Arrow Down Arrow Left Arrow Right Arrow Up Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Crisiswatch Alerts and Trends Box - 1080/761 Copy Twitter Video Camera  copyview Youtube
Crisis Group Welcomes the Afghanistan Ceasefire
Crisis Group Welcomes the Afghanistan Ceasefire
A member of the Afghan local police meets with soldiers from the U.S. Army at a checkpoint near Combat Outpost Hutal in Maywand District, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan, on January 2013. REUTERS/Andrew Burton
Report 268 / Asia

The Future of the Afghan Local Police

Too often, the Afghan Local Police (ALP) has preyed on those it is meant to guard. Some members are outright bandits, exacerbating conflict. Rogue units should be disbanded, and better ones integrated into the armed forces. This must be done carefully and slowly, or else insurgents will win a new military edge.

Executive Summary

The Afghan Local Police (ALP) began as a small U.S. experiment but grew into a significant part of Afghanistan’s security apparatus. In hundreds of rural communities, members serve on the front lines of a war that is reaching heights of violence not witnessed since 2001, as insurgents start to credibly threaten major cities. The ALP also stand in the middle of a policy debate about whether the Kabul government can best defend itself with loosely regulated units outside the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) structure. The mixed record suggests that the ALP contribute to security where local factors allow recruitment of members from the villages they patrol and where they respect their own communities. But such conditions do not exist in many districts. The ALP and pro-government militias are cheap but dangerous, and Kabul should resist calls for their expansion. Reforms are needed to strengthen oversight, dismiss ALP in the many locations where they worsen security and incorporate the remaining units into the ANSF.

Since 2001, when intelligence officers arrived in northern Afghanistan to raise local militias against the Taliban, the U.S. presence has been associated with a proliferation of irregular or semi-regular forces backed by American sponsors. None has approached the scale of the ALP, which has perhaps 29,000 men deployed in 29 of 34 provinces. Its predecessors were invented to meet short-term tactical requirements, such as assisting counter-terrorism teams in border regions; the ALP is a broader effort to correct strategic problems in the war against the Taliban. U.S. planners realised they were sending Afghan forces into rural communities that treated them as outsiders because of their tribe, ethnicity or urban background.

Senior Afghan officials were reluctant to endorse community-based units, in part because they circumvented central government authority, but also because they resembled militias that had contributed to the civil wars of the 1990s. President Hamid Karzai eventually accepted the ALP concept after insisting the armed villagers would at least nominally be categorised as “police” and answer to the interior ministry. He approved a 10,000-man roster as a two- to five-year temporary measure to address growing instability, although the program rapidly expanded. Five years later, officials in President Ashraf Ghani’s government are considering plans to increase the roster to 45,000 and seeking money to continue the program after the scheduled September 2018 expiration of U.S. funding.

U.S. and Afghan security officials also continue experimenting with other irregular units. Abdul Rashid Dostum, the first vice president and an ex-militia leader, has publicly called for a new force of 20,000. Already, security officials are attempting to raise about 5,000 militiamen in at least seven provinces as a stopgap against rising insecurity. Afghan officials who feel qualms about hastily-raised forces with little training may lose the internal argument if insurgent attacks continue growing in 2015-2016 as forecast, leading to more pressure for quick fixes.

However, the ALP program has not improved security in many places and even exacerbated the conflict in a number of districts. A minority of villagers describe it as an indispensable source of protection, without which their districts would become battlegrounds or insurgent havens, but it is more common to hear complaints that ALP prey upon the people they are supposed to guard. Such behaviour often provokes violence: in 2014, an ALP officer was three to six times more likely to be killed on duty than his ANSF counterpart. At times, this reflected the way ALP units have become a central part of the war, singled out by Taliban as important targets. In other places, the high rate resulted from abuses – extortion, kidnapping, extrajudicial killings – that instigated armed responses. Teachers who feel outraged by ALP behaviour and pick up guns to attack an ALP outpost may have no connection to insurgents and may quickly return peacefully to civilian life. Such cases illustrate how ALP can inspire conflict, instead of quelling it.

The chequered history suggests further expansion of such forces would be a mistake, but an abrupt halt to the program would give insurgents a military edge, and ex-fighters might also be drawn to banditry and other forms of lawlessness if not carefully reintegrated into society or the ANSF. New policies are needed to extend ALP units with proven good behaviour, while reducing the overall force and ultimately ending the program. The mix of interventions required – strengthened oversight and integration into ANSF of units that would remain after poor ones are disbanded – includes additional training, vetting and discipline. Many domestic and international actors should be empowered to identify where the ALP contributes to instability, including the councils of elders originally convened to approve the program. Oversight mechanisms should have power only to reduce or eliminate ALP where the program is not working, not authorise bigger rosters or shift resources to new locations.

Only a minority of the existing ALP would likely pass muster in such a stringent system, but those remaining should receive pay increases equivalent to those received by the national police (ANP), and adequate support from the government and international community. Washington’s allies have been reluctant to get involved with the program, but they should set aside their concerns as ALP members become bona fide policemen and leave behind the ALP’s history as a U.S. military project.

The Uncertain Future of the Afghan Local Police

Crisis Group's senior Afghanistan analyst, Graeme Smith, sheds some light on the uncertain nature of the ALP, and looks at the confusion surrounding whether they are harming or helping the situation. CRISIS GROUP
Afghan security personnel stand guard ahead of the Eid al-Adha Muslim festival in Ghazni on 31 August, 2017. AFP/Zakeria Hashimi
Statement / Asia

Crisis Group Welcomes the Afghanistan Ceasefire

International Crisis Group welcomes pledges by the Afghan government and the Taliban insurgency that both sides will respect a ceasefire over the Eid al Fitr holiday. If implemented, such a truce would be unprecedented and could represent a concrete step toward peace talks.

The Afghan government and leaders of the Taliban insurgency have announced a temporary ceasefire during the forthcoming Eid al Fitr holiday. The government will halt offensive operations from 12 to 20 June and the Taliban will do the same from 15 to 18 June. The Afghan government’s ceasefire excludes foreign militant groups, notably the local Islamic State branch. For its part, the Taliban says its ceasefire will not extend to U.S.-led NATO forces, though the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan has said the U.S. will respect the truce.

Crisis Group welcomes, and applauds both sides for, this unprecedented step. There are sceptics both inside President Ashraf Ghani’s government and among the Taliban who question the truce. Its implementation could prove difficult. Nonetheless, the announcement of a ceasefire is a bold decision by both parties and could represent a step toward a peace process.

Since the Taliban’s ouster from Kabul in 2001 and its emergence as an insurgent force over subsequent years, neither it nor the Afghan government has declared such an extensive halt to offensive operations. Fighting has usually slowed during past Eid holidays, but has never stopped altogether. In recent years, the Taliban leadership has instructed fighters to minimise violence during Eid to allow for religious celebrations; its media arm has tended to avoid publicising attacks during the holiday given popular sentiment that it ought to be a time of peace. This week’s ceasefire could thus be viewed as an expansion of the usual Eid détente.

Still, the Afghan government’s and the Taliban leadership’s formal ceasefire declarations are without parallel. President Ghani’s overture met with widespread international support. Crisis Group’s soundings of insurgent sentiment suggest the Taliban did not take lightly the decision about how to respond. Some leaders worried that a positive response would play badly among field commanders and rank and file, many of whom feel the Taliban is on the front foot and should not offer concessions. Conversely, other leaders reportedly fretted about the implications of not offering reciprocal steps. That the Taliban had remained silent after Ghani’s offer of peace talks in February 2018 increased pressure on the movement to respond positively this time.

Much is at stake, and not only because the ceasefire comes amid a fighting season that appeared set to lead to the country’s most violent year since 2001. The coming days will be critical. Commanders on both sides profit enormously from the war economy, and many fighters hold personal grudges against their opponents. Whether – and to what extent – various factions on the ground will comply with the truce remains to be seen. A significant number will likely be tempted to break it.

This week could prove an important trust-building exercise that contributes to future peace-making.

But if the respective leaderships can enforce the ceasefire, this week could prove an important trust-building exercise that contributes to future peace-making. The Taliban has engaged in persistent combat since its formal birth in 1994; getting off that war footing, even briefly, would represent a departure. Perhaps as important, the ceasefire provides an opportunity for the Taliban leadership to prove that it can control insurgent commanders and units across the country, thus cementing its role as the main partner in future negotiations. Taliban leaders also have promised to release prisoners and allow families safe passage to visit relatives on opposite sides of the battle lines. Delivering on those pledges would be an important and welcome signal.

Afghans, thirsty for peace after generations of war, largely have cheered the ceasefire, albeit as a small first step. Indeed, the announcement of the truce prompted celebration, particularly in the capital Kabul and on social media. Over recent months, hundreds of Afghan youths have mounted street demonstrations accusing both the government and the Taliban of lacking the willpower to make peace. They deserve this moment of hope, and, more than that, they deserve to see both sides finally take on the challenge of breaking a decades-long cycle of violence.