c
c

 
÷



|




 |
|
| || ||
|
|
|||
||

|

||||

 ! "# "$ "! |



 c
c
 
÷




 |
|
| || ||
|
|
|||
||

|
Afghanistan is one of the world¶s most conflict-ridden countries, displaying a complex
interaction of internal and external conflict lines that have devastated the country in the
past three decades. Internal ethnic, religious, geographic and political cleavages have
accentuated with modernization processes in the twentieth century. These have
furthermore intersected with Afghanistan¶s geographic location at the crossroads of Asia
and at the meeting point between the Middle East, Central, South and East Asia, as its
importance in successive regional and global conflagrations have contributed to the
country¶s instability and impeded its peace and development. (Swanstrom and Cornell
2005) It is also understandable why extra-regional actors such as the United States and
Russia (and former USSR) would and certainly have tried to exert influence and
establish its presence in Afghanistan. The Afghan wars since 1978 were imposed on
the country to a large extent by outside forces; foreigners have actively and directly
interfered, aggravated and prolonged the wars. (Glatzer 2003)

In order to analyze the significance of extra-regional actors in Afghanistan and Injustice

and the warlord culture in the country, one should not have to look further back than
2001, when the United States entered Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban government
and capture the leader of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group. A clear link between warlords of
Afghanistan and external factors can be established at this point.

The U.S. military and CIA cooperated with Northern Alliance, which was a group of
militias led by warlords who were opposed to the Taliban and other military forces to
overthrow the Taliban regime. And it continued over the course of the insurgence. But
the assistance supplied to warlords in the south and east by U.S. and coalition forces as
part of Operation Enduring Freedom was a double-edged sword. While some
cooperation may have been useful and necessary to combat insurgents- especially in
the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom-it also weakened the central
government by increasing the power of warlords (Jones 2008). Afghanistan has



 c
c
 
÷



historically lacked a strong central government. But the reliance of U.S.-led coalition
forces on warlords contributed to the empowerment of factional commanders and the
weakness of the central government. (Jones 2008)

Warlords have been in control in Afghanistan before. After rival Mujahedeen tribes had
united to drive out the Soviet forces in 1989, they turned on one another in a brutal civil
war. The government was toppled and warlords were in a position to seize more and
more territory and enforce their savage rules on local Afghans. At the time, the Taliban
capitalized on the lawlessness to come to power in 1996. The Afghan warlords bore the
primary responsibility for the anarchy that prevailed after the fall of the communist
regime in 1992 and had performed poorly in resisting the rise of the Taliban.
(Rasanayagam 2005) After Sept. 11, the U.S. relied on the northern warlords and their
militias to help oust the Taliban. They were paid off to fight the Taliban and to refrain
from fighting each other. (Kolhatkar 2003) Many of those leaders were given prominent
positions when the new Afghan government was formed, enabling them to claw back
credibility that had been lost because of their behavior in the civil war.

The very fact that the former Mujahideen warlords were invited by the UN to prepare a
roadmap for stabilising and rebuilding Afghanistan made clear that they would be actors
in the new political set-up in Kabul. Thus, the Bonn Agreement in 2001 facilitated and
legitimised the role for Mujahideen factions in the post-Taliban political process. Warlord
commanders who otherwise might not have posed a significant challenge to the state
were strengthened; it has since proven difficult for the center to marginalize them, given
their relationships with coalition forces as part of ongoing counterterrorism and
counterinsurgency campaigns. (Mukhopadhyay 2009) After the fall of the Taliban
regime, the x
  which was assembled, following Afghan tradition, to form a new
government in June, was dominated by pro-western members of the old aristocracy,
with [Hamid] Karzai its President and the king its symbolic head. It also included a large
number of warlords from across the country, particularly members of the Northern
Alliance. (Mather n.d.)



 c
c
 
÷



The statement that Afghanistan is a land of Injustice and Warlords is true to a certain
extent because we see indications that post-Soviet, and then later post-Taliban
Afghanistan has been ruled by Warlords. The perception about former warlords and
militia leaders holding government office has brought forward two different views. Some
believe that the warlords have continued from where they left off when the Taliban
regime came into power. It is known fact that Warlords in Afghanistan are linked with
the Opium production and supply networks. As before, warlords have been able to
expand their financial base by imposing customs duties and other taxes on their own
account. Some have benefitted substantially from smuggling and drug trafficking.
(Rasanayagam 2005) The widespread corruption and drug business is linked with their
work that is at its highest level. Lack of justice turned the criminals across Afghanistan
very impudent and they are getting around with no fear of legal prosecution because the
judicial system is hugely dominated by warlords and corrupt officials. (Habibzai 2010)
As a result, since 2001, the opium and heroin industries have grown even more and
some have described Afghanistan as a "narco-state´. (Mercille 2009) This would only
mean that the intervention in Afghanistan by the coalition led by United States and their
influence in establishing a government in Afghanistan has directly contributed to the
increased corruption and injustice in the post-Taliban period. Most Afghans prefer the
Taliban regime rather than a government of warlords because they argue that the
Taliban had a very strict rule against corruption and injustice.| far from liberating the
Afghan people, the US has clearly ensured that terror remains alive in Afghanistan.
According to an article titled ³Warlords stand in the way´ by Sonali Kolhatkar,
Washington has empowered Karzai, a Pashtun leader representative of the
demographics of the largest ethnic majority, and crippled him by simultaneously
empowering warlords with ugly human rights records. These warlords have predictably
returned to old practices with impunity. (Kolhatkar 2003)

On the other hand, there is also a belief that having former warlords in high positions in
Government would actually help put an end to the disorderly situation. The integration of
warlords into the new state also began a transformation for several of them into more
responsible political actors. According to one senior diplomat, this band of war-fighting



 c
c
 
÷



brigands, who had lived by the gun for more than two decades, was integrated into a
political process in which the gun alone would not triumph. Weak as the fledgling state
was, it placed certain constraints on the commanders once they joined. (Mukhopadhyay
2009) Justifying the new government, some scholars and journalists claim that like the
warlords of the early Middle Ages in Europe, who evolved into kings and feudal lords,
the warlords of Afghanistan were part of a process of state formation from the
grassroots. By gradually claiming some control over a fragmented and localized military
class, they monopolized control over violence: a key process of early state formation.
(Giustozzi 2010)

Analyzing both sides of the argument, we understand the significance of decisions

taken by the United States who is not even from the same region as Afghanistan.
These decisions have clearly made warlords more prominent, either in a positive or
negative way, in the affairs of Afghanistan. With the re-emergence of these warlords,
injustice and corruption in Afghanistan also rose. When the United States helped
overthrow the Taliban regime in 2011, Afghanistan had the lowest-ranking justice
system in the world, and it did not significantly improve over the course of reconstruction
efforts. In comparison to other countries in the region...Afghanistan's justice system was
one of the least effective. (Hayden 2009) According to Brad Adams, executive director
of the Asia Division of Human Rights Watch, "Human rights abuses in Afghanistan are
being committed by gunmen and warlords who were propelled into power by the United
States and its coalition partners after the Taliban fell in 2001." (Kolhatkar 2003) Opium
production in Afghanistan still continues to be highest in the world.

In conclusion, we see how foreign intervention, particularly United States invasion in

2001, was very significant in worsening the situation in Afghanistan and justifying the
statement ; Land of Injustice and Warlords.



 c
c
 
÷




 
|





  


 

Î
 
  !"

#  $$
%&''((()
!
%#*'
!' $$'$ ' ' 
+ + +(

+ +(

,%

-#!. !
**!
-#!.% !-)/ !! c

# 0 $1

 !
2!

  
Î   2

3 # $$

4 "" 4



   $$
%&''(((
( 
'!*%'

!(' $$'$5' ' )

6
6)6
7!6
6(

*
/ !! c

# 0 $1

4 # !
8*8!9

&:
;)

< 

*
! !  
 3 # 
$$0%&''(((" 
!!
 '
!=%%,
!=-> .  -?$5/ !! c

#$ $1

c
!@! 


A )

 &BA
%

 $$5

C 
@

9
@

! # $$
%&''((( *!*' *!'A!

+ 'c$5$*/ !! c

# 0 $1

3 !
 >!)

& 
!
:
!
>!


@ 8

)
* 


3!
!c!

!
>!("#9!

>
))!

Î  !"#$%%#
/D"!
 $$01

3% # #% &



 "'(
  

A $$0

 
#  *
! ) 


B!(E
&:28 
.A9  $$

@(

*B 9<
@(
!A

!
   
  $
$$