Should the U.S. arm local Afghan tribes?
According to the Washington Post, Karl Eikenberry, U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan is pushing back against a plan from the military that would arm local Afghan militias:
Eikenberry's unease about the program as it was structured by the military also reflects a broader difference of opinion at the highest levels of the U.S. military and diplomatic headquarters in Kabul about new approaches to combating the Taliban insurgency. While military commanders are eager to experiment with decentralized grass-roots initiatives that work around the ponderous Afghan bureaucracy in Kabul, civilian officials think it is more important to wait until they have the central government's support, something they regard as essential to sustaining the programs.
Eikenberry's concerns are valid - if you look at the unease surrounding how a similar program has progressed in Iraq, there's a real concern that a failure to integrate armed groups into the central government ultimately lays the ground work for a civil war, or fragmentation (see here too). The Post pieces also notes that we don't really have good intelligence regarding the allegiances of these local groups. The U.S. could be sucked unwittingly into siding with unsavory characters in their local disputes.
But on the other hand, Eikenberry's objections are predicated on shoring up the central government, and there are plenty of people who think we need a more decentralized approach to the country. Arming friendly tribes may work to undermine Karzai, but if they can effectively keep the Taliban at bay, they may pave the way for a faster U.S. exit.
(AP Photo)
