RESOLUCIÓN VICEMINISTERIAL Nº 395-2014-MTC/

The counterinsurgency in Iraq has for the most part been successful, and the use of militia by the government helped contribute to this success. Now that we know it can be useful, the question turns into whether this tactic can be useful in other counterinsurgency campaigns. Fortunately, there is another insurgency that we can examine and apply this tactic to currently ongoing: Afghanistan. While the situation in Iraq has been improving over the past few years, the situation in Afghanistan has been stagnating. As recently as last year, almost half of the provinces in Afghanistan were either sympathetic to or actively supporting the

insurgents. In fact, as of September 2010, only 6 “key districts” were considered to be secure, with 43 more considered unsecured or dangerous environments, and an additional 68

experiencing frequent to occasional threats.39 These key districts (numbering 121 as of

September 2010) represented roughly one third of the number of total districts in Afghanistan.

Up to this point, there has not been much of an effort on the part of the government in Kabul or the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to utilize militias. There have been limited instances of local villages or towns defending against Taliban incursions on their own, but this has not become a general trend pushed by the government. The focus has, for the most part, seemed to be mainly on getting the Afghan National Army trained into an effective force. This has led to a reliance on the part of the ISAF on FOBs (Forward Operating Bases). As of the beginning of 2010, the US had over 180 FOBs in operation. These FOBs are isolated, by necessity located in or near insurgent operating areas or unsecured provinces, and, as can be seen with OP Restrepo in the Korengal Valley, vulnerable to attack. Outposts such as these become magnets for attacks and are difficult to supply and reinforce due to the nature of the terrain: air lifts using helicopters and MV-22 Ospreys are commonplace in Afghanistan, and ground convoys are frequent targets of attacks and IEDs.

It is in situations such as this where militias can be useful. If they can be persuaded to side with the government, they can be used to defend areas such as these until such time as insurgent activity decreases, or enough forces can be mobilized to undertake a clear and hold mission, much like what the British did in Malaya. Then, once the area has been cleared, these militia can be used to help in holding the area, relieving combat troops from having to do routine patrols and garrison duty, freeing them for such missions as protecting Provincial Reconstruction Teams or undertaking raids into adjacent areas. To determine whether or not

39

militias can be used in Afghanistan the way they were in Iraq, it is important to first determine the levels of fragmentation and autonomy.

Fragmentation in Afghanistan has to be considered high. Historically, Afghanistan is a nation of tribes, with family and tribal relationships forming the basis of political and social life. It is through this tribal structure that the Afghanistan monarchy arose. Just as Sunnis have dominated much of the political history of Iraq, the Pashtuns have dominated much of the political history of Afghanistan: Afghanistan was first united as a state by a Pashtun army under a Pashtun leader.

The Pashtun rulers had to maintain internal control over a diverse population. A variety of tactics were used to assert and maintain control, including holding hostages, forced internal migrations coupled with generous land grants, and a subordination of religious rulers to the crown. After World War I, the government undertook several Western-style reforms, including modern education, a European styled constitution, ministerial cabinets, and a quasi-legislative parliament.40 However, many of the reforms severely undercut the power and authority of the tribal sheikhs, which lead to a revolt and an abdication of the throne. The new government cut back on the reforms, reverting back to many conservative Islamic policies and other policies to regain support of the rebelling tribes.

A new, Soviet-backed government rose to power in the 1960s. However, this Marxist government was not very popular with the Afghan tribes. The tribes rebelled, to the point that

40

“all but three or four of the twenty-eight provinces”41 were revolting. Continued Soviet support allowed the government to hold off the rebels, but a disconnect was growing between the Soviets and the Afghan government. The Soviets invaded and placed its own government in power. The invasion was quick, with massive numbers of troops, armor, and aircraft dedicated to the invasion.

Before the Soviet invasion there were already large numbers of resistance groups fighting the Afghan government. When the Soviets invaded, they became targets as well. These resistance groups, or mujahideen(literally “strugglers” but generally translated as holy warriors) were predominately Muslim, and the strongest and most powerful of the groups were based in Pakistan. The war against the Soviets in Afghanistan truly became an international affair. Thousands of Muslims from across the Middle East flocked to Pakistan to join up with the mujahideen; many more contributed money or supplies. Even foreign governments saw an opportunity in the war, particularly the United States. They saw the war as an opportunity to bleed the Soviet Union much as the Soviet Union had done to the United States in Vietnam, by supplying money, weapons, and training. The fighting was heavy and brutal, with the Soviets having a decided advantage through its use of air power until American-supplied

MANPADS(man portable air defense systems) arrived and negated this advantage. During this time, the Mujahideen based in Pakistan draw a lot of assistance and support from the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI. This relationship, forged during the resistance against the Soviets, would come in use in the later war after the US invasion.

41

Following the Soviet withdrawal, a power vacancy existed in Kabul. A coalition of mujahideen groups took control, but again infighting turned the country into chaos. A small armed, heavily religious group composed originally of students and calling itself the

Taliban(“Taliban” of course meaning “students”) arose. They called for a new Islamic government and swept across the country. After several incursions and shellings of Kabul, Taliban forces overran the city and forced out the government. The Taliban gained recognition from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, but was denied a seat at the UN.42 It quickly became a haven for radical Islamist groups, who set up training camps and headquarters in the

mountains. One of these groups was a small group led by a Saudi named Osama bin Laden.

From its base in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, al-Qaeda attracted members, planned, and carried out numerous attacks against US targets such as the embassy bombings, the attack on USS Cole, and of course the two World Trade Center attacks. The attacks on September 11, 2001 prompted a swift NATO response on Afghanistan, focusing on removing the Taliban and tracking down al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Special forces units quickly descended on the country, in an attempt to track down the terrorists and to cut off potential escape routes into Pakistan. Conventional troops soon followed, to secure the Bagram airbase, Kabul, Kandahar, and other major cities. Taliban forces were slowly driven out of the cities into the mountains, but have since made a resurgence, causing the ISAF to renew their efforts.

The difficulty in this strategy is getting the local villages to work with the government and provide the militia support. Afghanistan is very diverse, and this diversity is making

cooperation difficult. While Iraq had relatively few tribes and only a handful of different ethnic

42

and political groups, Afghanistan has a much higher level of fragmentation. In regards to ethnicities, there are 7 that have a significant percentage of the population-the largest by far is Pashtun at 42%-with many other smaller ethnic groups.43 And, as the map displaying

ethnolinguistic groups in Afghanistan44 shows, these groups are not all located in their own separates areas of the country as in Iraq; in Afghanistan the ethnic groups are much more intermingled. Many of these ethnic groups have their own languages as well; this causes communication problems and can mean difficulties when military units are redeployed around the country. Tribally Afghanistan is even more complex; there are, for example, roughly 60 Pashtun tribes and around 400 sub-tribes.45 The tribes have a tendency to treat outsiders with suspicion, if not outright hostility. This means that ISAF forces will face difficulties in

cooperation, and the locals may also be unwilling to cooperate with the government.

It seems that autonomy is very high in Afghanistan as well. Many villages are located in valleys surrounded by steep mountain ranges with high elevation; which makes them hard to access from Kabul or the rest of the country except by air. Tribal relationships and hierarchies are very strong and firm, with a heavy emphasis on tradition. While these tribal traditions have made it difficult for the government to make inroads, they have also had the benefit in some cases of keeping Taliban influence out of a village or province. During the Soviet occupation many areas either had their own militia or had residents join mujahideen groups. Many men in the villages are armed, and the history of tribal warfare means that they have to have some form of militia either active or ready to be called up, usually led by a tribal elder or other

43 _{CIA World Factbook}

44

See Appendix 45

notable figure. So, the infrastructure for forming militia allied to the government is there. The only problem is persuading them to fight for the government.

The tactics of the combatants in Afghanistan also give testament to the power that the geography of Afghanistan has. For example, the large number of FOBs in Afghanistan show the need for an armed presence in much of the country; in Iraq Coalition troops generally were stationed in bases in key cities from which the undertook mounted or foot patrols, while in Afghanistan troops must be broken up into smaller, more distributed bases throughout the countryside. The heavy reliance on overland supply convoys-which have themselves become favorite targets of the Taliban-show that it is much harder to project power across Afghanistan than in Iraq.

A good measure of the local autonomy in Afghanistan is the levels of opium and poppy cultivation. Under Taliban rule, annual poppy cultivation in Afghanistan generally hovered around 20-30% of total global levels (with an outlier of 50% in 1999). In the period from 2005- 2009, that level was greater than 65%, reaching a height of 90% in 2007. However, in 2010 it had dropped back down to 40%. For opium the trend is roughly the same as poppies except for lower overall numbers (a height of around 35% in 1999 under the Taliban, 70% in 2007). With poppy and opium cultivation considered illegal under both the Taliban and new government, the fact that the levels are so much higher post-Taliban suggests that local autonomy has actually increased since the Taliban were removed from power.

One major obstacle that has already risen in Afghanistan is that of disarmament. Before the Taliban made its resurgence, numerous efforts were under way to disarm and reintegrate

armed groups into legitimate positions, either in civilian life or the national security apparatus. Unfortunately, it ran into several problems. The first problem involved was the way in which the groups responsible for reintegration suggested civilian occupations. This was generally done arbitrarily, with no consideration of the local economy or the background and skill of the applicant. Distribution of land, water and livestock was not taken into account, which may have exacerbated communal conflict. As for distribution of skills and labor, in certain cases it was found that as many as 15 new tailors were being created per village.46 Obviously a small village cannot support that many tailors, so many of them quickly found themselves again out of work.

As part of the reintegration process, militias were required to turn in all weapons. It has been estimated that the number of active participants in armed groups in Afghanistan is around 180,000.47 While initially high, the numbers of turned in weapons quickly dropped to almost nothing. The numbers are very telling: in Takhar province as of October 2006, out of 2,682 weapons only 343-or 13%- had been turned in. The same region reported a total of 14,150 weapons as of 2003.48 On top of this, it has been reported that, increasingly, those weapons that were being turned in were either in inoperable condition, antiquated, or of poor

manufacture.49 So, the disarmament plan amounted to little more than a spring cleaning for the militias. It allowed them to receive benefits from the central government while letting them get rid of unserviceable weapons, meaning no real reduction in capability.

46 Giustozzi, 71 47 _{Ibid, 72} 48 Ibid, 76 49 Ibid, 70

If Reno is correct that informal sources of communal authority such as illicit trade can affect a community’s ability to defend itself from outsiders, then this should give an insight into how this tactic might play out in Afghanistan. Historically, the opium trade has been a major source of income in Afghanistan. While states spend millions of dollars each year in an effort to curtail the illicit international drug trade, it may be necessary to allow the continued production of opium in Afghanistan-at least in the short term- to allow these communities to defend themselves from Taliban incursions. However, this must be carefully monitored or controlled; the proceeds could be going towards the purchase of weapons, or being used to fund the insurgents. One possible solution to this could be that the government could trade for these poppies; the farmers could trade their crops in exchange for goods and services such as construction projects, infrastructure improvements, or other goods that are tangible but not easily transferable. If these communities are allowed to do this in the short term, then

eventually they would have to be weaned off of a reliance on the opium trade and be forced to shift to more legal means. Some may find this transition not to their liking, and may react harshly.

There is also the problem of where power is going to be located. Because a necessary part of allowing these communities to provide their own defense from the Taliban involves the reaffirmation of local authority, the central government in Kabul will be faced with two choices: remove this authority once combat is over, or cede local control to these communal authorities. A central government would be unwilling to do this second option, but the first option could lead to a resurgence of violence, or at least tension. The first option would require

attempts. Many of these communities are very remote from Kabul and the central

government, so the government’s hold would already be tenuous. Also, as Afghanistan is much more divided than Iraq-as is evident by the large number of both political parties and

autonomous communities in Afghanistan than Iraq-it will be much harder to integrate these local authorities into the government.

So, while these communal militias could easily achieve the first part of success-that of defending their homes from Taliban attacks- it may be much harder to achieve the second part of success: renouncing violence and engaging in legitimate political practices. In this case, it would seem that H1 still does not hold up, in that, while Afghanistan is highly fragmented, the

level of sectarian violence is not as high as in Iraq. However H2, H3, and H4 both seem as if they

would hold true in this case, given the reluctance to disarm and the reports that some villages have already successfully held off Taliban incursions. The only question is whether the government in Kabul wants to trade short term security for possible long-term conflict.

4. Conclusion

Iraq has seen a very drastic improvement in its security situation since the beginning of the war in 2003. During the worst years of the fighting, as insurgent groups tired of the classic “enemy of my enemy” rationalization, groups that had been fighting the government switched allegiances and began participating in legitimate politics and fighting for the government. Iraq may have been highly fragmented, but it also had low autonomy. The high fragmentation seems to have made defeating the insurgency difficult, especially at the beginning of the war; however the low autonomy has made it easy for many of the militia members to be

reintegrated either into the security forces or back into civilian life. The current US

administration has adhered to the original Bush timetable (although at the insistence of the Iraqi government and against the wishes of US military high command) and all US troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year. Whether or not insurgent groups have been eliminated or have simply remained dormant still remains to be seen. But Iraq is certainly in a much better position than it was even 2 years ago.

Unfortunately the conflict in Afghanistan has not seen the improvement that has been seen in Iraq. While the total number of insurgents in Afghanistan is far less than what it was in Iraq, the number has only increased since the beginning of the war. The number of insurgent attacks is on the rise, as has casualties, both military and civilian. The Iraq war may be nearing completion, but even with the recent killing of bin Laden and major successes against insurgent groups such as the Haqqani network, it does not seem that this war will end in the near future. Fragmentation is even higher in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq, and autonomy very high as well. Because of this, should militia be used in Afghanistan, it may be possible to use militia to defeat the insurgency, but the government will find it much harder to bring the militia back into legitimate occupations.

The only hypothesis that was fully supported was H4. The other hypothesis only had

marginal support, if at all. It would seem that fragmentation does have some negative effects