Afghanistan: In the Throes of Modernization (Part 1)
Human Rights Watch
09/14/2011
"What we should not do is take actions that will reintroduce militias of the former power brokers. There has been some good work here to get those things back in the box and we shouldn’t seek to go back there."
—US Gen. Dan McNeil, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, rejecting a British plan to create tribal militias, January 2008
"We have a proverb about a child who is always sick. Instead of trying to cure his sickness, his family changed his name. We are doing the same thing with ALP [Afghan Local Police]. We have all these problems in society, like warlords and mafia, but we do not treat them, we give them a new name."
—Maj. Gen. Esmatullah Dawlatzai, senior Ministry of Interior official, October 26, 2010
ALP is the exit strategy.
—International civilian official, Kabul, October 9, 2010
In Afghanistan armed groups are proliferating. A decade after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Taliban-led insurgency has intensified in many parts of the country. In response, the Afghan government and its international supporters, as part of the international exit strategy, are expanding the national army and police at high speed. The government has reactivated various irregular armed groups, particularly in the north. Hundreds of small militias have also been created, by powerful local figures and sometimes by communities themselves, to respond to the deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country. International forces operating in Afghanistan work closely with militias, many of which have been accused of human rights abuses.
 |
| Afghan Militias: Uncontrollable even now |
For decades, Afghans have suffered serious human rights abuses at the hands of local militias, which include a diverse array of irregular forces ranging from armed groups working for tribal leaders to private security companies, criminal gangs, and insurgent groups. The closest Afghan word for militia is arbaki (see note on terms on page 17). This term also encompasses irregular forces created by formal government programs. Militias of all varieties have participated in murderous tribal vendettas, targeted killings, smuggling, and extortion. Rapes of women, girls, and boys have been frequent.
Militias are usually controlled by men described as local strongmen or warlords—typically former mujahideen commanders who built up power bases during the anti-Soviet jihad—whose source of protection extends into the heart of local and national government. Abusive militias have alienated Afghans from the national government and in some places contributed to the expansion of the insurgency even as the growth in the insurgency has occasioned periodic spikes in government reliance on militias. It is a classic vicious circle.
For example, Kunduz province in northeastern Afghanistan, long one of the more secure parts of the country, is now beset with militias. The rise of militias there has been in part a local response to a rapid decline in security as the Taliban and other insurgent groups have infiltrated and occupied significant parts of the province since 2008. But their rise has also been a deliberate policy of the National Directorate of Security (NDS), which has reactivated militia networks of previous decades, primarily through the Shura-e Nazar (“Supervisory Council” of the north, formerly led by Ahmed Shah Masood) and Jamiat-i Islami networks. The NDS has provided money and guns without requisite oversight. With patronage links to senior officials in the local security forces and the central government, these groups operate with impunity.
 |
| Assassinated in 2001: Amhad Shah Massood |
In Kunduz the spread and power of militias has become pernicious. Human Rights Watch received a number of allegations of human rights abuses by militias in Kunduz province, including killings, rape, beatings, and extortion. In most cases, no action has been taken against the perpetrators. For example, in Khanabad district in August 2010, a militia killed a young man who refused to join the force. The local prosecutor refused to make any arrests because of the commander’s connection to the provincial chief of police and a local strongman, Mir Alam, who is closely involved with abusive armed groups.
Into this mix, the United States and the Afghan government are now also providing military weaponry, training, and salaries to thousands of men in a new village-level force, the Afghan Local Police (ALP). Created at the behest of and funded by the US, the ALP is officially designed to “secure local communities and prevent rural areas from infiltration of insurgent groups.” It is supposed to supplement national security forces by providing community defense, but without law enforcement powers. It is seen by the US military as a way to deal with the immense time pressures of trying to hand control of security to the Afghan government by 2014 while maintaining stability in remote parts of the country.
In creating the ALP, the Afghan government and the US say they have learned the lessons of the past and that this time things will be different. Supporters point in particular to what they describe as more rigorous measures to involve the local community in selecting and vetting recruits, as well as efforts to avoid empowering pre-existing militias and heavy oversight by US special operations forces for most of the new forces. While such goals are laudable, not enough is being done when creating new ALP units to address the factors that permitted past government-backed militias to commit abuses with impunity, sabotaging community trust, and undermining larger security objectives. Indeed, many Afghans have told Human Rights Watch that this new force is hard to distinguish from arbakai (plural for arbaki).
The constant resort to militias as a quick security fix suggests a lack of understanding of how oppressive even a small militia can be when it operates without proper oversight and with impunity when it commits abuses. When militias engage in rape, murder, theft, and intimidation, and when there is little or no recourse to justice for victims, the creation of militias doesn’t decrease insecurity, it creates it.
This report first provides an overview of the often negative consequences of government attempts over the past decade to create civilian defense forces. Since the fall of the Taliban, such forces have included the Afghan National Auxiliary Police, Afghan Social Outreach Program forces, Community Defense Forces, Community Defense Initiative/Local Defense Initiative forces, and Interim Security for Critical Infrastructure units. We look in detail at and present new evidence of recent abuses by a diverse group of local militias that have developed in Kunduz and by Afghan Public Protection Program (AP3) forces in Wardak, the most recent experiment in creating a civilian defense force, which is now an ALP force.
 |
| Afghan Public Protection Program (AP3) forces |
While some community defense force programs have been more successful than others, all have been plagued by failures of vetting and oversight, and, too often, impunity for human rights abuses. In different ways and to different degrees, all of the programs have at times been hijacked by local strongmen or by ethnic or political factions, spreading fear, exacerbating local political tensions, fueling vendettas and ethnic conflict, and in some areas even playing into the hands of Taliban insurgents, thus subverting the very purpose for which the militias were created.
Against this backdrop, the report then provides a detailed account of the ALP one year after it was created. Based primarily on interviews in Kabul, Wardak, Herat, and Baghlan, with additional interviews in Kandahar, Kunduz, and Uruzgan, we conclude that unless urgent steps are taken to prevent ALP units from engaging in abusive and predatory behavior, the ALP could exacerbate the same perverse dynamics that subverted previous efforts to use civilian defense forces to advance security and public order. The creation of the ALP is a high-risk strategy to achieve short-term goals in which local groups are again being armed without adequate oversight or accountability.
By highlighting shortcomings in the current program and instances of abuse by ALP units, we do not mean to minimize the high loss of life and terror wrought by Taliban bombings, targeted killings, executions, and kidnappings of the civilian population, as documented in previous Human Rights Watch reports. [1] We have long raised concern about how desperate Afghans are for better security. But as this report makes clear, insecurity does not come only from “anti-government” elements. Poor governance, endemic corruption, human rights abuses, and impunity for government-affiliated forces are key drivers of the insurgency, which need to be addressed if development and true stability are to come to Afghanistan.
The ALP was approved by the Afghan government in July 2010 and established by presidential decree on August 16, 2010. According to the US military and the Afghan government, the ALP is being rolled out across the country to defend rural communities in areas where there is limited Afghan national army and police presence and while the national forces strengthen their capabilities. The Afghan government has an official target to hire 10,000 men for the ALP; the US Congress has approved funding for 30,000. As of August 2011, 7,000 men had been recruited to the ALP.
The term “police” in the title of the ALP is a misnomer, as the ALP is not really a police force. Its terms of reference state that it is a “defensive force” that does not have law enforcement powers. Those supportive of the program say that it was created largely as a short-term fix for the Afghan National Police (ANP) and to free up the Afghan security forces to focus on offensive operations rather than defensive deployments. Afghan security forces will be expected to take the entire burden of such operations as the international troops withdraw. As one international official told Human Rights Watch, “ALP is the exit strategy.”
 |
6th Time’s the Charm? NATO Tries, Again, to Train Afghan Militias
|
Proponents of the ALP point to safeguards, such as Ministry of Interior control over the ALP, village shura (council) nomination and vetting of members, and training and mentoring by US special operations forces. ALP units are also supposed to report to the district chief of police. But Ministry of Interior officials have conceded to Human Rights Watch that many such safeguards had also been promised for previous initiatives that ended in failure.
An assumption under-girding creation of the ALP appears to be that the national police will be able to control ALP forces, despite weak command and control structures, and the fact that the ALP often far outnumber the national police in the districts where they operate. Furthermore, the ALP forces often have separate, informal channels to powerful government officials and local strongmen who can protect them from official accountability.
The directive creating the ALP is vague about its powers. Rules about the ALP’s right to search and detain, where individuals can be detained, the length and conditions of detention, and the process for handing over detainees to the national police are unclear. ALP units undergo three weeks of training compared to the six weeks (soon to be eight weeks) for basic patrol officers in the national police force. The current ALP plan also lacks clear guidelines for the planned demobilization or transfer of ALP members to the national police when the ALP is wound up. The ALP is now a year old and the original 2010 plan envisioned the ALP to last from two to five years.
The US military is the funder and primary driver behind the creation of the ALP, which it sees as a critical element of its current strategy in Afghanistan, particularly the goal of transitioning security to Afghan forces by 2014. In his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2011, Gen. David Petraeus called the ALP “arguably the most critical element in our effort to help Afghanistan develop the capability to secure itself.”
 |
| Betrayus? More like "Betrayed them" (ALP) |
The program follows US counterinsurgency doctrine. The US military manual, “Tactics in Counter Insurgency,” published in 2009, recommends local paramilitary forces in situations to make up for weak national forces, with no mention of the potential for blowback:
If adequate HN [host nation] security forces are not available, units should consider hiring and training local paramilitary forces to secure the cleared village or neighborhood. Not only do the members of the paramilitary have a stake in their area’s security, they also receive a wage. Providing jobs stimulates the economy. Having a job improves morale and allows locals to become a potential member of the local governmental process.
Abuses by the ALP
US special operations forces who are training and overseeing the new forces say that the new forces have begun to deliver improvements in security in a number of areas including places such as Gizab and Arghandab where they had previously established the “Local Defense Initiative” (LDI), a precursor to the ALP. While this report highlights areas of concern, some interviewees warmly welcomed efforts to support local security solutions, even in areas where they were concerned about the individuals empowered by ALP. The real test of the impact for the ALP in terms of insurgent presence and attacks will take place when the presence of international forces is reduced.
In the provinces where we conducted investigations there is reason for serious concern. In Shindand district in Herat province, for example, which has a reputation for being a vipers’ nest of intertwined militias, criminal gangs, and insurgents, Human Rights Watch received numerous complaints about failures of vetting and criminal or insurgent elements being absorbed into the ALP. Allegations of abuse by ALP members surfaced soon after the program began. In October 2010, an ALP member and a man linked to the Taliban were alleged to have killed two men in Bakhtabad village. The family members of one victim said that police officials informed them that nothing could be done because US special operations forces were backing the ALP unit. When the family approached US forces they were told it was an Afghan police matter, reinforcing the common perception among Afghans that armed groups linked to US forces can act with impunity. In another incident, in February 2011, an ALP unit raided several houses in Shindand, stealing belongings, beating residents, and illegally detaining six men. In June 2011, two boys were detained overnight by the ALP beaten and one of them had nails hammered into his feet while in ALP custody.
 |
| Targeted: 15 year old boy |
In Baghlan province, security has deteriorated in recent years as a result of increased insurgent presence, criminal activity, and abusive government-backed militias. Former Hezb-i-Islami fighters, including local strongman Nur-ul Haq, were among the first recruits of the ALP. Haq and his men were working with US troops prior to being officially approved as ALP members. Haq and his forces were quickly implicated in numerous abuses. In August 2010, on a joint patrol with US forces in the Shahabudeen area, Haq and his men raided a house and unjustifiably killed the owner’s nine-year-old son. In April 2011, four armed ALP members in Baghlan abducted a 13-year-old boy on his way home from the bazaar and took him to the house of an ALP sub-commander where he was gang raped. He escaped the next day. Although the assailants’ identities were well-known, no arrests have taken place. The ALP in Baghlan has also been implicated in another murder and disappearance, but the police have told Human Rights Watch that they have been unable to question suspected ALP members due to their relationship with special operations forces.
In Uruzgan province in December 2010, a local strongman detained six elders after they refused to agree to provide men to the ALP. Some members of the ALP in Khas Uruzgan have been implicated by local officials and residents in illegal raids, beatings, and forcible collection of tax.
These cases raise serious concerns about ALP vetting, recruitment, and oversight. They also raise questions about the relationship of US forces with abusive members of the ALP and other groups and the lack of willingness of the district chief of police to investigate abusive ALP members. Many Afghans with whom Human Rights Watch spoke expressed concerns that criminal and insurgent elements were being absorbed into the force. When their concerns were raised with US and other foreign officials, reassurances were usually offered that the involvement of local shuras would guard against such problems. At both the policy and operational level, few questions appear to have been asked or assessments made about the composition of the shuras themselves or their ability to play an effective role against more powerful local forces.
 |
| US forces training ALP |
Officials and elders in some communities told Human Rights Watch that they had been pressured into accepting the ALP in their area. Local officials in Shindand and Baghlan objected to the deployment of the ALP, with the district council telling the Ministry of Interior that the ALP would be destabilizing. Local councilors complained to Human Rights Watch that the council had come under pressure from the government to accept otherwise unacceptable recruits into the ALP because the recruits had a close working relationship with US forces. The head of the Baghlan provincial council told Human Rights Watch that he had made his objections known to US forces without success:
I spoke with Captain Andy from Special Forces. I told him that you are here to support Afghan people, not give them guns, they are criminals…. Captain Andy responded that they are not criminals. I was surprised that Special Forces are backing these people.
US special operations forces talk about communities signing up for the ALP as drawing a “line in the sand”—that is, sending a clear signal to insurgents that the community in question backs the government. Communities are being asked to make a choice: you are either with us or against us. But for many Afghan communities the choice is not binary. In some parts of the country this decision means either supporting a government-backed militia that has raped, killed, and robbed, or the Taliban, which has carried out bomb attacks, assassinated civil servants, and threatened to kill teachers in girls’ schools.
US and ISAF military forces in Afghanistan have compounded this unpalatable choice since they entered Afghanistan in 2001 by elevating abusive armed groups in security partnerships or giving them lucrative contracts in logistics or reconstruction. International forces can appear to be blind about these relationships. In other cases they are in active collusion, even as they talk about their fight against “the bad guys.”
 |
| U.S. Fire Support Mission in Afghanistan |
For the Afghan government and international allies who are currently promoting reintegration of Taliban and other insurgent fighters, the lure of the Afghan Local Police is almost irresistible. Not only do reintegrated fighters need jobs, but they also need security to protect themselves from retaliatory attack. But, for communities, this means seeing individuals and groups that have been their attackers or opponents for many years suddenly donning the uniforms of their protectors. If a community sees that there is no accountability for the members of the government’s new security force, and no certainty that their loyalties have now changed, they are unlikely to trust them or offer support.
The Ghosts of Militias Past
Since the formation of the Karzai government in 2002, the Afghan government and its international backers periodically have made formal commitments to disarm and demobilize irregular armed groups. But these efforts have been largely tokenistic and ineffective, stymied by powerful vested interests in government and undermined by the financial, logistical, and military support of militias by the US and other international forces. Disarmament efforts have also been undermined by the growing insurgency, which has left many communities feeling too vulnerable to disarm so long as the national army, police, and international forces are unable to protect them.
 |
| Obama/Karzai |
As security has deteriorated and public confidence in the government has eroded, Afghan and foreign policymakers have turned again and again to the idea of tribal militias or community defense forces. The experiments have usually ended in failure. There are several instructive examples. Launched in 2006, the Afghan National Auxiliary Police (ANAP) was barely trained, had poorly defined rules of engagement, underwent minimal vetting, and was famously corrupt. It was officially advertised as “community policing,” but in reality ANAP was used as an ill-prepared paramilitary force. One former Ministry of Interior official interviewed described them as “shields of meat.” Defection rates were high. They were abusive, hijacked by warlords, and open to infiltration by the Taliban.
The Afghan Public Protection Program in Wardak province, launched in 2009, highlights the risks of a community defense force being hijacked by local strongmen. Wardak is an ethnically mixed province that has seen a steep decline in security since 2008. The AP3 was expected to provide public protection and discourage insurgent activity but initially had very few Pashtun members. It was only after Ghulam Mohammad, who had been associated with the Taliban and an Islamist political party, Harakat-i-Inqilab-i-Islam, joined the force that it was able to recruit among ethnic Pashtuns. This too has carried a cost.
From the start a number of elders and officials voiced their opposition to Ghulam Mohammad’s involvement in AP3 because of his men’s abusive record (and some degree of political or ethnic rivalry). Human Rights Watch received a number of allegations that abusive behavior—beatings and intimidation—continues. Local residents claimed that many of Ghulam Mohammad’s men were criminals or members of the Taliban. One elder told Human Rights Watch: “These men were his men during the Taliban time, during the Jihad, and they are still with him as arbakis.” Ghulam Mohammad was removed from his command of AP3 in 2010, but his men are now members of the ALP.
The ALP is touted as a sensible response to the immediate security needs in conflict areas. However, many Afghans interviewed by Human Rights Watch fear that the ALP could be a destabilizing force if it strengthens local strongmen who act with impunity; our research suggests that this is already happening in some areas. Avoiding incorporating abusive forces into the ALP requires a commitment and strategic vision to tackle impunity, corruption, and factionalism within the government.
Yet this vision has been in short supply. Almost 10 years after the fall of the Taliban government, it is striking how little has been accomplished in building effective state institutions, particularly those that deliver justice and rule of law. The Karzai government has shown little appetite for confrontations with corrupt officials or those who protect abusive forces. The US and other governments have not chosen to spend their political capital on demanding and then following through on reforms. The US government has obligations under the “Leahy Law” to ensure that no military unit receiving US assistance is involved in gross human rights abuses for which it is not held accountable. The US Department of Defense is largely funding the Afghan Local Police program, so needs to be fully apprised of US obligations under the Leahy Law.
Instead of taking serious actions against abuses, short-term fixes have been the norm, as standards have been watered down. Consistent pressure to reduce US troop levels and concerns about the costs of US engagement in Afghanistan are encouraging resort to a quick fix. This thinking is to the detriment of long-term needs in Afghanistan. As the US prepares for transition of security to the Afghan government, it should be giving priority to ensuring a sustainable security strategy that will best secure the human rights of all Afghans.
The concerns General McNeil expressed in the quotation at the start of this report that local paramilitary forces could end up empowering local strongmen and warlords should be at the forefront of evaluations of the ALP and the Afghan government’s strategy of promoting militias. The ALP should be judged on whether it can bring security without violating the rights of the local communities it has been tasked to defend. If it becomes just another abusive militia, it will not only cause immense harm to local communities, but risks undermining support for the central government and inflaming ethnic and political fault lines. Or, as one elder from Shindand suggested, it “will drive us to the Taliban.”
 |
| US Gen. Dan McNeil |
Despite past failures and the entreaties of many Afghans, the strategy of creating new local forces, with all their inherent risks, persists. How the Afghan government and its international backers deal with the ALP and other armed groups will be a major test. Sadly, it is still not clear that either has the patience to implement sustainable policies that will protect local communities from both insurgents and government-backed predatory forces, no matter which side commits the abuses.
Key Recommendations
To provide for the short- and long-term security of the population, and promote and protect human rights in Afghanistan, the Afghan government and its international allies should sever all ties with irregular armed groups and abusive commanders, and take immediate steps to create well-trained, properly vetted security forces that operate within the rule of law and are held accountable for their actions.
To the Government of Afghanistan:
Disband irregular armed groups, investigate them for abuses, and hold accountable individuals implicated in criminal offenses.
Ensure that all allegations of abuses by ALP personnel or violations of operational rules, including unauthorized arrest, detention, or use of firearms, are seriously investigated. Suspend ALP personnel against whom there are credible allegations of abuse, improper use of force or unauthorized raids until the allegations are properly investigated and appropriate disciplinary action or criminal prosecutions are carried out.
Create an external complaints body to allow members of the public to report abuses by the ALP and other police forces. This body should have dedicated provincial staff to proactively monitor the ALP and pay particular attention to areas where the national police cannot provide effective oversight or in remote areas where oversight is otherwise challenging.
Amend the June 2011 Ministry of Interior ALP directive to strengthen provisions on recruitment, vetting, and rules of engagement. In particular, ensure that all recruits are individually vetted, even if they have previously been members of a similar local defense forces, and that there are no exceptions to the rules, including those who have been through the reintegration program.
Ensure that vetting of new recruits for the ALP, including those that were former combatants and have reintegrated, includes checks for past allegations of human rights abuses. If there are credible allegations of serious human rights abuses, ensure that those individuals are refused admission into the ALP until the allegations have been criminally investigated and the individuals held accountable as appropriate.
Create an independent panel to carry out an assessment of the adequacy of ALP recruitment and vetting, including whether individuals responsible for human rights abuses have been recruited as members of the ALP; whether the ALP has adhered to its operational rules in areas including law enforcement, arrest and detention, interrogations, and involvement in military or paramilitary operations; and whether the ALP is empowering regional warlords and local strongmen. This panel should include a wide range of government officials, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC), representatives of civil society, and UNAMA observers.
Prevent reintegrees who go through the Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program (APRP), from joining the ALP for a minimum of one year after they have reintegrated in order to discourage the ALP recruitment safeguards being undermined by the political imperatives of reintegration, and to persuade communities that those reintegrating are committed to their renunciations of violence. Ensure that no ALP recruitment rules are bypassed in order to have them accepted. Ensure that Afghan officials who play a role in APRP, including governors and other local officials, do not promise or provide jobs in the ALP to combatants without going through the official recruitment and vetting process.
To the United States and the International Security Assistance Force
Ensure that pressure for the ALP to show “results” and legitimate concerns about governance challenges do not lead to shortcuts in recruitment, vetting, and adherence to operational rules. Focus on long-term solutions to local policing and protection of civilians that adhere to the rule of law and international best practices.
Develop or clarify internal guidelines to receive complaints when allegations of abuse by armed groups, including the ALP, are received by US troops. Ensure that all allegations of abuses by armed groups are fully investigated or are passed to the appropriate Afghan government authorities for appropriate action. Be transparent with local government officials regarding actions being taken and follow-up on the status of investigations by US or Afghan officials.
Work with the Afghan government to put in place adequate oversight mechanisms, including designated personnel in every district where the ALP is created and trained by the US forces, to prevent, monitor, and respond to human rights violations by ALP units.
Ensure increased and adequate training for the ALP to ensure a full understanding and commitment to the ALP rules of engagement, including that the ALP does not have powers to detain, arrest, or interrogate individuals, as well as limitations on the permissible use of firearms.
Ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place to prevent, monitor, and respond to human rights violations by the ALP or other armed groups funded and trained by US forces. Fully implement the Leahy Law, which prohibits the provision of military assistance to any unit of foreign security forces where there is credible evidence that such unit has committed gross violations of human rights, such as torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, and “flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty or the security of the person” and that no “effective measures” are being taken to bring those responsible to justice.
Methodology
This report is based on research in Afghanistan primarily between October 2010 and June 2011 by a Human Rights Watch researcher, a consultant, and two research assistants. As noted above, detailed interviews were carried out in Baghlan, Herat, Kabul, Kunduz, and Wardak, with additional interviews in Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Washington DC. Although most ALP sites are in the southern provinces of Afghanistan, due to security concerns Human Rights Watch conducted only limited research in those provinces.
Many of the interviews were conducted in Dari or Pashto, while others were conducted through the use of interpreters. In total, over 120 interviews were carried out with victims of abuses and family members, village elders, witnesses to abuses, nongovernmental organization workers, Afghan security, human rights and government officials, foreign military officials and diplomats, journalists, and Afghanistan analysts.
Because many of the interviewees fear reprisals, we often use pseudonyms, making it clear in the text or footnotes when we do so. In some cases certain other identifying information has been withheld to protect privacy or safety. Some Afghans working in an official capacity requested that they not be named in the report. Many foreign military officials and diplomats did not wish to be named and gave off-the record interviews.
Verifying allegations of abuse was challenging in remote areas, where security officials and human rights investigators have limited access and interviewees feared reprisals. Some serious allegations were omitted from this report because the information could not be verified.
Interviewees at times interchangeably referred to arbakai and the ALP. Human Rights Watch cross-checked allegations with local security officials to help differentiate acts attributed to arbakai, the ALP, and others as well as to corroborate allegations. Some local officials, however, would not speak with Human Rights Watch. Some international officials declined to assist with distinguishing ALP from other arbakai on the grounds that this might put ALP members in danger because they are targeted by the Taliban.
A Note on Terminology: Militia and Arbaki.
The Merriam-Webster English dictionary defines a militia simply as “a body of citizens organized for military service.” In Afghanistan the word has come to be applied to a wide range of armed groups, from lightly armed village defense forces to powerful private armies of warlords. This report uses “militia” in this broad Afghan sense of the term.
The Afghan word “arbaki” generally has fewer of the negative connotations of lawlessness and abusive conduct than the word “militia” usually carries in Afghanistan, though this varies throughout the country. The most positive association the word arbaki carries is the traditional ideal of a small, village-based group that can be raised when required to defend the community. One analyst describes the responsibilities of the arbakai (plural for arbaki) as being the implementation of a jirga’s decisions, maintaining law and order, and defending the borders and boundaries of the tribe or community.[2] This interpretation is primarily associated with the country’s southeast.
In other parts of Afghanistan, the term arbaki has a far less positive connotation, in part because of the erosion of the tribal system and other conflict-related changes to the social fabric in recent decades. Many interviewees referred to “Najibullah’s arbakai,” referring to the armed groups that operated in the last years of the Najibullah regime in 1995-96. His forces were implicated in numerous war crimes and other serious human rights abuses, particularly in Wardak, Logar, and Paghman, primarily aimed at Hezb-i-Islami supporters or fighters.[3]
Foreign government and international officials tend to reject the suggestion that ALP units or other community defense forces created since 2001 are “militias,” largely because of the pejorative connotations of the word in Afghanistan.[4] US officials note that “militia” is “a term often used in Afghanistan to refer to large offensive forces under the command of individual warlords,” rather than small village-based forces whose leaders are nominated by village elders.[5]
Recognizing that a direct translation of arbaki to militia may cast a more negative light than an interviewee intended, we have used the word arbaki when repeating what we were told in Pashto or Dari as well as outside verbatim quotations when referring generically to local irregular forces.
“Community defense programs” is sometimes used to describe the collection of past programs aimed at raising citizen armed groups in local areas with a defensive mandate. This is generous: many would be far better described, in the Afghan sense of the term, as government-backed militias.
This report distinguishes between “warlords” and “strongmen.” Warlord is used to refer to a military commander who controls a significant part of the country and has a private army or militia. Strongman is used to refer to someone who wields considerable political or economic influence in a geographic area, but which may be far smaller than that of a warlord. A strongman’s power is generally backed by a force—which could be a private security company or a militia—which has the ability to directly or indirectly influence local government.
[1] See Human Rights Watch, The “Ten Dollar Talib” and Women’s Rights: Afghan Women and the Risks of Reintegration and Reconciliation (July 2010); The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks in Afghanistan (April 2007); Lessons in Terror: Attacks on Education in Afghanistan (July 2006).
[2]Mohammed Osman Tariq, “The Tribal Security System (Arbakai) in Southeast Afghanistan,” Crisis States Research Centre (December 2008), p. 3, http://www2.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/research/crisisStates/download/op/OP7Tariq.pdf (accessed May 17, 2011).
[3] Afghanistan Justice Project, “Casting Shadows: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity: 1978-2001,” 2005, p. 53. http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org/warcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity19782001.pdf (accessed January 9, 2010).
[4] Human Rights Watch interview with General Phil Jones, Head of the Force Reintegration Cell, ISAF, Kabul, September 25, 2010.
[5] Department of Defense, “Report on Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan - Report to Congress In accordance with section 1230 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law 110-181), as amended,” November 2010, p. 67, http://www.defense.gov/pubs/November_1230_Report_FINAL.pdf (accessed February 9, 2011).
Posts
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
