initial support from the general population when they first started fighting to take control of the country. We have made "friends" with this same motley collection of self-serving garbage, and we are trying to "build" a democracy with this rot at its foundation. This is a fool's errand, and while you don't seem to get it, the general Afghani population certainly does. It is part of why the Afghani population "loves us" as much as they do.
10:43 PM on 10/29/2009
co-sign. sadly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jezreel
Think. Act. Live wisely.
02:21 AM on 10/30/2009
Well said.
03:44 PM on 10/29/2009
why does the CIA hate the USA and continue to embolden its enemies?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:17 PM on 10/29/2009
I'm shocked, shocked that the CIA is still meddling in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And Iran.

And Honduras.

And Iraq.

And, and and......
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iMissMollyIvins
Middle-aged, Middle class, Midwestern Populist
08:49 PM on 10/29/2009
It's long past time for the U.S. Government to get out of the Puppet Government business. No good ever comes of it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Sinister Minister
There's no way out of here alive.
02:40 PM on 10/29/2009
This is a surprise? People have a very short memory. Does no one remember that the CIA also backed and funded bin Laden and Sadam? Remember Norieaga? Pinochet ring a bell? The School of The Americas?

The bigger story here is that nothing is ever done about it. Instead we beg our elected officials for health care reform. While they find ways to use the taxes we pay to set up puppet dictators around the world for fun and profit. I don't recall months of public debate like health care reform is getting, over any of the decisions that brought us these wars. I don't hear any debate over what these costs will do to the deficit. No grand standing about how they are concerned about the debt we leave to our grand children.

When it comes to money for killing there is no debate, and everyone says there is no bipartisanship in Washington.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zoooni
former C-Span junkie
08:43 PM on 10/29/2009
The conclusion I came to is this: Their grandchildren don't mind paying for the killings,,just don't tack any health care on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
iMissMollyIvins
Middle-aged, Middle class, Midwestern Populist
08:54 PM on 10/29/2009
The folks in DC have no problem putting U.S. citizens in debt so they can kill people in distant nations, but they can't seem to find any financing when it comes to healing the ill & injured in our nation. Apparently healthy Americans poll as high as bombings that leave innocent civilians maimed & murdered.
photo
ibsteve2u
Someone who cares - to his unending regret
01:16 PM on 10/29/2009
In short, that last Administration - and all Republicans - didn't and don't "spread democracy"; they spread "K" Street.