As Afghanistan Turns

Sarah Chayes Op-Ed August 16, 2012 Los Angeles Times

Summary

Afghan President Hamid Karzai's ousting of two top security officials may signal an increased tolerance for the Taliban and a closer alignment with Pakistan in the years to come.

Related Topics

Add a comment

In a raucous session that brought lawmakers to blows this month, the Afghan parliament passed a no-confidence vote against the country's top security officials: the ministers of defense and interior. With Afghanistan struggling to take on more challenging pieces of its own defense burden from international troops, the decision came as an ill-timed surprise. Just as surprising was President Hamid Karzai's quick agreement that the two should go.

It is always hazardous to claim to see through the complexities of Afghan politics, but the ousters were clearly rooted, at least in part, in a fierce struggle for positioning in a post-America Afghanistan that may well implode.

Chayes, formerly special adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is an expert in South Asia policy, kleptocracy and anticorruption, and civil-military relations.

Sarah Chayes

Senior Associate
South Asia Program

More from this author...

One reason cited by officials and the media for the no-confidence vote is that the lawmakers had grown exasperated by the security forces' inability to stem or respond to artillery fire that has been pummeling Afghanistan from neighboring Pakistan. It's certainly true that people are frustrated by the shelling, but whether that is the reason or the excuse for the vote is less clear. Short of a declaration of war on Pakistan, an eminently political decision that would require at least some international coordination, it's not clear what the army could do.

A second reason cited for the ousters is that Karzai wants to demonstrate that he is at last taking action against corruption in his government, and the record of police and military personnel is particularly poor. However, having worked for two commanders of international military forces as well as for the Joint Staff on anti-corruption policy in Afghanistan, I have not observed Karzai, since 2003, make a good-faith move to address the institutionalized graft that plagues his country. Rather, he has obstructed anti-corruption efforts, directing ministers to shut down investigations, ordering detained suspects set free, and reportedly helping arrange the 2010 escape from Afghanistan of a former minister of religious affairs indicted on charges of corruption. It seems unlikely that high-mindedness is motivating the president now.

A third reason frequently cited for the vote is that the members of the Afghan parliament—far from immune to corruption themselves—were irritated at their inability to obtain some of the jobs and lucrative contracts the two ministers hand out. Though all of these possibilities probably contain elements of truth, and may have helped stoke lawmakers' enthusiasm for the vote, this third one rings truest.

But to understand the move's greatest significance, you have to examine the ouster of the interior minister, Bismullah Khan Mohammadi.

Mohammadi, an ethnic Tajik, was a key commander in the northern resistance to the Taliban during the civil war that raged in Afghanistan from 1994 through the fall of that regime in 2001. For the first eight years of the Karzai government, he served as chief of staff of the Afghan national army. Senior U.S. and Afghan military officers once described to me how shrewdly he calculated his appointments, especially at the crucial middle-management level, larding the officer corps with lieutenant colonels and colonels loyal to the old northern commanders.

As minister of the interior, a position he assumed in June 2010, he aggressively pursued the same policy within the Afghan national police while retaining the personal loyalty of many ranking army officers. In 2011, NATO's International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, which manages the day-to-day running of the war, was tracking the way he gerrymandered police zones in the north so as to build what amounted to a region that excludes ethnic Pashtuns. He also rapidly expanded the arming of local militias in the north.

Most Afghans and experienced observers I know say a plausible scenario upon the large-scale departure of international troops in 2014 is either disintegration into civil conflict or a de facto division of power along ethnic lines, with a Pakistan-backed Pashtun bloc in the south and east lining up against one or more northern non-Pashtun blocs that might well gain military support from India and Uzbekistan, if not Iran. Recent signs indicate that many key players are already rushing to consolidate their positions within this framework, already operating, for all intents and purposes, in a post-2014 world.

It is in this context that Mohammadi's dismissal is to be understood. He is a key northern bloc asset. And in the same way international forces stepped up their campaign to capture and kill Taliban commanders, northern military leaders are being neutralized at a rapid rate, regardless of their official positions in the Karzai government. Before Mohammadi, it was key Uzbek former commander Ahmad Khan Samanghani, killed in a blast at a wedding in mid-July.

The other minister voted out of office this month, Abdul Rahim Wardak, is far less consequential. Though described as a Karzai loyalist and appreciated by international officials, he was known to be the butt of verbal abuse by Karzai in Cabinet meetings and was reputed to be a heavy drinker with little real control over the Afghan army. Karzai typically removes officials in pairs to provide the appearance of ethnic or tribal evenhandedness. In this case, Wardak would be the fig leaf for Mohammadi's removal.

This reading of events suggests that Karzai will end up aligning himself with the Pakistan/Pashtun, Taliban-tolerant bloc. While as president he has often criticized Pakistan, he also has expressed understanding for the Taliban and has pardoned dozens of Taliban prisoners. In 1994, when the Taliban took power in southern Afghanistan, Karzai was a strong supporter. The regime selected him to serve as its ambassador to the United Nations, though it never got a seat in the world body. So perhaps we should not be surprised if he lines up that way again today.

This article was originally published in the Los Angeles Times.

Comments

Email Updates

Follow the conversation—Sign up to receive email updates when comments are posted to this article. Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

Screen Name Email Address* (Nevermind this field if you have CSS turned off)
Subscribe

Comment Policy

Report Abuse

Source: http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/08/16/as-afghanistan-turns/dg5c

More from The Global Think Tank

Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Prospects for Afghanistan’s 2014 Elections

Summary The only way to reduce the incentive for cheating in Afghanistan’s 2014 election is to work seriously to build political consensus among Afghan constituencies ahead of time. More >

Foreign Policy

The Prickly Politics of Aid

Summary Development aid is inherently political, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. More >

Foreign Policy

Dead on Arrival

Summary Washington needs to work privately with all the parties—Palestinians, Israelis, and Arabs—to allow for a speedy negotiation process. Only the full backing of the U.S. president and a bold new plan can push the peace process forward. More >

17 May 2013

France’s Future Role in the World

Summary One year after President François Hollande took office, his administration’s new Defense White Paper outlines a significantly scaled down presence for the French military. More >

26 Apr 2013

The Istanbul Process Ministerial: Results and Prospects for the Future

Summary The Istanbul Process’ Heart of Asia Ministerial Conferences can play a role in efforts to promote regional stability and security in Central and South Asia. More >

20 Mar 2013

Enhancing Maritime Security in the Indo-Pacific

Summary In the wake of the U.S. rebalancing toward Asia, the obligation to protect trading ventures and shipping routes throughout the Indo-Pacific region increasingly falls on the shoulders of other actors, such as China and India. More >

Twitter

@CarnegieEndow

In Fact

70%

of oil consumed in the United States

is for the transportation sector.

20%

of Chechnya’s pre-1994 population

has fled to different parts of the world.

58%

of oil consumed in China

was from foreign sources in 2012.

million cases pending

in India’s judicial system.

million people killed

in Cold War conflicts.

18%

of the U.S. economy

is consumed by healthcare.

$536

billion in goods and services

traded between the United States and China in 2012.

$100

billion in foreign investment and oil revenue

have been lost by Iran because of its nuclear program.

4700%

increase in China’s GDP per capita

between 1972 and today.

$11

billion have been spent

to complete the Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

of Iran’s electricity needs

is all the Bushehr nuclear reactor provides.

new airports

are set to be built in China by 2015.

journalists

were imprisoned in Turkey as of August 2012 according to the OSCE.

67%

of the world's population

will reside in cities by 2050.

million Russian citizens

are considered “ethnic Muslims.”

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address in the field below to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840 Contact By Email

Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.

请注意...

你将离开清华—卡内基中心网站，进入卡内基其他全球中心的网站。

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Regions

Countries