Political interference and Afghan military’s collapse

Not having a clean political dispensation was a failure by the international community and Afghan leaders


Inam Ul Haque April 27, 2023
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@hotmail.com and tweets @20_Inam

print-news

Last week we had promised to identify the culpability of political interference for failing of Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANDSF) in the light of US findings in February 2023 report by SIGAR (Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction), a US government entity.

The Afghan executive created under Afghanistan’s 2004 Constitution was highly centralised, in a decentralised tribal society, where historically even the king relied on a ‘confederation of tribes’ and others like clergy to run state affairs. President Ghani exhibited strong proclivities towards centralisation, control and micromanagement of even military operations, particularly during the last 18 months. This was anathema to Afghan sociology and ultimately led to the undoing of Afghan government and ANDSF.

Undue political interference in military and security planning, preferring ethnicity in appointments and frequent replacements mid-way, politicised the security sector, affecting performance. President Ghani with his Western education, job experience and internationalist outlook, tried to reform Afghan state and society without sufficient socio-anthropological insight. He and his coterie were an outcast in the 21st century Afghanistan, as subsequent events proved. In his quest to get things done as per Western yardsticks and work ethos, rather than delegate to capable aides, he monopolised authority and began to micromanage through his ‘highly centralised governance structure’ and vision for a modern Afghanistan.

Institutional reforms — like creating a National Procurement Authority to streamline acquisition, introduce efficiency and oversight and reduce corruption — were seemingly noble undertakings, but in the absence of his deeper anchoring in Afghanistan, it drove Ghani to rely upon ‘a small number of hand-picked advisers’. And this small clique not only lacked national security expertise, it was also not well entrenched in the Afghan sociology due to their dual nationalities and Ghani-like outlook and background.

After forming a National Unity Government (NUG), brokered by the US in 2014, he consolidated power in his own hands, under his office and into these closest associates, nit-picking decisions pertaining even to district levels. Non-delegation of authority and not sharing power ultimately led him to paranoia, due to overwork, and frustration with his appointees and the US. The US-Taliban parleys excluding his government furthered his disappointment, resulting in mood swings, anger and tendency to fire various officials in the middle of important undertakings.

Fearing fracturing of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, after the bitterly contested 2014 presidential elections, the US brokered a power-sharing arrangement between Ghani as President and Abdullah Abdullah as Chief Executive Officer, roughly a prime ministerial position, not existing in the Afghan Constitution. An American journalist George Packer remembered Afghans calling this skewed dispensation as “a back-room deal brokered by élites and foreigners.” NUG led to performance-paralysis and internal discord due to power struggles since there was no existing and practical division of authority between the President and the CEO. Ghani’s team, through a presidential decree, even tried to abolish the office of CEO.

State machinery remained hostage to hostile camps of Ghani and his largely Pashtun technocrats, and CEO Abdullah, his Jamiat-e-Islami and other non-Pashtun elements. Abdullah Abdullah was increasingly sidelined over key appointments, especially in Tajik-dominated ANDSF. He in retaliation ‘formed parallel structures’ to push through his own agenda, bypassing the cabinet. Both sides resorted to veto against each other in this uneasy arrangement.

Not having a clean political dispensation was a failure by the international community and Afghan leaders. However, lumping everything at Ashraf Ghani’s doorstep seems unfair, as SIGAR report and other analyses try to do. Ghani was ‘constrained for trust’ as Afghans have weak political organisation, and are inherently divided along ethnic, tribal and religious fault lines. These differences are bridgeable only under inclusive political organisation that Afghan monarchs traditionally nurtured. Moreover, corruption has historically marred Asian societies, including Afghanistan, where state as an institution has not consolidated. Ghani in his naiveté imposed foreign solutions to a traditional, tribal and religious society to endear himself to his foreign masters. His stint as finance minister in Karzai Administration was never enough to ground him in his re-discovered homeland. Afghan communists during 1970s-80s did the same and failed.

Ghani’s governance style adversely impacted ANDSF. Expansion of the National Security Council, staffing it with officials having limited or no security expertise; procurement system; and centralising ANDSF decision-making and operations under the armed forces commander-in-chief, are some aberrations. Centralisation of military operations, intelligence, MOI, MOD and appointments within ANA and ANP under his office led to a huge bottleneck that “spurred rivalries between security ministries and directorates”. Both the President and the CEO filled agencies with their ethnic compatriots, Ghani favouring Ghalzai Pashtuns and Abdullah his fellow Tajiks. This not only alienated Afghanistan’s other ethnicities, it also undermined legitimacy of the Armed Forces, and their battlefield performance as “political partisanship permeated every level of the security apparatus”. Dysfunction caused inability to appoint “heads of key security ministries, including defense and interior”.

President-CEO factionalism was exacerbated by ex-president Karzai lurking in the background to stage a comeback. He managed to influence staffing of ‘Protection and Stability Council’ formed in 2016, with his loyalists and warlords like Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Yunas Qanouni and Ismail Khan, etc. It weakened Ghani government’s legitimacy and “strained internal cohesion within ANDSF” benefiting Taliban consolidation. This enduring schism affected Abdullah’s achievement as head of High Council for National Reconciliation, a body created to negotiate peace with Taliban.

After a $200 million fuel-theft scandal in 2015, Ghani decreed to create National Procurement Authority (NPA) to centrally procure material for some initial years. However, an MOD, MOI contract in NPA took over six months to finalise. When in 2020, ANA’s 215 Corps needed coal, it was contracted to be supplied from Kabul and heli-distributed due to threats on ground routes. So, by end of October, MOD had exhausted procurement budget for that fiscal year, with only 71 per cent contracts executed. Besides, the Finance Ministry ‘lacked capacity to pay local contractors’ daily or weekly, causing logistic insufficiency. To overcome delays, ANA corps commanders were authorised local procurement of goods and services, however, their fiscal powers were a meagre 10 million Afghanis.

NPA also became a ‘convenient tool’ for President (who headed NPA) to bypass ministries. There were also challenges with post-award contract administration for quality and quantity. Some in ANDSF thought of NPA a ‘deliberate attempt at corruption’ to benefit favourites.

This situation stymied an already dysfunctional military system, delaying food and fuel delivery to ANA and ANP soldiers in combat zones, besides increasing costs and reducing efficiency. To learn relevant lessons, the sad story continues.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 27th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (2)

Saleem Akhtar Malik | 1 year ago | Reply In this article Major General Inam ul Haq analyzes the SIGAR report in as much as it deals with political interference resulting in the collapse of ANDSF. To this extent the article looks at the SIGAR report from a sociologist s perspective. He observes that Afghanistan s government created under the 2004 constitution was highly centralized. It violated the ethos of a decentralized tribal society where traditionally the king held sway in Kabul and the major cities while the rest of the country was ruled by the local tribes and clans. The 2004 constitution was thrust upon Afghanistan during the U.S.-led occupation. It stipulated a presidential form of government where the power theoretically converged in one person the President. The presidential form of government however suits a monolithic society not a patchwork of tribes like Afghanistan. Ironically to address the sensitivities of the large non-Pashtun minority the office of CEO was created to accommodate Abdullah Abdullah the Tajik politician who served earlier as the Foreign Minister from December 2001 to April 2005. He became the CEO under the amended constitution in which capacity he served from September 2014 to March 2020 Abdullah Abdullah led the High Council for National Reconciliation from May 2020 until August 2021 when the Afghan government was overthrown by the Taliban. The council had been established to facilitate peace talks between the Ashraf Ghani-led Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Taliban insurgents. Instead of lessening the differences between the Pashtuns and the Persian- speaking minority represented by the Northern Alliance the diarchy created through the insertion of the office of CEO further aggravated their differences. As the CEO Abdullah-Abdullah was from day one at loggerheads with President Ashraf Ghani. The President- CEO diarchy ostensibly the brainchild of the occupation forces did not work as it created two distinct centres of gravity in the power corridors of Kabul. Besides centralization attempts by President Ashraf Ghani to modernize Afghan society were another factor that backfired. From the time of King Amanullah down to King Zahir Shah President Sardar Daud. and even during the Marxist rule of PDPA under the Soviet occupation the Afghan rulers were mesmerized by their ambition to modernize the Afghans even as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk modernized the Turkish society. Nearly a century before President George Bush junior embarked on the ambitious task of transforming Afghanistan into a modern nation-state King Amanullah dreamed of his country joining the ranks of modern states and started a wide-ranging modernization program. Ghazi Amanullah Khan was the sovereign of Afghanistan from 1919 first as Emir and after 1926 as King. For ten years no area in the Afghan society was left untouched by Amanullah s reforms which had they succeeded would have transformed Afghanistan into a modern and Westernized nation-state. By 1929 however the self-described revolutionary had been forced into exile never to return to his beloved country and his reforms were abrogated. When in power Mohammad Zahir Shah and Sardar Daud gave new constitutions that declared Afghanistan a modern democratic state and promised free elections a parliament civil and political rights women s rights and universal suffrage. However the conservative Afghan society tolerated these reforms only because they were cosmetic. Modernization under these rulers remained confined to the posh localities of Kabul inhabited by the elite classes. On 27th April 1978 Sardar Daoud was killed along with his family members in a coup staged by the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan PDPA whose leading lights were Nur Muhammad Taraki Hafizullah Amin Babrak Karmal and Najibullah. As it turned out they were all armchair Marxists whose favourite pastime besides making the ordinary Afghan s life more miserable was to fight among themselves and lecture even the Soviet leadership on the finer aspects of Marxism-Leninism. As a result of the controversial reforms introduced by the PDPA which were vehemently opposed by the conservative Afghan society a civil war started which soon spread throughout the country. Ashraf Ghani like the Afghan rulers before him tried to reform and modernize the Afghan society and also failed. Of all the modern Afghan rulers King Zahir Shah s tenure was the longest. If we look back Afghanistan under Zahir Shah 1933-1973 was a peaceful country. It was because the King held sway in Kabul and the major cities while the rest of the country was ruled by the local tribes and clans. There were local governors and administration but at the grassroots level the real power rested with the tribal chiefs. It was a functional arrangement that had for four decades maintained a precarious equilibrium between the various power centres. This equilibrium was immensely disturbed when Sardar Daoud toppled the monarchy and declared Afghanistan a republic. PDPA government and later the subsequent Afghan administrations under the Soviet occupation erased whatever little local empowerment had remained. President Ashraf Ghani installed by the U.S. in 2014 did not learn much from his predecessors and continued with the drive towards centralization control and his insistence to assume the responsibilities of his subordinates. He even interfered in military planning. General Inam rightly observes that Ghani in his naivet imposed foreign solutions to a traditional tribal and religious society to endear himself to his foreign masters Lastly the internecine quest for power between Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah was aggravated further due to the intrigues by the ex-president Karzai who continued to haunt the corridors of power through his manipulations. According to General Inam It weakened Ghani government s legitimacy and strained internal cohesion within ANDSF benefiting Taliban consolidation. This enduring schism affected Abdullah s achievement as head of High Council for National Reconciliation a body created to negotiate peace with Taliban . This is a balanced and highly informative analysis by the writer.
randy | 1 year ago | Reply Pakistan should be divided in 4 for regional peace
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ