C.I.A. Warns That Afghan Factions May Bring Chaos
The New York Times
February 21, 2002
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
W ASHINGTON, Feb. 20 -
The Central Intelligence
Agency has warned in a classified
report that Afghanistan could
once again fall into violent chaos
if steps are not taken to restrain
the competition for power among
rival warlords and to control
ethnic tensions, senior American
officials said today.
The report comes as the Bush
administration is sharply divided
over how to maintain peace in
Afghanistan in coming months.
There is broad agreement that
Afghanistan's security can be
assured by setting up an Afghan
army, a national police force and
an effective legal system while
encouraging heavily armed and
squabbling militias to disband.
But American officials say it could
take many months before an
Afghan military is put in place.
Efforts to develop a police force
have also made little headway.
The C.I.A. report does not conclude that a civil war is
imminent. But the slow pace of the efforts to set up a
police and military force has been of particular concern
because of Afghanistan's longstanding ethnic rivalries and
the difficulties the interim Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai,
has had in trying to assert his control over the country,
much of which remains in the hands of warlords.
"If it takes six months or more than a year to create a
single army, what do we do in the meantime to deter war
among the warlords?" a senior official said.
As a stopgap measure now, the State Department is
urging that the nearly 4,000-strong international security
force in Kabul be enlarged so that it could also serve in
other Afghan cities.
No Americans would serve in the security force. But the
United States would fly the other nations' troops to
Afghanistan, and the supplies for them, provide
intelligence and offer a commitment that it would whisk
the foreign security troops to safety if they were
endangered, measures that Washington already provides
for the Kabul-based international security force.
"What the State Department is suggesting is that there
are a few other places outside of Kabul where the
international force could assist the Afghans in providing
security," a State Department official said. "As a result the
Afghans would do a better job and would be less likely to
fall into conflict with each other in doing so."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian
deputies at the Pentagon, however, have challenged this
approach. Defense officials have argued in private
meetings that the expansion of the force is unnecessary
and would divert resources, including aircraft, from the
broader American campaign against terrorism.
Today, Pentagon went public with its objections. It was a
rare window into an administration that prides itself on
keeping its internal disputes under wraps.
"The question is, do you want to put your time and effort
and money into the International Security Assistance
Force - go take it from, say, 5,000 to 20,000 people?" Mr.
Rumsfeld said during a visit to Nellis Air Force Base in
Nevada, alluding to the State Department approach.
"There's one school of thought that thinks that's a
desirable thing to do."
"Another school of thought, which is where my brain is, is
that why put all the time and money and effort in that?"
Mr. Rumsfeld added. "Why not put it into helping them
develop a national army so that they can look out for
themselves over time?"
While the Defense and State Departments are at odds,
Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the head of the United States
Central Command, has not raised objections to an
expanded force or taken a firm stand on the issue, a
military official said.
The worries over stability and security in Afghanistan have
been fueled by the recent killing of the Afghan aviation
and tourism minister in Kabul, a melee at the Kabul
stadium, skirmishes between rival militia in Khost and
meddling by Iran in Afghanistan.
Zalmay Khalilzad, a senior aide on President Bush's
National Security Council and the Bush Administration's
special envoy to Afghanistan, left today for Kabul.
Administration officials said one purpose of the mission
was to assess the uneasy security situation there and
provide moral support to Mr. Karzai.
Officials familiar with the C.I.A. assessment said that it
concluded that the danger of a civil war is not immediate.
But a senior American official said the report warned that
the "seeds of civil conflict" are still present in Afghanistan,
given its weak national institutions and long- standing
ethnic tensions.
"The report points out that there are tensions between the
central and regional authorities and competitions for
power within the regions," a senior official said. "The basic
message is that we can't be complacent. There is a
medium-term potential for a renewal of civil conflict and
problems out there that need to be addressed."
Even before the new C.I.A. assessment was circulated the
security dilemma confronting the Bush administration
was clear.
American officials have publicly pledged not to walk away
from Afghanistan once the hunt for Osama bin Laden is
over, and they do not want the country once again to
become a breeding pool for terrorists.
But the power of the warlords themselves has been
enhanced by the money and weapons that the United
States has funneled to regional leaders who have helped
Washington to root out Al Qaeda fighters and the former
Taliban government.
The debate now is over how much of an effort Washington
needs to make to keep the country from slipping back into
chaos and provide security for international efforts to
rebuild the country.
The long-term plan is to help the new Afghan government
establish control over the country by raising an Afghan
army with 50,000 soldiers and a national police force. The
United States and Britain are taking the lead in training
the army while Germany is to train the police.
But the effort to set up an army is just getting under way.
The British are training the first 600-member battalion, a
task that is scheduled to take about six weeks.
A two-star American general only recently arrived in
Afghanistan to assess its military needs. There is as yet no
schedule for how long it might take to establish an army.
Some officials say the process could take six months;
others say it is likely to take more than a year.
To fill the vacuum, Mr. Karzai proposed during a meeting
last month with President Bush that the international
security force be expanded to other cities in Afghanistan.
In addition to Mr. Karzai, warlords in Herat,
Mazar-i-Sharif and Jalalabad have told American officials
that they would welcome such a step.
The issue is all the more urgent because Afghanistan is
due to convene a loya jirga, or grand council, in the next
few months to pick a new government. Security for the
conference and the new government that comes afterward
is critical.
State Department officials and the British foreign
secretary, Jack Straw, say Mr. Karzai has a strong case.
But like Mr. Rumsfeld, the British Defense Ministry is
much less enthusiastic. Britain has deployed 2,000
security forces in Afghanistan, and British defense
officials have complained that their worldwide force is
overextended. They are looking to hand over command of
the Kabul force to Turkey in April.
Many nations, however, seem to be waiting for the
Americans and the British to settle their internal debates
and reach a decision.
Senior American officials say several options are being
considered to stabilize Afghanistan until an Afghan army
is set up.
Those options include expanding the security force, a
move that would require a new United Nations Security
Council resolution. Another option is arranging for allied
nations to deploy security troops in several Afghan cities
that would not formally be part of the security force.
A third idea under discussion is to expand the role of
United States Special Forces in Afghanistan so that their
duties would include deterring conflict among rival
warlords and not just hunting for Qaeda or Taliban troops.
This could be done by channeling American money to
warlords who cooperate, or in extreme cases calling in
airstrikes.
A fourth idea is to station international advisers or
observers in Afghan cities to encourage a peaceful
resolution of local conflicts, no small task in a nation rife
with weapons and people who are accustomed to using
them.
The Bush administration might even opt for a combination
of these measures. Administration officials met at the
White House today but did not settle the dispute over
whether Washington should support an expanded
security force.
nytimes.com |
