Order Code RL30588
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Afghanistan: Post-War Governance,
Security, and U.S. Policy
Updated July 26, 2005
Kenneth Katzman
Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress


Afghanistan: Post-War Governance,
Security, and U.S. Policy
Summary
Afghanistan’s stabilization appears to be gathering strength, about three years
after the U.S.-led war that brought the current government to power, but major
challenges persist. Successful presidential elections were held on October 9, 2004,
and economic reconstruction is proceeding. However, the insurgency led by
remnants of the former Taliban regime has become more active in mid-2005,
narcotics trafficking is rampant, and independent militias remain throughout the
country. The report of the 9/11 Commission recommended a long-term commitment
to stabilize Afghanistan. Legislation passed in December 2004 to implement those
recommendations (P.L. 108-458) contains several provisions on Afghanistan.

Since the defeat of the Taliban, Afghanistan no longer serves as a safe base of
operations for Al Qaeda. Afghan citizens are enjoying new personal freedoms that
were forbidden under the Taliban, and women are participating in economic and
political life, a point highlighted during First Lady Laura Bush’s visit to Afghanistan
on March 29, 2005. Political reconstruction is following the route laid out by major
Afghan factions and the international community in late 2001. A loya jirga
(traditional Afghan assembly) adopted a new constitution on January 4, 2004.
Presidential and parliamentary elections were to be held by June 2004, but security
concerns and factional infighting caused the presidential elections to be postponed
until October 9, 2004. Parliamentary and provincial elections are now set for
September 18, 2005, with district elections put off until 2006. The presidential
elections were held amid high turnout and minimal violence; interim president Karzai
was declared first-round winner on November 3, 2004.
U.S. stabilization measures focus on strengthening the central government and
its security forces. The United States and other countries are building an Afghan
National Army; deploying a multinational International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF) to patrol Kabul and other cities; running regional enclaves to secure
reconstruction (Provincial Reconstruction Teams, PRTs); and disarming militia
fighters. Approximately 18,000 U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan to combat the
Taliban-led insurgency. To build security institutions and assist reconstruction, the
United States gave Afghanistan a total of almost $1.8 billion for FY2004, mostly
through a supplemental appropriations (P.L. 108-106). An FY2005 supplemental
appropriates about $3.35 billion, including funds for Afghan security forces, and
another $920 million is requested for the regular FY2006 aid appropriation.
This paper will be updated as warranted by major developments. See also CRS
Report RS21922, Afghanistan: Presidential and Parliamentary Elections; CRS
Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy; and CRS Report
RL32783, FY2005 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, Tsunami
Relief, and Other Activities.



Contents
Background to Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Mujahedin Government and Rise of the Taliban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Clinton Administration Relations With the Taliban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The “Northern Alliance” Coalition Against the Taliban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bush Administration Policy Pre-September 11, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
September 11 Attacks and Operation Enduring Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Major Combat Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Post-War Stabilization Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Bonn Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Permanent Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
National Elections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Addressing Key Challenges to the Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Strengthening Central Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Dismantling Independent Militias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Combating Narcotics Trafficking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Reconstructing Infrastructure and the Economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Implementing Rule of Law/Improving Human Rights Practices . . . . . 20
Advancement of Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Post-War Security Operations and Force Capacity Building . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Counter-Insurgency Combat/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) . . . 24
International Security Force (ISAF)/NATO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Afghan National Army (ANA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Afghan National Police . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Regional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Russia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Central Asian States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Residual Issues from Past Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Stinger Retrieval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Mine Eradication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
U.S. and International Aid to Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 and Amendments . . . . . . 41
FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Additional Forms of U.S. Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
World Bank/Asian Development Bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
International Reconstruction Pledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Domestically Generated Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Promoting Long-Term Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43


Trade and Investment Framework Agreement and
WTO Membership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Lifting of U.S. and International Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
List of Figures
Figure 1. Map of Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
List of Tables
Table 1. U.S. Aid to Afghanistan, FY1999-FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 2. U.S. Aid to Afghanistan, FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 4. U.S. Aid to Afghanistan, FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY1978-FY1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 6. ISAF Contributing Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 7. Major Factions in Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53


Afghanistan: Post-War Governance,
Security, and U.S. Policy
Background to Recent Developments
Afghanistan’s slide into instability began in the 1970s when its Communist
Party and its Islamic movement grew in strength and became increasingly bitter
opponents of each other.1 The instability shattered the relative peace and progress
that characterized the rule of Afghanistan’s last monarch, King Mohammad Zahir
Shah, who reigned from 1933 to 1973. Prior to the founding of the monarchy in
1747 by Ahmad Shah Durrani, Afghanistan was a territory inhabited by tribes and
tribal confederations often linked to neighboring nations; it was not a distinct
political entity. King Amanullah Khan (1919-1929) launched attacks on British
forces in Afghanistan shortly after taking power and won complete independence
from Britain as recognized in the Treaty of Rawalpindi (August 8, 1919). He was
considered a secular modernizer presiding over a government in which all ethnic
minorities participated. He was succeeded by King Mohammad Nadir Shah (1929-
1933), and then by Zahir Shah.
Zahir Shah is remembered fondly by many Afghans for promulgating a
constitution in 1964 that established a national legislature and promoting freedoms
for women, including freeing them from covering their face and hair. However,
possibly believing that doing so would enable him to limit Soviet support for
communist factions in Afghanistan, Zahir Shah also entered into a significant
political and arms purchase relationship with the Soviet Union.
While undergoing medical treatment in Italy, Zahir Shah was overthrown by his
cousin, Mohammad Daoud, a military leader. Daoud established a dictatorship
characterized by strong state control over the economy. After taking power in 1978
by overthrowing Daoud, the communists, first under Nur Mohammad Taraki and
then under Hafizullah Amin (leader of a rival communist faction who overthrew
Taraki in 1979), attempted to impose radical socialist change on a traditional society,
in part by redistributing land and bring more women into government. These moves
spurred recruitment for Islamic parties opposed to communist ideology. The Soviet
Union sent troops into Afghanistan on December 27, 1979 to prevent a seizure of
power by the Islamic militias that became popularly known as “mujahedin”2
(Islamic fighters). Upon their invasion, the Soviets ousted Hafizullah Amin and
installed a local ally, Babrak Karmal, as president.
1 For more information, see CRS Report RL31759, Reconstruction Assistance in
Afghanistan: Goals, Priorities, and Issues for Congress
.
2 The term refers to an Islamic guerrilla; literally “one who fights in the cause of Islam.”


CRS-2
After the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, the U.S.-backed mujahedin fought them
effectively, and Soviet occupation forces were never able to pacify the country —
outlying regions remained largely under mujahedin control. The mujahedin
benefited from U.S. weapons and assistance, provided through the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), working closely with Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence
directorate (ISI). That weaponry included portable shoulder-fired anti-aircraft
systems called “Stingers,” which proved highly effective against Soviet aircraft. The
Islamic guerrillas also hid and stored weaponry in a large network of natural and
manmade tunnels and caves throughout Afghanistan. The Soviet Union’s losses
mounted, and Soviet domestic opinion turned anti-war. In 1986, after the reformist
Mikhail Gorbachev became leader, the Soviets replaced Babrak Karmal with the
more pliable director of Afghan intelligence, “Najibullah” Ahmedzai as President.
On April 14, 1988, Gorbachev agreed to a U.N.-brokered accord (the Geneva
Accords) requiring it to withdraw. The withdrawal was completed by February 15,
1989, leaving in place the weak Najibullah government. The United States closed
its embassy in Kabul in January 1989, as the Soviet Union was completing its
pullout. A warming of relations moved the United States and Soviet Union to try
for a political settlement to the Afghan conflict, a trend accelerated by the 1991
collapse of the Soviet Union, which reduced Moscow’s capacity for supporting
communist regimes in the Third World. Moscow and Washington agreed on
September 13, 1991, to a joint cutoff of military aid to the Afghan combatants.
The State Department has said that a total of about $3 billion in economic and
covert military assistance was provided by the U.S. to the Afghan mujahedin from
1980 until the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Press reports say the covert aid
program grew from about $20 million per year in FY1980 to about $300 million per
year during FY1986-FY1990. The Soviet pullout decreased the strategic value of
Afghanistan and made the Administration and Congress less forthcoming with
subsequent funding.3
With Soviet backing withdrawn, on March 18, 1992, Najibullah publicly agreed
to step down once an interim government was formed. His announcement set off a
wave of rebellions primarily by Uzbek and Tajik militia commanders who were
nominally his allies, including by Uzbek commander Abdul Rashid Dostam (see
below). The defectors joined prominent mujahedin commander Ahmad Shah Masud
of the Islamic Society, a largely Tajik party headed by Burhannudin Rabbani. Masud
sent his fighters into Kabul, paving the way for the installation of a regime led by the
mujahedin on April 18, 1992. Masud had earned a reputation as a brilliant strategist
by preventing the Soviets from occupying his power base in the Panjshir Valley of
northeastern Afghanistan. (After failing to flee, Najibullah, his brother, and a few
aides remained at a U.N. facility in Kabul until the Taliban movement seized control
in 1996 and hanged them.)
3 For FY1991, Congress reportedly cut covert aid appropriations to the mujahedin from
$300 million the previous year to $250 million, with half the aid withheld until the second
half of the fiscal year. Although the intelligence authorization bill was not signed until late
1991, Congress abided by the aid figures contained in the bill. See “Country Fact Sheet:
Afghanistan,” in U.S. Department of State Dispatch, vol. 5, no. 23 (June 6, 1994), p. 377.


CRS-3
Afghanistan at a Glance
Population:
28.5 million (July 2004 est.)
Ethnic Groups:
Pashtun 42%; Tajik 27%; Uzbek 9%; Hazara 9%; Aimak 4%;
Turkmen 3%; Baluch 2%; other 4%
Religions:
Sunni Muslim 80%; Shiite Muslim 19%; other 1%
GDP:
$20 billion (purchasing power parity)
External Debt:
$8 billion bilateral, plus $500 million multilateral
Major Exports:
fruits, nuts, carpets, semi-precious gems, hides, opium
Major Imports:
food, petroleum, capital goods, textiles
Source: CIA World Factbook, 2004.
The Mujahedin Government and Rise of the Taliban4
The fall of Najibullah brought the mujahedin parties to power but also exposed
the serious differences among them. The leader of one of the smaller mujahedin
parties, Islamic scholar Sibghatullah Mojadeddi (leader of the Afghan National
Liberation Front), became president for an initial two months (April-May 1992).
Under an agreement among the major mujahedin parties, Rabbani became President
in June 1992, with the understanding that he would leave office in December 1994.
He refused to step down at that time, maintaining that political authority would
disintegrate in the absence of a clear successor, and the other parties accused him of
monopolizing power. Kabul was subsequently ravaged by daily shelling from
another mujahedin commander, Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, attempting to force Rabbani
out. Hikmatyar, who headed a fundamentalist faction of Hizb-e-Islami (Islamic
Party) and reportedly received a large proportion of the U.S. covert aid during the war
against the Soviet Union, was nominally prime minister but never formally took
office. Four years (1992-1996) of the civil war created popular support for the
Taliban as a movement that could deliver Afghanistan from the factional infighting.
(Hikmatyar was later ousted by the Taliban from his power base around Jalalabad,
despite sharing the Taliban’s ideology and Pashtun ethnicity, and he fled to Iran
before returning to Afghanistan in early 2002. He is now allied with Taliban and Al
Qaeda insurgents, and his whereabouts are unknown.)
The Taliban was formed in 1993-1994 by Afghan Islamic clerics and students,
many of them former mujahedin who had become disillusioned with continued
conflict among mujahedin parties and had moved into Pakistan to study in Islamic
seminaries (“madrassas”). They were mostly practitioners of an orthodox form of
Sunni Islam, “Wahhabism,” similar to that practiced in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban
was composed overwhelmingly of ethnic Pashtuns (Pathans) from rural areas of
Afghanistan. Pashtuns constitute a plurality in Afghanistan, accounting for about
42% of Afghanistan’s population. Taliban members viewed the Rabbani government
as corrupt, anti-Pashtun, and responsible for continued civil war and the deterioration
of security. With the help of defections by sympathetic mujahedin fighters, the
4 For an in-depth study of the Taliban and its rule, see Rashid, Ahmad. Taliban: Militant
Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia
. Yale University Press, 2000.


CRS-4
Taliban seized control of the southeastern city of Qandahar in November 1994, and
by February 1995, it had reached the gates of Kabul, after which an 18-month
stalemate around the capital ensued. In September 1995, the Taliban captured Herat
province, bordering Iran, and expelled and imprisoned its governor, Ismail Khan.
Khan, a Tajik ally of Rabbani and Masud, later escaped and took refuge in Iran. In
September 1996, a string of Taliban victories near Kabul led to the withdrawal of
Rabbani and Masud to their Panjshir Valley redoubt north of Kabul with most of
their heavy weapons; the Taliban took control of Kabul on September 27, 1996.
The Taliban was led by Mullah (Sunni Muslim cleric) Muhammad Umar, who
fought (and lost an eye) in the anti-Soviet war under the banner of the Hizb-e-Islam
(Islamic Party) mujahedin party of Yunis Khalis. Umar held the title of Head of State
and Commander of the Faithful, but he mostly remained in his power base in
Qandahar, rarely appearing in public. He did not take an active role in governance,
but he sometimes summoned Taliban leaders to meet with him in Qandahar to
discuss pressing issues. Considered a hardliner, Umar forged a close bond with bin
Laden and adamantly opposed meeting U.S. demands to hand him over. Born in
Uruzgan province, Umar, who is about 60 years old, fled Qandahar when the Taliban
surrendered it on December 9, 2001. He is still at large.
The Taliban progressively lost international and domestic support as it imposed
strict adherence to Islamic customs in areas it controlled and employed harsh
punishments, including executions. The Taliban made extensive use of its Ministry
for the Promotion of Virtue and the Suppression of Vice, a force of religious police
officers that often used physical punishments to enforce Islamic practices, as well as
a ban on television, Western music, and dancing. It prohibited women from
attending school or working outside the home, except in health care, and it conducted
some public executions of women for various transgressions, such as adultery. In
what many consider its most extreme action, in March 2001 the Taliban blew up
two large Buddha statues carved into hills above Bamiyan city, which dated to the
seventh century AD. Some experts believe the move was a reaction to U.N.
sanctions imposed in December 2000 (see below), and it provoked widespread
condemnation of the Taliban.
Several U.N. Security Council resolutions, including 1193 (August 28, 1998)
and 1214 (December 8, 1998), urged the Taliban to end discrimination against
women. During a November 1997 visit to Pakistan, then Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright attacked Taliban policies as “despicable.” U.S. women’s rights
groups, including the Feminist Majority and the National Organization for Women
(NOW), mobilized to urge the Clinton Administration not to recognize the Taliban
government. In May 1999, the Senate passed a resolution (S.Res. 68) calling on the
President not to recognize any Afghan government that discriminates against women.
Clinton Administration Relations With the Taliban
The Clinton Administration diplomatically engaged the Taliban movement as
it was gathering strength, but U.S. relations with the Taliban deteriorated sharply
during the five years that the Taliban was in power. The two sides had become de-
facto adversaries well before the September 11, 2001 attacks. The United States
withheld recognition of Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan,


CRS-5
formally recognizing no faction as the government. Because of the lack of broad
international recognition of Taliban, the United Nations seated representatives of the
Rabbani government, not the Taliban. The State Department ordered the Afghan
embassy in Washington, D.C., closed in August 1997 because of a power struggle
that embassy. Despite the deterioration, Clinton Administration officials met
periodically with Taliban officials to stress U.S. concerns.
Well before the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Taliban’s hosting of Al
Qaeda’s leadership had become the Clinton Administration’s overriding bilateral
agenda item with Afghanistan.5 In April 1998, then U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations Bill Richardson visited Afghanistan and asked the Taliban to hand bin Laden
over to U.S. authorities, but he was rebuffed. After the August 7, 1998, Al Qaeda
bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the Clinton Administration
placed progressively more pressure on the Taliban to extradite bin Laden, adding
sanctions, some military and reported covert action,6 and the threat of further
punishments. Clinton Administration officials say that they did not try to oust the
Taliban from power, either through direct U.S. military action or by providing
military aid to Taliban opponents, because domestic U.S. support for those steps was
then lacking and because the Taliban’s opponents were considered too weak and not
necessarily consistent with U.S. values.
! On July 4, 1999, because of the Taliban’s hosting of bin Laden,
President Clinton issued Executive Order 13129, imposing a ban on
U.S. trade with Taliban-controlled portions of Afghanistan and
blocking Taliban assets in U.S. financial institutions. Afghanistan
was not named a state sponsor of terrorism on the grounds that doing
so would have implied recognition of the Taliban as the government.
! On October 15, 1999, with Russian support, the United States
achieved adoption of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267,
which banned flights outside Afghanistan by its national airline
(Ariana), and directed U.N. member states to freeze Taliban assets.
! On December 19, 2000, the United States and Russia achieved U.N.
Security Council adoption of Resolution 1333, prohibiting the
provision of arms or military advice to the Taliban (directed against
Pakistan); directing a reduction of Taliban diplomatic representation
abroad; and banning foreign travel by senior Taliban officials. On
July 30, 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1363,
providing for the stationing of monitors in Pakistan to ensure that no
weapons or military advice was being provided to the Taliban. (In
5 For more information on bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization, see CRS Report
RL31119, Terrorism: Near Eastern Groups and State Sponsors, 2001, September 10, 2001.
See also CRS Report RS20411, Afghanistan: Connections to Islamic Movements in Central
and South Asia and Southern Russia
.
6 On August 20, 1998, the United States fired cruise missiles at alleged bin Laden-controlled
terrorist training camps in retaliation for the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.


CRS-6
the aftermath of the Taliban’s ouster from power, these provisions
were narrowed to focus on Al Qaeda, and not the Taliban, by U.N.
Security Council Resolution 1390 of January 17, 2002.)
The “Northern Alliance” Coalition Against the Taliban
The Taliban’s policies caused many different Afghan factions to ally with the
ousted President Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Masud, the Tajik core of the anti-Taliban
opposition, into a broader “Northern Alliance.” Other components of the Alliance
were the following.
! Uzbeks/General Dostam. One non-Tajik component of the
Alliance was the Uzbek militia (the Junbush-Melli, or National
Islamic Movement of Afghanistan) of General Abdul Rashid
Dostam. Uzbeks constitute about 9% of the population, compared
with 27% that are Tajik. Dostam was best known for his 1992 break
with Najibullah that led to Najibullah’s overthrow that year. Dostam
subsequently fought against Rabbani during 1992-1995 to persuade
him to yield power. Dostam joined the Northern Alliance after the
Taliban took power. Dostam once commanded about 25,000 troops,
significant amounts of armor and combat aircraft, and even some
Scud missiles, but infighting within his faction left him unable to
hold off Taliban forces. The Taliban captured Dostam’s region in
August 1998, leaving him in control of only small areas near the
border with Uzbekistan. Dostam was a candidate for president in the
October 9, 2004 elections; in March 2005 Karzai appointed him as
his chief of staff for military affairs.
! Hazara Shiites. Members of Hazara tribes, mostly Shiite Muslims,
are prominent in central Afghanistan, particularly Bamiyan Province.
The Hazaras are always wary of repression by Pashtuns and other
large ethnic factions. The main Hazara Shiite grouping is Hizb-e-
Wahdat (Unity Party, an alliance of eight smaller groups), which
joined Rabbani’s 1992-1996 government. Hizb-e-Wahdat has
traditionally received some material support from Iran, whose
population practices Shiite Islam. Hizb-e-Wahdat forces
occasionally retook Bamiyan city from the Taliban, but they did not
hold it until the Taliban collapsed in November 2001. The most
well known Hazara political leader is Karim Khalili, leader of a
large faction of Hizb-e-Wahdat; he was one of President Hamid
Karzai’s vice presidential running mates in the presidential election.
Another major Hazara figure, Mohammad Mohaqiq, ran in the
October 2004 presidential election.
! Pashtun Islamists/Sayyaf. Another former mujahedin party leader,
Abd-I-Rab Rasul Sayyaf, heads a Pashtun-dominated faction called
the Islamic Union for the Liberation of Afghanistan. Sayyaf lived
many years in and is politically close to Saudi Arabia, which shares
his conservative brand of Sunni Islam (“Wahhabism”). During the
U.S.-backed war against the Soviet occupation, Sayyaf’s mujahedin


CRS-7
faction, along with that of Hikmatyar, was a principal recipient of
U.S.-supplied weaponry. Both criticized the U.S.-led war against
Saddam Hussein after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. The
similarity of Sayyaf’s ideology to that of the Taliban partly explains
why many of Sayyaf’s fighters defected to the Taliban movement
during its ascendancy. Despite that similarity, Sayyaf joined the
Northern Alliance against the Taliban. Sayyaf retains some militia
fighters and he is said to want to exercise major influence over the
judiciary in the post-presidential election government. Many
Afghans believe his Islamic orthodoxy would slow modernization
of the judiciary and hinder an expansion of Western-style freedoms.

Bush Administration Policy Pre-September 11, 2001
Bush Administration policy initially differed only slightly from Clinton
Administration policy: applying pressure short of military action against the Taliban,
while retaining some dialogue with it. Prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, the
Bush Administration did not provide the Northern Alliance with U.S. military
assistance, although the 9/11 Commission report says that, in the months prior to the
September 11 attacks, the Administration was leaning toward such a step. The
Commission report says some Administration officials wanted to also assist Pashtun
forces opposed to the Taliban, and not just the Northern Alliance; other covert
options might have been under consideration as well.7 Before the September 11
attacks, the Bush Administration stepped up engagement with Pakistan in an effort
to persuade it to end support for the Taliban.
In accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1333, in February 2001
the State Department ordered the closing of a Taliban representative office in New
York. The Taliban complied with the directive, but its representative continued to
operate informally. In March 2001, Bush Administration officials received a Taliban
envoy, foreign ministry aide Rahmatullah Hashemi, to discuss bilateral issues. As
did the executive branch, Congress became increasingly critical of the Taliban. A
sense of the Senate resolution (S.Res. 275) that resolving the Afghan civil war should
be a top U.S. priority passed by unanimous consent on September 24, 1996. A
similar resolution, H.Con.Res. 218, passed the House on April 28, 1998.
Fighting with only some Iranian and Russian support, the Northern Alliance
was unable to topple the Taliban. After losing Kabul in 1996, the Alliance steadily
lost additional ground, even in areas populated by friendly ethnic minorities. By the
time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Taliban controlled at least 75% of the
country and almost all major provincial capitals. The Northern Alliance suffered a
major setback on September 9, 2001, two days before the September 11 attacks,
when Ahmad Shah Masud was assassinated by alleged Al Qaeda suicide bombers
posing as journalists. He was succeeded by his intelligence chief, Muhammad
Fahim, a veteran figure but who lacks Masud’s charisma or authority.
7 Drogin, Bob. “U.S. Had Plan for Covert Afghan Options Before 9/11.” Los Angeles
Times
, May 18, 2002.


CRS-8
September 11 Attacks and Operation Enduring Freedom
After the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration decided to militarily
overthrow the Taliban regime when it refused a U.S. demand to immediately
extradite bin Laden. The Bush Administration decided that a friendly regime in
Kabul was needed to create the conditions under which U.S. forces could eliminate
Al Qaeda activists from Afghanistan. In Congress, S.J.Res.23 (P.L. 107-40)
authorized “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations,
or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such organizations or
persons
....” It passed 98-0 in the Senate, and with no objections in the House.
Another bill (H.R. 2998, P.L. 107-148) established a “Radio Free Afghanistan”
service under RFE/RL, and provided $17 million in funding for it for FY2002.
Major Combat Phase. The U.S.-led war in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring
Freedom, OEF) began on October 7, 2001. The major combat phase of OEF
consisted primarily of U.S. airstrikes on Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, coupled with
targeting by relatively small numbers (about 1,000) of U.S. special operations forces,
to facilitate military offensives by the Northern Alliance and Pashtun anti-Taliban
forces. Some U.S. ground units (about 1,300 Marines) moved into Afghanistan to
pressure the Taliban around Qandahar at the height of the fighting (October-
December 2001), but there were few pitched battles between U.S. and Taliban
soldiers. Most of the ground combat was between Taliban units and Afghan
opposition militias. Some critics believe that U.S. dependence on local Afghan
militia forces in OEF strengthened the militias’ subsequent autonomy.
The Taliban regime unraveled rapidly after it lost Mazar-e-Sharif to Dostam on
November 9, 2001. Northern Alliance forces commanded by Fahim — who had
initially promised U.S. officials his forces would not enter the city itself — entered
Kabul three days later. The Taliban collapse in the north was followed by its loss of
control of southern and eastern Afghanistan to pro-U.S. Pashtun commanders, such
as Hamid Karzai. Karzai had entered Afghanistan just after the September 11 attacks
to organize Pashtun resistance to the Taliban, supported in that effort by U.S. special
forces. He became central to U.S. efforts in the south after another Pashtun leader,
Abdul Haq, entered Afghanistan in October 2001 without coordination with or
support from U.S. forces and was captured and killed by the Taliban.
Major U.S. combat operations continued after the fall of the Taliban regime.
The United States and its Afghan allies conducted “Operation Anaconda” in the
Shah-i-Kot Valley south of Gardez during March 2 - 19, 2002, to eliminate a pocket
of as many as 800 Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. In late March 2003, about 1,000
U.S. troops launched a raid on suspected Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters in villages
around Qandahar. On May 1, 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Afghan
president Karzai declared major OEF combat operations ended.


CRS-9
Post-War Stabilization Efforts8
The war paved the way for the success of an eight year long U.N. effort to form
a broad-based Afghan government. The United Nations was viewed as a credible
mediator by all sides largely because of its role in ending the Soviet occupation, but
some observers criticized U.S. policy as being insufficiently engaged to bring about
a settlement. Proposals from a succession of U.N. mediators incorporated many of
former King Zahir Shah’s proposals for a government to be selected by a traditional
assembly, the loya jirga. U.N. mediation, at times, appeared to make progress, but
ceasefires between warring factions always broke down. One U.N. mediator,
Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi ended his efforts in frustration in October 1999.
In coordination with direct U.N. mediation efforts, a “Six Plus Two” contact
group began meeting in early 1997; the group consisted of the United States, Russia,
and the six states bordering Afghanistan: Iran, China, Pakistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. The group was created following informal meetings of
some of the key outside parties, in which these countries, including the United States,
agreed not to arm the warring factions.9 In 2000, a “Geneva group” on Afghanistan
began meeting: Italy, Germany, Iran, and the United States. Another mediation
effort existed within the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).
The United States also supported initiatives coming from individual Afghans,
including Karzai’s clan. One initiative, the Intra Afghan Dialogue, consisted of
former mujahedin commanders and clan leaders; it held meetings during 1997 and
1998 in Bonn, Frankfurt, Istanbul, and Ankara. Another group was centered around
former King Zahir Shah (“Rome Grouping”). A third grouping, the “Cyprus
Process,” consisted of other Afghan exiles considered pro-Iranian.
The Bonn Conference. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, Brahimi
was brought back as U.N. mediator. On November 14, 2001, the U.N. Security
Council adopted Resolution 1378, calling for a “central” U.N. role in establishing a
transitional administration and inviting member states to send peacekeeping forces
to promote stability and secure the delivery of aid. In late November 2001, after
Kabul had fallen, the United Nations invited delegates of the major Afghan factions,
most prominently the Northern Alliance and that of the former King, to a conference
Bonn, Germany. The Taliban was not invited. On December 5, 2001, the factions
signed the “Bonn Agreement,” which
8 Some of the information in the following sections was gathered during a visit by CRS staff
to Afghanistan in January 2004. For an analysis of U.S. reconstruction initiatives in
Afghanistan, with a focus primarily on economic reconstruction, see U.S. General
Accounting Office, Afghanistan Reconstruction, GAO-04-403 (June 2004).
9 In June 1996, the Administration formally imposed a ban on U.S. sales of arms to all
factions in Afghanistan, a policy that had been already in place less formally. Federal
Register
, vol. 61, no. 125 (June 27, 1996), p. 33313.


CRS-10
! formed a 30-member interim administration to govern until the
holding in June 2002 of a loya jirga, which would be opened by the
former King and would choose a government to run Afghanistan
until a new constitution is approved and national elections held
(planned for June 2004). Hamid Karzai was selected to chair the
interim administration, weighted heavily (17 out of 30 of the
positions) toward the Northern Alliance. This bloc held the key
posts of Defense (Fahim), Foreign Affairs (Dr. Abdullah Abdullah),
and Interior (Yunus Qanooni). The three are ethnic Tajiks, in their
late 40s, and were close aides to Ahmad Shah Masud. It was agreed
that, in the interim, Afghanistan would abide by the constitution of
1964.10

! An international peace keeping force would be formed to maintain
security, at least in Kabul, and Northern Alliance forces were to
withdraw from Kabul.

! The Bonn Agreement was endorsed by U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1385 (December 6, 2001), and the international
peacekeeping force was authorized by Security Council Resolution
1386 (December 20, 2001).11
Karzai and His Governing Style. President Karzai was selected to lead
Afghanistan because he is a credible Pashtun leader who tends to seek factional
compromise rather than by intimidating his opponents with the use of armed force.
Karzai, who is about 50 years old, is leader of the powerful Popolzai tribe of
Durrani Pashtuns; he became tribal leader when his father was assassinated, allegedly
by Taliban agents, in Quetta, Pakistan in 1999. Karzai attended university in India.
He was deputy foreign minister in Rabbani’s government during 1992-1995, but he
left the government and supported the Taliban as a Pashtun alternative to Rabbani.
He broke with the Taliban as its excesses unfolded and began forging alliances with
other anti-Taliban factions, including the Northern Alliance. Some of his several
brothers have lived in the United States.
Permanent Constitution. The next step in the process, but prior to the
drafting of a new constitution, was the holding of an “emergency” loya jirga (June
2002) that would put a popular imprimatur on the new transition government. In
preparation, former King Zahir Shah returned to Afghanistan on April 18, 2002. By
the time of the meeting, 381 districts of Afghanistan had chosen the 1,550 delegates
to it, of which about 200 were women. At the loya jirga, which began June 11,
2002, the former King and Rabbani, withdrew from leadership candidacy and the
assembly selected Karzai to continue to lead until planned June 2004 national
elections. On its last day (June 19, 2002), the assembly approved a new cabinet,
10 The last loya jirga that was widely recognized as legitimate was held in 1964 to ratify a
constitution. Najibullah convened a loya jirga in 1987 to approve pro-Moscow policies; that
gathering was widely viewed by Afghans as illegitimate.
11 Text of Bonn agreement at [http://www.runiceurope.org/german/frieden/afghanistan/talks/
agreement.htm].


CRS-11
which included three vice presidents and was very similar to the previous cabinet.
The loya jirga did not establish a parliament.
After the loya jirga, the process of drafting a permanent constitution began. A
35-member constitutional commission, appointed in October 2002, drafted the
document, and it was publicly unveiled in November 2003. It was debated by 502
delegates, selected in U.N.-run caucuses, at a “constitutional loya jirga (CLJ)” during
December 13, 2003 - January 4, 2004. The CLJ, chaired by Sibghatullah Mojadeddi
(who is discussed above), ended with approval of the constitution with only minor
changes from the draft.
Most significantly, members of the Northern Alliance factions and their allies
did not succeed in measurably limiting the power of the presidency in the drafting
process or at the CLJ. The Alliance had wanted to set up a prime minister-ship as a
check on presidential power, but that was not included in the draft out of broad
concerns that a prime minister might emerge as a rival to the presidency.12 As an
alternative, the Northern Alliance sought a strong elected parliament.13 At the CLJ,
some additional powers were given to the parliament, such as veto power over senior
official nominees. Some experts believe that setting up a strong presidency places
undue weight on Karzai’s incumbency and self-restraint. According to the permanent
constitution:
! Two vice presidents run on the same election ticket as the president,
and one succeeds him in the event of the president’s death. They
serve a five-year term, and presidents are limited to two terms. If
no presidential candidate receives at least 50%, a run-off is to be
held within two weeks. The constitution gives parliament the ability
to impeach a president.
! There is to be a two-chamber parliament, provincial, and district
councils. The lower house (Wolesi Jirga, House of People), to
consist of 249 seats, is to be fully elected at the same time, if
possible
, as presidential elections.
! The 102 seat upper chamber (Meshrano Jirga, House of Elders) is
to be selected as follows: one-third of the seats (34) are appointed by
the President; another one third (34, one per province) are selected
by provincial councils (elected, if possible, the same day as the
parliamentary elections); and a final 34 are selected by the nearly
400 district councils (elected, if possible, the same day as the
parliamentary elections). The constitution does not stipulate other
roles for the district councils, although some believe they will
12 Constable, Pamela. “Afghan Constitution Seeks Balance.” Washington Post, September
28, 2003.
13 Information on the contents of the draft constitution are derived from a variety of
November 3, 2003, wire service reports, including Reuters and Associated Press, which are
based on an English translation of the draft provided to journalists by the Afghan
government.


CRS-12
ultimately acquire some power to impose local taxes and provide
local services.14
! In the elected lower house, at least 68 of those elected (an average
of two per province x 34 provinces) “should” be women. That
would give women about 25% of the seats in that body. The goal is
to be met through election rules that would give seats to the top
women vote-getters in each province. In the upper house, 50% of
the president’s appointments are to be women, giving women at
least 17 seats (half of the president’s 34 nominees) — about 17% of
that body.
! The constitution allows political parties to be established so long as
their charters “do not contradict the principles of Islam,” and they do
not have affiliations with other countries. The constitution does not
impose Sharia (Islamic law), but it does attempt to satisfy
Afghanistan’s conservative clerics by stipulating that laws shall not
contradict “the beliefs and provisions” of Islam.
! Protects minorities by giving Uzbeks and Turkmens rights for their
language to be official languages in their regions, provisions not
contained in the original draft. This represented an apparent victory
for Afghanistan’s minorities; the Pashtun leaders had wanted the
final constitution to designate Pashto as the sole official language.
National Elections. A separate CRS report, CRS Report RS21922,
Afghanistan: Presidential and Parliamentary Elections, provides more detailed
information on the presidential election and the upcoming parliamentary and
provincial elections. As noted in that report, the October 9, 2004, presidential voting
was orderly and turnout heavy (about 8.2 million votes cast out of 10.5 million
registered voters). On November 3, 2004, Karzai was declared winner (55.4% of the
vote) over his seventeen challengers on the first round, avoiding a runoff. He was
inaugurated on December 7, 2004, with Vice President Cheney attending.
Parliamentary elections had been intended for April-May 2005, although they
have now been scheduled for September 18, 2005. The provincial councils are to be
elected that same day. However, because of the difficulty in confirming voter
registration rolls and determining district boundaries, elections for the district
councils, each of which will have small and contentious boundaries, have been put
off until some time in 2006. For the parliamentary and provincial elections, voting
district boundaries have now been determined, and the number of lower house
parliamentary seats for each province has been set. There has been a “supplemental
voter registration” period during June 25-July 21 to correct voter registration errors
or oversights from the October 2004 presidential election. About 780,000 additional
Afghans have been registered in this period.
14 Aizenman, N.C. “Afghans Face a Rocky Road to Next Vote.” Washington Post, February
19, 2005.


CRS-13
Because the district elections will not be held at the same time as the
parliamentary and provincial elections, the Afghan election commission has said
that, as an interim measure, the upper house of parliament is to consist of the 34
selectees of the provincial councils, and 17 presidential appointees. The remaining
51 seats of the upper house are to be filled when district elections are held in 2006.
According to the U.N. Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA), the
number of candidates certified on July 12 (final certification) are 2,778 candidates
for the lower house of parliament thus far (including about 330 women) and 3,027
candidates for the provincial councils (including 270 women). Only 17 candidates
were disqualified by the Election Complaints Commission, which was chartered to
evaluate any allegations of candidate ineligibility, particularly for association with
illegal militias.
The election system is district based. However, 72 political parties registered
with the Justice Ministry are trying to support their candidates on a national or
regional basis. Karzai has not formed his own party. Yunus Qanooni, Karzai’s main
presidential election challenger, was not given a cabinet seat in the new government,
prompting him to announce the formation of a “New Afghanistan” opposition party
and a broader, multi-party opposition coalition called the “Afghanistan National
Coordination Front.”
U.S. Election Assistance. The upcoming elections are estimated to cost
about $150 million, of which the United States has thus far provided or pledged $32
million, and other donors have pledged about $68 million. Funds are derived from
FY2004 and FY2005 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 108-106 and P.L. 109-13).
Addressing Key Challenges to the Transition
Karzai’s government is slowly expanding its writ, although tensions remain
among factions of the national government and between the central government and
some regional leaders. Aside from the security concerns generated by continuing
Taliban insurgency, the political transition is proceeding steadily but continues to
face challenges that are discussed below.
Strengthening Central Government. A key part of the U.S. stabilization
effort is to build the capacity of the Afghan government and keep its disparate
factions working together as a team. On December 27, 2004, a new 27-seat cabinet
was sworn in, which balances ethnic factions (among Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras,
Uzbeks, and others) but also tries to emphasize technocratic qualifications (nine have
Ph.D’s) over factional allegiances. The main security ministries, Defense and
Interior, are now occupied by Pashtuns, but there are eight Tajik ministers. In the
post-presidential election cabinet,


CRS-14
! The most prominent Northern Alliance minister, Fahim, has been
replaced as Defense Minister by his Pashtun deputy, Abdul Rahim
Wardak. Wardak lived in the United States during Taliban rule.
Fahim’s ouster has heightened tensions between Karzai and the
Northern Alliance grouping.
! Prominent Northern Alliance figure, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, was
retained as Foreign Minister, and Interior Minister Ali Jalali, a
Pashtun, was retained. Jalali reportedly must relinquish his U.S.
citizenship to retain the post.
! Finance Minister, Ashraf Ghani (a Pashtun), well liked by
international donors, was dropped in favor of another Pashtun,
Karzai ally (and Central Bank governor) Anwar ul-Haq Ahady.
! Three women are in the cabinet, an addition of one from the
previous cabinet. Female presidential candidate Masooda Jalal is
Minister of Women’s Affairs; Sediqa Balkhi is Minister for Martyrs
and the Disabled; and Amina Afzali is Minister of Youth.
! To emphasize his stated commitment to end the burgeoning
narcotics trafficking problem, Karzai created a new Ministry of
Counter-Narcotics, headed by Habibullah Qadari.
The United States and Afghanistan are also trying to build democratic traditions
at the local level. The Afghan government’s “National Solidarity Program” seeks to
create local governing councils and empower these councils to make decisions about
local reconstruction priorities. Elections to these local councils have been held in
several provinces, and almost 40% of those elected to them have been women.15 The
FY2005 supplemental request included, within the $265 million broad democracy
category, $155 million in ESF for programs including the National Solidarity
Program. The conference report on P.L. 109-13 does not specify how much of the
$1.086 billion in ESF appropriated is allocated for these programs.
Yet, Afghanistan’s central government still lacks administrative capacity. As
part of the U.S. push to build government capacity in advance of the 2004 Afghan
elections, the Administration assigned 14 U.S. officials (fewer than the 20 that were
planned) full- or part-time to the U.S. Embassy in Kabul (Afghan Reconstruction
Group, ARG) to serve as additional advisors to the Afghan government. Zalmay
Khalilzad, an American of Afghan origin who was President Bush’s envoy to
Afghanistan, became ambassador in December 2003, and he reportedly had
significant influence on Afghan government decisions.16 However, he has now left
Afghanistan, and Ambassador Ronald Neumann has been confirmed as his
15 Khalilzad, Zalmay (Then U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan). “Democracy Bubbles Up.”
Wall Street Journal, March 25, 2004.
16 Waldman, Amy. “In Afghanistan, U.S. Envoy Sits in Seat of Power.” New York Times,
April 17, 2004. Afghanistan’s ambassador in Washington is Seyed Jalal Tawwab, formerly
a Karzai aide.


CRS-15
replacement. To assist the U.S. Embassy in Kabul and coordinate reconstruction and
diplomacy, in 2004 the State Department created an Office of Afghanistan Affairs,
now headed by Ambassador Maureen Quinn. In addition, U.S. intelligence is
advising the National Security Directorate to help it build its capabilities to monitor
threats to the new government.17
As a demonstration of high-level U.S. support for Karzai, the Administration
has maintained a pattern of senior visits. Vice President Cheney attended Karzai’s
inauguration in December 2004. In March 2005, Secretary of State Rice, and then
First Lady Laura Bush (March 29) visited Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld has visited roughly every three months.
Funding Issues/FY2005 Supplemental. The U.S. embassy is expanding
its personnel and facilities to help accelerate the reconstruction process, and it is
improving its physical security capabilities. The conference report on P.L. 109-13
provided a requested $60 million for embassy Kabul operations, as well as the
requested $17.1 million in non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, and de-mining (NADR)
funds for Karzai protection. Additional amounts for Afghan government capacity
($240 million was requested) are not specified in that law. Part of the U.S. embassy
funds are for contract security to replace U.S. marines that now guard the compound.
A requested $25 million for Kabul international airport was not provided,18 although
the airport has now acquired equipment for instrument landing.
Dismantling Independent Militias. On July 11, 2004, Karzai cited regional
and factional militias as the key threat to Afghan stability — greater than that posed
by continuing Taliban attacks. In his first post-election speech on November 4, 2004,
Karzai said he would continue curbing regional leaders and militias. Some of these
local strongmen have been accused of past human rights abuses in a report released
in July 2005 by the “Afghanistan Justice Project.19 On the other hand, some argue
that Afghans have always sought substantial regional autonomy. Some critics
attribute the continued strength of regional militias to U.S. policies to use these
militias to combat Taliban and Al Qaeda remnants. Others believe that easily
obtained arms and manpower, funded by narcotics trafficking profits, help to sustain
the independence of local militias. Still others maintain that local militias did not
interfere to any great extent on the presidential vote and that the issue is fading as
an obstacle to Afghan stability.
Karzai’s December 2004 cabinet selections showed his attempts to marginalize
regional strongmen. He removed Pashtun regional leader Ghul Agha Sherzai as
Minister of Public Works and of Urban Development but then returned him to his
prior post as governor of Qandahar. Herat strongman Ismail Khan was appointed
Minister of Water and Energy; he had been removed by Karzai as governor of Herat
17 Kaufman, Marc. “U.S. Role Shifts as Afghanistan Founders.” Washington Post, April
14, 2003.
18 The conference report on the FY2004 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 108-106) provided
$44 million for improvements to the U.S. embassy in Kabul.
19 See [http://www.afghanistanjusticeproject.org].


CRS-16
Province in September 2004. As noted above, Dostam has been appointed Karzai’s
top military advisor, taking him away from his political base in northern Afghanistan.
He took up his post in April 2005 after “resigning” as head of his Junbush Melli
faction. In July 2004, Karzai removed a charismatic Northern Alliance commander,
Atta Mohammad, from control of a militia in the Mazar-e-Sharif area and moved two
other militia leaders, Hazrat Ali (Jalalabad area) and Khan Mohammad (Qandahar
area) into civilian police chief posts.
One commander of concern is former Defense Minister Fahim, still the Northern
Alliance’s military chief, who now has no official position. Although he has mostly
withdrawn Northern Alliance militia fighters from Kabul, as required in the Bonn
agreement, and turned almost all of his heavy weapons over to U.N. and Afghan
forces, he could conceivably still pose a military threat to Karzai’s government,
should he turn to armed rebellion. Another potential threat is Abd-Rab Rasul Sayyaf,
who is discussed above. Sayyaf has refused to allow some of his militiamen in and
around Kabul to be disarmed.
DDR Program. A cornerstone of the effort to curb regionalism is a program,
run by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Afghanistan (UNAMA) to
dismantle identified and illegal militias (Disarmament, Demobilization, and
Reintegration, DDR). This program is run in partnership with Japan, Britain, and
Canada, with participation of the United States. The program first got off to a slow
start because the Afghan Defense Ministry did not enact mandated reforms (primarily
reduction of the number of Tajiks in senior positions) by the targeted July 1, 2003,
date. In September 2003, Karzai took action on the issue, replacing 22 senior Tajik
officials in the Defense Ministry with officials of Pashtuns, Uzbek, and Hazara
ethnicity.
The DDR program had initially been expected to demobilize 100,000 fighters.
However, lists of fighters submitted by regional leaders in June 2004 identified about
60,000 total to be demobilized. According to UNAMA, all of the 60,000 militia
fighters identified have been disarmed and this phase of the program ended July 8,
2005. Of that total, 50,000 have begun exercising their reintegration options:
training, starting small businesses, and other options. The program got a boost from
the ousting of Ismail Khan as Herat governor in August 2004; he permitted many of
his militiamen to enter the DDR program after he was removed. Some studies have
criticized the DDR program for failing to prevent a certain amount of rearmament of
militiamen or stockpiling of weapons and for the rehiring of some militiamen in
security programs run by the United States and its partners.20
As of June 11, 2005, the disarmament is now centered on a pool of perhaps
80,000 - 100,000 members of “illegal armed groups” — militiamen that were not
part of recognized local forces. The program to disarm them is called the
Disarmament of Illegal Armed Groups (DIAG). As of July 25, 2005, 15,000
weapons have been collected from these militia fighters.
20 For an analysis of the DDR program, see Christian Dennys. Disarmament, Demobilization
and Rearmament?
June 6, 2005, [http://www.jca.apc.org/~jann/Documents/Disarmament
%20demobilization%20rearmament.pdf].


CRS-17
A related program is the surrender and cantonment of heavy weapons possessed
by major factions. According to UNAMA, at least 36,000 medium and light
weapons have been collected as of July 25, 2005. Of these, 13,400 pieces have been
transferred to the ANA. About 9,054 heavy weapons (tanks, armored personnel
carriers, and artillery pieces) have been collected; this is nearly all of the heavy
weapons believed controlled by militia forces, although there are still believed to be
about 220 heavy weapons pieces uncollected in Shindand, Farah, and Konduz.
Heavy weapons cantonment was completed in Kabul in January 2005 because Fahim
submitted the heavy weapons under his control — including the weapons kept in the
Northern Alliance stronghold of the Panjshir Valley. The final weapons submitted
by him included the last four Scud missiles that were under his control, along with
70 tanks and 20 artillery pieces. As noted above, the U.K.-led PRT in Mazar-e-
Sharif has collected and (along with the ANA) is guarding some heavy weapons
(tanks, artillery) from Dostam and rival factions in northern Afghanistan.
The FY2004 supplemental requested $60 million for DDR operations.
However, $30 million was provided in that law (P.L. 108-106) because it is expected
that Japan might contribute additional funds.
Combating Narcotics Trafficking. A detailed discussion of the narcotics
trafficking issue, including U.S. funding to combat this problem in Afghanistan, is
provided in CRS Report RL32686, Afghanistan: Narcotics and U.S. Policy.
Narcotics trafficking has been identified as a growing problem facing the Karzai
government, and there are concerns that drug traffickers will use their profits to
influence the upcoming parliamentary and provincial elections. The State
Department’s International Narcotics Strategy Report, released March 4, 2005, says
that Afghanistan is “on the verge of becoming a narcotics state.” In his November
4, 2004 election victory speech, and at a Kabul conference on the issue two days after
his December 7, 2004 inauguration, he called on Afghans to join a “jihad” against the
opium trade, later pledging to destroy Afghanistan’s poppy fields within two years.
On the other hand, the Afghan government has publicly urged the Bush
Administration to focus primarily on funding alternative livelihoods that will
dissuade Afghans from engaging in cultivation, rather than on eradication or
interdiction.

A U.N. preliminary report released March 27, 2005, said there has been some
response to Karzai’s initiatives and that poppy crop planting for next year’s crop is
falling from the prior year’s level in 29 out of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces. On the
other hand, a press report published on the eve of Karzai’s May 23, 2005, visit to the
United States said that the U.S. Embassy in Kabul had assessed that Karzai was
refusing or failing to overcome Afghan resistance to more assertive U.S. and Afghan
efforts to reduce poppy cultivation.21 In April 2005, for example, Afghan farmers in
the Qandahar area fought Afghan units who were attempting to eradicate poppy
fields. During the course of the Karzai visit, however, U.S. officials praised Karzai’s
cooperation on narcotics issues.
21 Cloud, David and Carlotta Gall. “U.S. Memo Faults Afghan Leader on Heroin Fight.”
New York Times, May 22, 2005.


CRS-18
U.S. official reports say that about $2.3 billion — half of Afghanistan’s GDP
— is generated by narcotics trafficking. According to the 2004 Opium Survey
conducted by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Afghan
Counternarcotics Directorate, published November 2004, the opium crop was close
to 4,200 metric tons for 2004, a 17% increase from 2003 and keeping Afghanistan
as the leading producer of opium crop.22 Cultivation took place on 131,000 hectares
of land for 2004, an increase of 64% from the 80,000 hectares of land used for opium
production in 2003, according to that report, although some estimates say that as
much as 206,000 hectares were under poppy cultivation.
Britain has been formally the lead coalition partner in reducing narcotics
production and trafficking; it has been raiding some drug processing labs and has sent
counter-narcotics forces to the Qandahar province. However, the Bush
Administration has been frustrated with the slow progress of the effort and, after
some internal Administration debate, has tasked the U.S. military to play a greater
role in attacking traffickers and their installations. The U.S. military reportedly had
been reluctant to perform an expanded counter-narcotics mission on the grounds that
it would expand the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan.23 The U.S. military is
reportedly flying Afghan and U.S. counter-narcotics agents (Drug Enforcement
Agency, DEA) on missions and identifying targets, and it is assuming the role of
training the Afghan national police as part of the effort. The Bush Administration
also has taken some new legal steps against suspected Afghan drug traffickers by
indicting them and putting the legal machinery in place to have them extradited from
Afghanistan if caught.24 In mid-April 2005, a DEA operation successfully caught the
alleged leading Afghan narcotics trafficker, Haji Bashir Noorzai, arresting him after
a flight to New York.
Funding Issues/FY2005 Supplemental. Substantial U.S. counter-
narcotics funds are being provided:
! For FY2004, the United States provided $220 million to assist
Afghanistan’s counter-narcotics effort and to train Afghan police,
both handled by INL. Of that, $170 million was appropriated in the
FY2004 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 108-106), and $50 million
was provided from the post-September 11 “Emergency Response
Fund.” The supplemental also provided $73 million for Defense
Department counter-narcotics activities in Afghanistan.
! The FY2005 regular foreign aid appropriation (P.L. 108-447)
contained no hard earmark for Afghan counter-narcotics.
22 Tohid, Owais. “Bumper Year for Afghan Poppies.” Christian Science Monitor, July 24,
2003.
23 Zoroya, Greg. “Military Urged to Hit Afghan Drug Traffic.” USA Today, February 12,.
2004; Barnard, Anne, and Farah Stockman. “US Weighs Role in Heroin War in
Afghanistan.” Boston Globe, October 20, 2004.
24 Cameron-Moore, Simon. “U.S. to Seek Indictment of Afghan Drug Barons.” Reuters,
November 2, 2004.


CRS-19
! The FY2005 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 109-13) provided
substantial funds for “Plan Afghanistan” — a $780 million
(proposed FY2005 funds) program to raise public awareness about
the problem, promote alternative livelihoods, and conduct
interdiction and crop eradication. The appropriation included $227
million for DOD counter-narcotics in Afghanistan ($30 million less
than requested); the requested $260 million for INL counter-
narcotics; the requested $8 million for DEA operations in
Afghanistan; and $34 for counter-narcotics operations of the Afghan
government. The requested $248 million to promote alternative
livelihoods was not specifically provided, nor was $46 million for
aerial eradication, although other funds appropriated for
reconstruction are considered to support the development of
alternative livelihoods. The appropriation also provides for
furnishing Afghan counter-narcotics forces with some weaponry and
equipment, as well as for an audit of how U.S. counter-narcotics
funds are used there.
! The request for regular FY2006 foreign aid appropriations asks
$260 million for counter-narcotics and police training purposes. The
House report on the FY2006 foreign aid appropriation (H.R. 3057,
H.Rept. 109-152) recommends $135 million for counter-narcotics.
The House report also limits Afghan aid for FY2006 to $225 million
unless the president certifies the Afghan government is fully
cooperating with counter-narcotics efforts.
The Bush Administration has not imposed sanctions on post-Taliban
Afghanistan even though it has determined that Afghanistan is a major drug transit
or illicit drug producing country. To avoid sanctioning Afghanistan, the
Administration has not included Afghanistan on an annual list of countries that have
“failed demonstrably to make substantial efforts” during the past 12 months to adhere
to international counter-narcotics agreements and take certain counter-narcotics
measures set forth in U.S. law.25 Narcotics trafficking control was perhaps the one
issue on which the Taliban satisfied much of the international community; the
Taliban enforced a July 2000 ban on poppy cultivation, which the U.N. International
Drug Control Program (UNDCP) said in February 2001 had dramatically decreased
cultivation in the areas surveyed.26 The Northern Alliance did not issue a similar ban
in areas it controlled.
Reconstructing Infrastructure and the Economy. U.S. and Afghan
officials see the growth in narcotics trafficking as a product of an Afghan economy
ravaged by war and lack of investment. Since 2003, an accelerated U.S. economic
25 This is equivalent to the listing by the United States, as Afghanistan has been listed every
year since 1987, as a state that is uncooperative with U.S. efforts to eliminate drug
trafficking or has failed to take sufficient steps on its own to curb trafficking.
26 Crossette, Barbara. “Taliban Seem to Be Making Good on Opium Ban, U.N. Says.” New
York Times
, February 7, 2001.


CRS-20
reconstruction plan has showcased some evidence of success, including roads,
education, and health.27
! Roads. Paving of the Kabul-Qandahar roadway project (Phase I),
completed in December 2003. According to USAID, Phase II
paving was completed in November 2004, and several bridges have
been completed. The Qandahar-Herat roadway, funded by the
United States, Japan, and Saudi Arabia, is expected to be completed
by the end of 2005. U.S.-funded ($2.7 million) work began on
March 15, 2005 for a road out of the Panjshir Valley.
! Education and Health. Additional work is being conducted on
school and health clinic rebuilding (180 schools and clinics were
built during 2004), and agriculture projects, such as the setting up of
138 market centers country-wide. During her March 29, 2005 visit
to Afghanistan, First Lady Laura Bush announced U.S. grants out of
FY2005 funds of $17.7 million for a private “American University
of Kabul,” and $3.5 million for primary school education. These
grants were part of the approximately $152 million in U.S. funds
programmed for Afghanistan education during FY2003-FY2005 (of
which $85 million was appropriated in the FY2004 supplemental,
P.L. 108-106). On the other hand, some outside experts said in June
2005 that overall health conditions might be worsening and that
Afghanistan might soon face a cholera epidemic.
Funding/FY2005 Supplemental/FY2006. The FY2005 supplemental (P.L.
109-13) appropriates $1.086 billion in ESF out of the $2 billion requested for all
civilian reconstruction projects. The conference report says the amount “assumes full
funding” for health programs and provincial reconstruction team (PRTs, discussed
below) expenses. Among projects apparently not funded are refurbishment of Kabul
Airport, venture capital funding, industrial park funding, higher education including
costs of a new law school in Kabul, and various long term construction projects
(hydropower and a gas fired power plant, industrial parks, and courthouses). The
FY2006 regular foreign aid requests asks for about $620 million for economic
reconstruction-related activities. Roughly that amount is provided for these activities
in both versions of H.R. 3057. The Senate report recommends $42.8 million (the
amount requested) be used for Child Survival and Health. As noted above, the House
version limits Afghan aid (ESF) to $225 million unless the President certifies
Afghanistan is fully cooperating on counter-narcotics functions.
Implementing Rule of Law/Improving Human Rights Practices.
Virtually all observers agree that Afghans are freer than they were under the Taliban.
27 Numerous other examples of U.S. economic reconstruction initiatives are analyzed in a
General Accounting Office (GAO) report: Afghanistan Reconstruction. GAO Report GAO-
04-403, June 2004. The report, which studied mainly economic reconstruction, was
generally critical of U.S. reconstruction efforts to date, asserting that long term
reconstruction efforts had achieved “limited results,” because the U.S. effort “lacked a
complete operational strategy.” These findings were disputed by the State Department and
USAID in their commenting letters at the end of the report.


CRS-21
The press is relatively free and Afghan political groupings and parties are able to
meet and organize freely, according to the State Department report on human rights
practices for 2004 (released February 28, 2005). However, according to the State
Department and other reports, including an April 2005 report submitted by U.N.
human rights monitor on Afghanistan Cherif Bassiouni, there continue to be reports
of reprisals and other abuses based on ethnicity or political factionalism in many
parts of Afghanistan. Some believe the Afghan police mishandled protests in
Jalalabad, Ghazni, and other cities during May 11-13, 2005, which erupted in
response to a May 9 Newsweek story that U.S. interrogators in Guantanamo Bay had
mishandled and dishonored the Quran. The unrest resulted in 15 Afghans killed,
which some attributed to overreaction and excessive use of force by the police. The
Afghan government says the protests were stoked by Taliban remnants and pro-
Hikmatyar activists. The State Department report also cites the arbitrary
implementation of justice and corruption in areas controlled by regional leaders as
a key source of Afghan human rights abuses. On the other hand, some ethnic
minorities look to the regional leaders to defend their interests.
Some observers say that the government is reimposing some Islamic restrictions
that characterized Taliban rule, including the code of criminal punishments stipulated
in Islamic law.28 Some have blamed the increased restrictions on chief justice Fazl
Hadi Shinwari, a religious conservative who was appointed in late November 2001
by Rabbani, just after the Taliban fled Kabul but before Karzai took office. In
January 2003, Shinwari called for cable television in Kabul to be shut down on the
grounds it was un-Islamic, and he called for an end to co-education, although his
directives apparently have not been implemented by the government. Although U.S.
officials are privately critical of Shinwari, the U.S. government has generally
refrained from advising the new government on these issues, lest the United States
be accused of undue interference in Kabul’s affairs. U.S. programs — many of
which are conducted in partnership with Italy, which is the “lead” coalition country
on judicial reform — generally focus on building capacity of the judicial system,
including police training and court construction. The United States has provided
numerous training programs for judges, prosecutors, and court administrators for the
Ministry of Justice, the office of the Attorney General, and the Supreme Court. The
conference report on the FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13) did not specifically
appropriate the requested $25 million for court administration, a law school, and
other rule of law programs.
An Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHC) also has been
formed to monitor government performance; it is headed by former Women’s Affairs
minister Sima Samar. The FY2004 supplemental appropriation (P.L. 108-106),
appropriated $5 million to fund the Commission in FY2004. This is the amount
authorized, for each FY2003-2006, for that purpose, in the Afghanistan Freedom
Support Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-327). Another $2 million for the AIHC was
appropriated in P.L. 108-447, the regular FY2005 appropriation. Funds for this
commission are recommended in the Senate version of H.R. 3057.
28 Shea, Nina. “Sharia in Kabul?” National Review, October 28, 2002.


CRS-22
Advancement of Women.29 The government is widely considered to be
promoting the advancement of women, although the treatment of women remains
subject to Afghanistan’s conservative traditions. The first major development in
post-Taliban Afghanistan was the establishment of a Ministry of Women’s Affairs,
now headed by former presidential candidate Masooda Jalal, which is dedicated to
improving women’s rights. That ministry has tried to get more Afghan women
involved in business ventures and it has invited Afghan religious scholars to hear
interpretations of the Quran that favor participation of women in national affairs. In
another notable development, in March 2005 Karzai appointed former Minister of
Women’s Affairs Habiba Sohrabi as governor of Bamiyan province, inhabited mostly
by Hazaras. As noted above, the constitution reserves for women at least 25% of the
seats in the upper house of parliament and 17% of the upper house, three women are
in the new cabinet, and the constitution recognizes men and women as equal citizens.
Women are performing some jobs, such as construction work, that were rarely held
by women even before the Taliban came to power in 1996, 30 including in the new
police force. Press reports say Afghan women are increasingly starting small
businesses and learning how to drive. Under the new government, the wearing of the
full body covering called the burqa is no longer obligatory, although many women
continue to wear it by tradition.
The Administration and Congress are taking a continued interest in the
treatment of women in Afghanistan. After the Karzai government took office, the
United States and the new Afghan government set up a U.S.-Afghan Women’s
Council to coordinate the allocation of resources to Afghan women. Empowerment
of Afghan women was a major feature of First Lady Laura Bush’s visit to
Afghanistan in March 2005. The United States was active at the constitutional loya
jirga
to enshrine in the new constitution protections for women and policies to
advance women in government. According to the State Department, the United
States has implemented over 175 projects directly in support of Afghan women,
including women’s empowerment, maternal and child health and nutrition, funding
the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, micro-finance projects, and like programs.
Funding to Advance Afghan Women. In recent congressional action:
! On November 27, 2001, as the Taliban was collapsing, the House
unanimously adopted S. 1573, the Afghan Women and Children
Relief Act, which had earlier passed the Senate. The law (signed
December 12, 2001) calls for the use of unspecified amounts of
supplemental funding (appropriated by P.L. 107-38, which gave the
Office of the President a $40 billion Emergency Response Fund to
29 See also CRS Report RS21865, Assistance to Afghan and Iraqi Women: Issues for
Congress
.
30 Amanpour, Christiane. CNN special report on Afghanistan. Broadcast November 2,
2003.


CRS-23
respond to the September 11, 2001 attacks)31 to fund educational
and health programs for Afghan women and children.
! The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-327)
authorized $15 million per year, for FY2003-2006, for the Ministry
of Women’s Affairs.
! The FY2004 supplemental (P.L. 108-106) appropriated $60 million
for programs to assist Afghan women and girls, and expresses the
sense of Congress that the United States seek (in Afghanistan and
Iraq) to promote high level participation of women in legislative
bodies and ministries and ensure their rights in new institutions.
! The FY2005 regular foreign aid appropriation, P.L. 108-447,
provides $50 million for Afghan women and girls, of which $7.5
million is to go to small grants to women’s businesses. Another $6
million is appropriated in that law for maternal and child health care
in Afghanistan. On March 11, 2005, the Administration announced
a $2.275 million grant (FY2005 funds) to the Ministry of Women’s
Affairs, during a visit to the United States by Minister Masooda
Jalal. The conference report on P.L. 109-13, a FY2005
supplemental, recommends $5 million be used for women’s
organizations’ capacity building.
! Both versions of the FY2006 foreign aid appropriation (H.R. 3057)
recommend funding for women and girls. The House version of the
bill earmarks $50 million, and the Senate report on the bill
recommends $10 million for that purpose.
Post-War Security Operations and Force Capacity Building
Much of the U.S. program for Afghanistan is focused on securing Afghanistan.
The report of the 9/11 Commission recommends that “... the United States and the
international community should make a long-term commitment to a secure and stable
Afghanistan ... so that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for
international crime and terrorism.” Despite the Taliban’s overthrow, Taliban, pro-
Hikmatyar, and some Al Qaeda militants continue to operate in Afghanistan. The
pillars of the security capacity-building effort are (1) combat operations by U.S. and
other coalition forces in Afghanistan; (2) patrols by a NATO-led International
Security Assistance Force (ISAF); (3) the formation of “provincial reconstruction
teams” (PRTs); and (4) the equipping and training of an Afghan National Army and
a police force. These programs are discussed below.
31 For more information on how the appropriated funds were distributed and used, see CRS
Report RL31173, Combating Terrorism: First Emergency Supplemental Appropriations-
Distribution of Funds to Departments and Agencies
.


CRS-24
Counter-Insurgency Combat/Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF).
The United States military (U.S. Central Command, CENTCOM) has about 18,000
troops in Afghanistan, and six coalition countries are contributing another 1,600
combat troops to OEF (for example British combat forces, the 150 Australian forces
soon to deploy to Afghanistan, French combat aircraft in Tajikistan, and Japanese
naval refueling capabilities in the Arabian sea). OEF’s primary mission is to combat
Taliban remnants other insurgents, but several hundred additional OEF forces also
contributed to security for the October presidential elections. The current
commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan is Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry (as of May 3,
2005, replacing Lt. Gen David Barno). Eikenberry heads the “Combined Forces
Command (CFC),” headquartered near the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, relocating in late
2003 from Bagram air base north of Kabul. The operational commander of U.S.
forces is Maj. Gen. Jason Kamiya.
U.S. forces along with Afghan troops continue on the offensive against
insurgents. Among major recent operations, the United States and Afghanistan
conducted “Operation Mountain Viper” (August 2003); “Operation Avalanche,”
(December 8-30, 2003); “Operation Mountain Storm” (March-July 2004) against
Taliban remnants in and around Uruzgan province (home province of Mullah Umar);
and “Operation Lightning Freedom” (December 2004-February 2005).
U.S. commanders believe that the combat, coupled with overall political and
economic reconstruction, appears to be succeeding against the insurgency, although
insurgents attacks have escalated somewhat since April 2005. About 20% of the total
U.S. OEF casualty count (171 as of July 25, 2005) have occurred in the past two
months. The attacks focus on aid workers, U.S. and Afghan soldiers and police, and
on pro-Karzai clerics. Although some U.S. commanders, including Joint Chiefs of
Staff Chairman Richard Myers in March 2005, are saying the insurgency is
weakening and that the Taliban is now forced to recruit child soldiers, U.S.
commanders caution that an early reduction in U.S. or other foreign troops in
Afghanistan could allow insurgents to regroup. U.S. commanders also attribute the
apparent progress to a military strategy, launched in February 2004, to station some
U.S. forces in populated areas to cultivate relations with them and acquire combat-
relevant information.
According to an outgoing top U.S. commander in Afghanistan (Maj. Gen. Eric
Olson) on March 7, 2005, Taliban leader Mullah Umar essentially has lost control
of the insurgency, although he reportedly continues to travel around eastern and
southern Afghanistan, meeting with Taliban insurgent commanders and exhorting
them to continue their insurgency. Some of his top aides have been captured, but
others, such as Jalaludin Haqqani and Mullah Akhtar Usmani, are still at large. In
addition, in April 2005 Taliban remnants started a clandestine radio station, “Voice
of Shariat,” suggesting the movement still has substantial resources.
The success of the October 9 presidential elections apparently caused a rift in
the Taliban, with some militants now negotiating with the government to join the
political process or surrendering. President Karzai has offered “moderate” Taliban
amnesty in exchange for allowing them into the political process. According to press
reports, about 50-60 militants, including several key Taliban and Hikmatyar activists,
have joined the reconciliation process, which is headed by Sibghatullah Mojadeddi.


CRS-25
In January 2005, U.S. forces in Afghanistan released 81 detained Taliban fighters at
Karzai’s request. Karzai has said about 100-150 of the top Taliban leadership would
not be eligible for amnesty or political engagement. Mojadeddi said in May 2005
that even Mullah Umar or Hikmatyar might be eligible for amnesty, but U.S. officials
quickly distanced themselves from Mojadeddi’s comments.
Ending Taliban urban terrorist attacks is considered a more complicated
mission. Such attacks have included a September 5, 2002, car bombing in a crowded
marketplace in Kabul and a virtually simultaneous unsuccessful assassination attempt
against President Karzai. One of the most significant attacks occurred on June 1,
2005, when a mosque in Qandahar was bombed, killing 40 Afghans, including
Kabul’s police chief. Four Americans were killed in an August 29, 2004, bombing
of a U.S. security contractor (Dyncorps) facility in Kabul. (In January 2005, Afghan
authorities arrested an Afghan judge for allegedly harboring Al Qaeda or Taliban
militants who conducted that attack.) A British citizen working in Afghanistan was
shot by unknown assailants in Kabul in March 2005, and an Italian worker for CARE
was kidnapped in mid-May 2005 but released in June 2005. A bomb blast killed
three at a cyber-cafe in Kabul on May 8, 2005.
The Hunt for Al Qaeda and Other Militants. U.S. Special Operations
Forces continue to hunt for bin Laden and his close ally, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Bin
Laden reportedly escaped the U.S.-Afghan offensive against the Al Qaeda stronghold
of Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan in December 2001. However, bin Laden is
widely believed to be on the Pakistan side of the border.
As noted above, another target of OEF is the Hikmatyar faction (Hizb-e-Islami
Gulbuddin, HIG) allied with Al Qaeda and Taliban insurgents. On February 19,
2003, the U.S. government formally designated Hikmatyar as a “Specially
Designated Global Terrorist,” under the authority of Executive Order 13224. That
order subjected named terrorists and terrorist-related institutions to financial and
other U.S. sanctions. The HIG is included in the section on “other terrorist groups”
in the State Department’s report on international terrorism for 2003, released April
2004. The group is not formally designated as a “Foreign Terrorist Organization.”
Some accounts suggest that a Special Operations team ambushed in June 2005 might
have been closing in on some of these above figures; a U.S. helicopter sent to rescue
the team was apparently shot down, killing the 16 aboard.
Longer Term Presence. Even if the Taliban insurgency is defeated
completely, it appears that the United States will maintain a long-term presence in
Afghanistan. Top U.S. commanders, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard
Myers (on a visit to Afghanistan in March 2005), say that the United States might
seek permanent bases in Afghanistan, but that no decision or recommendation on that
had been made. President Karzai told visiting Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on April
13, 2005, that Afghanistan would ask President Bush for a long-term security pact
with the United States that might include permanent bases, although Rumsfeld
reportedly was non-committal. On May 8, 2005, Karzai summoned about 1,000
delegates to a national consultation in Kabul on the proposal to allow permanent U.S.
bases in Afghanistan; delegates reportedly supported an indefinite presence of
international forces to maintain security but urged Karzai to delay a firm decision on
allowing permanent U.S. bases. On May 23, 2005, Karzai and President Bush issued


CRS-26
a “joint declaration” providing for U.S. forces to have access to Afghan military
facilities, in order to prosecute “the war against international terror and the struggle
against violent extremism.” The joint statement did not spell out any permanent
stationing of U.S. bases in Afghanistan, nor did the statement give Karzai his
requested increased control over facilities used by the U.S. forces, over U.S.
operations, or over the disposition of prisoners taken in the course of operations.
Some of the bases, both in and near Afghanistan, that are used in support of U.S.
operations in Afghanistan and that could form part of a longer-term U.S. presence
include the following.
! Bagram Air Base north of Kabul, the operational hub of U.S. forces
in Afghanistan.32 Bagram, along with thirteen other airfields in
Afghanistan, handle the 150 U.S. aircraft (including helicopters) in
the country. The FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13) provides a
total of about $52 million for various projects to upgrade facilities
at Bagram, including a control tower and an operations center, but
a $57 million fuel storage tank farm for Bagram was not
appropriated.
! Qandahar airfield, just outside that city, which bases about 500 U.S.
military personnel. The FY2005 supplemental provides $16 million
for an ammunition supply facility at Qandahar.
! Shindand Air Base, 20 miles from the Iranian border, has been used
by U.S. forces since October 2004, after the dismissal of Herat
governor Ismail Khan, whose forces had been using the facility. The
base could be useful in any U.S. air or other operations against Iran,
if such operations are conducted.
! Karshi-Khanabad airbase in Uzbekistan houses about 1,750 U.S.
military personnel (900 Air Force, 400 Army, and 450 civilian), and
is mostly a supply hub for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. No combat
missions are flown from there, according to U.S. officers. U.S. use
of the base has been reduced since May 2005 following a
government crackdown on unrest in the city of Andijon; State
Department criticism of the crackdown prompted strains in U.S.-
Uzbekistan relations. P.L. 109-13 appropriated $42.5 million to
upgrade the airbase, including runway improvement.
! The Peter Ganci base at Manas airport in Kyrgyzstan has about
1,000 U.S. military personnel, as well as refueling and cargo aircraft.
Leadership of Kyrgyzstan changed in April 2005 in a revolution
against former President Askar Akayev, and U.S. offcials are trying
to ensure continued U.S. use of the base.

32 Harris, Kent. “Buildings Going Up at Bagram Air Base as U.S. Forces Dig In for the
Long Haul.” Stars and Stripes, March 15, 2005.


CRS-27
! Several bases in the Persian Gulf are used to support the Afghanistan
mission, including Al Dhafra in the UAE, Al Udeid in Qatar, and
several airfields in Oman. P.L. 109-13 appropriates $1.4 million to
upgrade Al Dhafra.
! On April 21, 2005, Turkey said it would extend for another year an
agreement allowing the United States to use Incirlik air base to
supply U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
OEF Costs and Casualties. As of July 25, 2005, about 215 U.S. military
personnel have been killed in OEF, of which 171 died in or around Afghanistan. The
others died in other theaters of the war, such as in Africa and the Middle East. No
reliable Afghan casualty figures for the war on the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been
announced, but estimates by researchers of Afghan civilian deaths generally cite
figures of “several hundred” civilian deaths. On July 1, 2002, a U.S. air-strike on
suspected Taliban leaders in Uruzgan Province mistakenly killed about 40 civilians.
Incremental costs of U.S. operations in Afghanistan appear to be relatively
stable at about $900 million to $1 billion per month. About $13 billion in
incremental costs were incurred in FY2002. The FY2004 supplemental
appropriation provided about $11 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom for
FY2004 (P.L. 108-106). Supplemental FY2005 funds for Afghanistan combat were
provided in P.L. 108-287 and P.L. 109-13.33
International Security Force (ISAF)/NATO.34 The Bonn Agreement and
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1386 (December 20, 2001) created an international
peacekeeping force for Afghanistan, the International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF). Its mandate was initially limited to Kabul but is now broadening as
NATO/ISAF assumes control over additional provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs,
see below). This progressive NATO/ISAF assumption of PRT responsibilities
appears to be part of a process of merging the OEF and ISAF missions, possibly as
early as 2006. This process is freeing up U.S. (and British) forces for combat in
areas where there is insurgency and narcotics trafficking. It is unlikely, however, that
U.S. forces would withdraw from Afghanistan if such a merge took place. Some
observers also want NATO/ISAF to assume a role in counter-narcotics missions.
ISAF’s baseline force was about 6,400 troops from all 26 NATO countries,
plus 11 non-NATO countries but force levels increased to about 9,000 to help secure
the October 9, 2004 elections. That level has now fallen back to under 8,500,35 but
33 Information on U.S. military costs and funding requests for these operations is analyzed
in CRS Report RS21644, Costs of Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Enhanced Security,
by Amy Belasco.
34 As noted above, six countries (in addition to the United States) are providing forces to
OEF, and twelve countries are providing forces to both OEF and ISAF.
35 Many of the additional 2,500 election-related troops were from Spain and Italy; the
Italian battalion was attached to the “NATO Response Force (NRF),” but the NRF as an
entity did not deploy. France had objected to deploying that force on the grounds that
(continued...)


CRS-28
it will again increase by about 2,000 (a Dutch battalion in Mazar, a Romanian
battalion in Kabul, and Spanish troops in Herat) to help secure the September 2005
parliamentary and provincial elections. About 700 U.S. troops from the 325th
Airborne Infantry Regiment will also deploy for election security. (Table 5 contains
a table listing each contributing country to ISAF and the number of forces
contributed.)
NATO’s role in Afghanistan has been expanding since August 2003, when it
took command of ISAF. This commitment put to rest the perpetual difficulty of
identifying a lead country for ISAF each six-month period. NATO took over from
Germany and the Netherlands.36 NATO’s assumption of command intensified
discussions about whether ISAF should deploy to other major cities, a mission the
Afghan government long favored.37 The Bush Administration initially favored
reliance on alternative security efforts, but it later agreed to ISAF expansion if
enough troops could be contributed. In early October 2003, NATO endorsed a plan
to expand its presence to several other cities, contingent on formal U.N. approval.
That decision came several weeks after Germany agreed to contribute an additional
450 military personnel to expand ISAF into the city of Konduz. On October 14,
2003, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1510, formally authorizing ISAF
to deploy outside Kabul. (Additional long-term NATO involvement in Afghanistan
is a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission report.)
Currently, the core of ISAF is the Kabul Multinational Brigade (4,400
personnel), which was headed by Canada until August 2004, then by the
“Eurocorps,” a rapid response force composed of forces from France, Germany,
Spain, Belgium, and Luxembourg. Turkey took over the lead as of February 2005,
and has augmented its force to 1,800 accordingly. At the headquarters level, there
are 600 personnel from 15 contributing nations. ISAF coordinates with Afghan
security forces and with OEF forces as well, and it assists the Afghan Ministry of
Civil Aviation and Tourism in the operation of Kabul international airport. The
United States contributes a small amount of force to ISAF (194 troops), primarily to
coordinate U.S. military assistance to it.
Personnel and equipment shortages have plagued NATO’s ability to build up
in Afghanistan. In an effort to address staffing and equipment shortages, in
December 2003, NATO announced new pledges for ISAF operations: 12 helicopters
from Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey; six aircraft from various nations; an
infantry company from Norway’s Telemark battalion, troops from the Czech
Republic, intelligence officers from Italy, Romania, and other countries, and airport
35 (...continued)
election security in Afghanistan was not part of the NRF’s intended mission. In addition to
the extra troops for the election period, the Netherlands and Britain each provided six
combat aircraft that could have been used to help suppress any election-related violence.
36 Earlier ISAF leaders were Turkey (June 2002 to February 2003) and Britain (December
2001 to June 2002).
37 Driver, Anna. “U.N. Envoy Pushes for Troop Expansion in Afghanistan.” Reuters,
August 13, 2003.


CRS-29
traffic controllers from Belgium and Iceland. For the most part, the personnel and
equipment have now arrived.
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). The U.S. military has
increasingly focused on fostering secure conditions for reconstruction. That effort,
inaugurated in mid-December 2002, is based on the establishment of provincial
reconstruction teams (PRTs) — military-run enclaves that provide safe havens for
international aid workers to help with reconstruction and to extend the writ of the
Kabul government. PRT activities can range from resolving local disputes to
coordinating local reconstruction projects. Each U.S.-run PRT is composed of U.S.
forces; Defense Department civil affairs officers; representatives of USAID, State
Department, and other agencies; and Afghan government (Interior Ministry)
personnel. Most PRTs, including those run by partner forces, have personnel to train
Afghan security forces.
Plans are to eventually establish PRTs in most of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.
There are now 22 PRTs in operation, of which 12 are U.S.-run. Each has about 50-
100 military personnel, although some coalition partners deploy larger forces than
that at the PRTs they run. The U.S.-run PRTs are in Gardez, Ghazni, Parwan,
Qandahar, Jalalabad, Khost, Qalat, Asadabad, Tarin Kowt, Lashkar Gah, Sharana,
and the newly-inaugurated PRT at Mehtarlam (Laghman Province).
Partner countries now run ten PRTs, and plans are for the remaining U.S.-run
PRTs to eventually be taken over by NATO/ISAF, perhaps by 2007. The latest phase
of NATO/ISAF takeover of PRTs occurred in mid-2005, when partner countries Italy
and Spain took over U.S.-run PRTs in Herat and Farah, in western Afghanistan. The
two countries also established a “Forward Support Base” in Herat Province to serve
those two PRTs as well as two new PRTs formed at Gaghcharan (capital of Ghor
Province, led by Lithuania), and Qaleh-ye Now (capital of Badghis Province, led by
Spain). The newly established or acquired PRTs required adding 500 troops to
NATO/ISAF’s force in Afghanistan. The other partner-run PRTs are in Konduz (led
by Germany); Mazar-e-Sharif (led by Britain); Faizabad (as a satellite of Germany’s
Konduz PRT); Meymaneh (led by U.K., Norway, and Finland); and Baghlan (led by
Netherlands). New Zealand deploys 120 military personnel to run an OEF-run PRT
in Bamiyan, not under NATO/ISAF auspices. In addition, U.K. forces have formed
three satellites of the Mazar PRT: in Sari Pol, Samangan, and Shebergan.
In coming deployments, Canada is moving 1,250 troops to Afghanistan to take
over the U.S.-led PRT in Qandahar, and the Netherlands reportedly might take over
a U.S.-run PRT in southeastern Afghanistan. Sweden is reportedly offering to take
over the British-run PRT in Mazar-e-Sharif.
Some aid agencies say they have felt more secure since the PRT program began,
fostering reconstruction activity in areas of PRT operations.38 However, other relief
groups do not want to associate with any military force because doing so might taint
their perceived neutrality. In February 2004, U.S. commanders unveiled an
38 Kraul, Chris. “U.S. Aid Effort Wins Over Skeptics in Afghanistan.” Los Angeles Times,
April 11, 2003.


CRS-30
additional concept for “regional development zones (RDZ),” areas of operations that
might group several PRTs, in an effort to promote reconstruction and Afghan
governance. A pilot RDZ was established in Qandahar, composed of a strongly pro-
Kabul governor working with U.S. troops and Afghan national police and Afghan
National Army forces. One intention of the concept is to devolve security decision-
making to U.S. commanders in the regions, rather than at U.S. headquarters in Kabul.
The FY2004 supplemental appropriations provided $50 million in Economic
Support Funds (ESF) for “PRT projects” (P.L. 108-106). The conference report on
the FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13) says that ESF for PRT reconstruction-related
programs are provided ($87 million was requested for this function).
Afghan National Army (ANA). U.S. forces (“Office of Security Cooperation
Afghanistan”), in partnership with French, British, and other forces, are training the
new ANA. U.S. officers in Afghanistan say the ANA is beginning to become a major
force in stabilizing the country and a national symbol. A June 2005 report by the
Government Accountability Office cites progress but also notes problems such as
ANA equipment shortages.39 As of July 2005, the ANA numbers 24,300 troops,
according to Defense Department fact sheets, with another 6,000 in training. On the
other hand, about 31,000 have been trained to date, suggesting that some desertion
or absentee problem persists. U.S. statements say that the ANA is expected to total
30,000 by the end of 2005, and its ultimate size of 70,000 is to be reached by 2007.
Coalition officers are conducting heavy weapons training for a heavy brigade as part
of the “Kabul Corps,” based in Pol-e-Charki, east of Kabul.
The United States is also building four regional bases for the ANA, according
to U.S. officials, in Herat, Gardez, Qandahar, and Mazar-e-Sharif. It has at least
some presence in most of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces, working with the PRTs and
assisted by embedded U.S. trainers. The ANA deployed to Herat in March 2004 to
help quell factional unrest there, and to Maimana in April 2004 in response to
Dostam’s militia movement into that city.
There had been reports, at the time the United States first began establishing the
ANA, that Northern Alliance figures were weighting recruitment for the national
army toward his Tajik ethnic base. Many Pashtuns, in reaction, refused recruitment
or left the ANA program. U.S. officials in Afghanistan say this problem has been
alleviated with better pay and more involvement by U.S. special forces, as well as the
appointment of additional Pashtuns in senior Defense Ministry positions.40 The
naming of a Pashtun, Abdul Rahim Wardak, as Defense Minister in December 2004
could also reduce desertions and absenteeism among Pashtuns. U.S. officers in
Afghanistan add that some recruits take long trips to their home towns to remit funds
to their families, and often then return to the ANA after a long absence. Fully trained
recruits are paid about $70 per month. The FY2005 foreign aid appropriation for
Afghanistan (P.L. 108-447) contains a provision requiring that ANA recruits be
39 Government Accountability Office Report GAO-05-575. “Afghanistan Security.” June
2005. Available at [http://www.gao.gov].
40 Gall, Carlotta. “In a Remote Corner, an Afghan Army Evolves From Fantasy to Slightly
Ragged Reality.” New York Times, January 25, 2003.


CRS-31
vetted for past involvement in terrorism, human rights violations, and drug
trafficking.
An Afghan Air Force, a carryover from the Afghan Air Force that existed prior
to the Soviet invasion, remains, although it has virtually no aircraft to fly. It has
about 400 pilots, as well as 28 aging helicopters and a few cargo aircraft. Russia
overhauled 11 of these craft in 2004, but the equipment is difficult to maintain. In
May 2005, representatives of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) said
the United States is considering obtaining for Afghanistan additional transport planes
and helicopters, although the equipment might not necessarily be U.S. equipment,
according to DSCA. Afghan pilots are based at Bagram air base. Afghanistan is
seeking the return of 26 aircraft, including some MiG-2s that were flown to safety in
Pakistan and Uzbekistan during the more than two decades of warfare in
Afghanistan.
Afghan National Guard. In early 2004, because of the slow pace of
expanding the ANA, the Bush Administration reportedly formulated a plan to build
up a “national guard” to supplement the ANA.41 The national guard apparently will
consist primarily of regional militia forces; it would report to OEF. This plan might
appear to conflict with the Administration’s plan to build up the Kabul government
and weaken regional militias, although the Administration reportedly believes this
plan could better bring militia forces under central control.
ANA Funding and Armament. Thus far, weaponry for the ANA has come
primarily from Defense Ministry weapons stocks — with the concurrence of former
Defense Minister Fahim who controlled those stocks — from international donors,
primarily from the former East bloc42 and from the disarmament program discussed
below. The United States has provided $11 million worth of trucks, M-113 armored
personnel carriers, and other equipment during FY2002-2004, and in FY2006,
Afghanistan will be eligible to receive grant Excess Defense Articles (EDA) under
Section 516 of the Foreign Assistance Act. According to the GAO report of June
2005, the United States has drawn-down $287 million worth of defense articles and
services for the ANA during FY2002-FY2004, plus $11 million worth of military
trucks and armored personnel vehicles. On June 16, 2005, the President authorized
an additional draw-down of $161.5 million for that purpose. International donors
have supplied an estimated $193 million worth of weapons and funds to help build
the ANA. For example, in May 2005, Egypt delivered 16,000 weapons to the ANA.
According to the June 2005 GAO report, the United States has provided about
$4.1 billion during FY2002-FY2005 to support the ANA (and Afghan national
police). U.S. funds appropriated for Peacekeeping Operations (PKO funds) are used
to cover ANA salaries. ($20 million in such funds was provided in FY2004; $23.8
million will be provided for FY2005, and $18 million is requested for FY2006). In
recent appropriations
41 Dempsey, Judy. “US Planning for Stopgap Afghan National Guard.” Financial Times
(London), February 12, 2004.
42 Report to Congress Consistent With the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, July
22, 2003.


CRS-32
! The FY2004 supplemental (P.L. 108-106) provided $287 million in
foreign military financing (FMF) to accelerate ANA development.
The FY2005 regular foreign aid appropriation (P.L. 108-447)
earmarked $400 million in FMF for the ANA.
! The FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13) provided the requested
$1.285 billion for DOD operations to train and equip the ANA. Of
that amount, $290 million is to reimburse the U.S. Army for funds
already obligated to train and equip the Afghan forces.
! No funds specifically for the ANA were requested for FY2006.
Afghan National Police. Some Afghan officials believe that building up a
credible and capable national police force is at least as important as building the
ANA. Some Afghans do not believe the ANA should have a role in maintaining
internal security, and that this should be the role of the police.
The United States and Germany are training the Afghan National Police (ANP)
force. The U.S. effort has been led by State Department/INL, but the Defense
Department is beginning to assume that role, at least as far as “police reform.” About
40,000 ANP are on duty, and that number is expected to reach 62,000 by mid-2006.
Germany has focused on police commander training, and it has trained about 3,700
of them thus far, with another 1,500 in training. There are five training centers
around Afghanistan, with two more to be established. Part of the training consists
of courses in human rights principles and democratic policing concepts. On the other
hand, some U.S. commanders believe the ANP need additional training because
police mishandled the riots in Jalalabad in May 2005, started over rumors of the
mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility. Moreover, the
ANP work in the communities they come from, often embroiling them in local
factional or ethnic disputes. The June 2005 GAO report, cited above, notes progress
and continued problems, including the continued influence of local leaders on the
national police.
The State Department (INL) has placed 30 U.S. advisors in the Interior Ministry
to help it develop the national police force and counter-narcotics capabilities.
According to the State Department, the United States has completed training of the
first unit of National Interdiction Unit officers under the Counter-Narcotics Police
of Afghanistan. U.S. trainers are also building Border Police and Highway Patrol
forces (which are included in the figures cited above).
Funding. In recent appropriations, the FY2005 supplemental (P.L. 109-13)
provides $360 million (of $400 million requested) in State Department INL funds to
train ANP. Another $58.5 million is requested for FY2006. International donors
furnished $120 million in cash for the ANP and provided another $126 million in
equipment and training (through January 2005).


CRS-33
Regional Context
Even before September 11, several of Afghanistan’s neighbors were becoming
alarmed about security threats emanating from Afghanistan. Some experts believe
that the neighboring governments are now attempting to manipulate Afghanistan’s
factions to their advantage, despite the signing on December 23, 2002 of a non-
interference pledge (Kabul Declaration) by six of Afghanistan’s neighbors.
Pakistan43
Pakistan publicly ended its support for the Taliban in the aftermath of the
September 11, 2001 attacks, although questions persist about Pakistan’s commitment
to preventing Taliban remnants from operating there. Pakistan initially saw the
Taliban movement as an instrument with which to build an Afghan central
government strong enough to prevent fragmentation of Afghanistan while at the same
time sufficiently friendly and pliable to provide Pakistan strategic depth against rival
India. It had been the most public defender of the Taliban movement and was one
of only three countries (Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are the others)
to formally recognize it as the legitimate government. Pakistan saw Afghanistan as
essential to opening up trade relations and energy routes with the Muslim states of
the former Soviet Union. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1333, of December 19,
2000, was partly an effort by the United States and Russia to compel Pakistan to
cease military advice and aid to the Taliban. Pakistan, for the most part, abided by
the resolution, including ordering the Taliban to cut the staff at its embassy in
Pakistan.44
Pakistan’s pre-September 11 steps against the Taliban reflected increasing
wariness that the Taliban movement was radicalizing existing Islamic movements
inside Pakistan and that its support for the Taliban was propelling the United States
into a closer relationship with India. These considerations, coupled with U.S. offers
of economic benefit, prompted Pakistan to cooperate with the U.S. response to the
September 11 attacks. Pakistan provided the United States with requested access to
Pakistani airspace, ports, airfields. Pakistan also has arrested over 550 Al Qaeda
fighters, some of them senior operatives, and turned them over to the United States.
Among those captured by Pakistan are top bin Laden aide Abu Zubaydah (captured
April 2002); alleged September 11 plotter Ramzi bin Al Shibh September 11, 2002);
top Al Qaeda planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (March 2003); and most recently
a top planner, Abu Faraj al-Libbi (May 2005).
Following failed assassination attempts in December 2003 against Musharraf,
Pakistani forces accelerated efforts to find Al Qaeda forces along the Pakistan-
Afghanistan border, in some cases threatening tribal elements in these areas who are
suspected of harboring the militants. In March 2004, about 70,000 Pakistani forces
43 For further discussion, see Rashid, Ahmed. “The Taliban: Exporting Extremism.”
Foreign Affairs, November-December 1999.
44 Constable, Pamela. “New Sanctions Strain Taliban-Pakistan Ties.” Washington Post,
January 19, 2001.


CRS-34
began a major battle with about 300-400 suspected Al Qaeda fighters in the
Waziristan area, reportedly with some support from U.S. intelligence and other
indirect support. Pakistan’s forces are now poised near the north Waziristan area of
Pakistan, and the U.S. military acknowledged in April 2005 that it is training
Pakistani commandos to fight Al Qaeda fighters in Pakistan.45
At the same time, Pakistan has been widely criticized for insufficient efforts to
find and arrest Taliban figures who might be in Pakistan. Some suspect that Pakistan
is seeking to protect its interests by fashioning a strong Pashtun-based component for
a post-Taliban government. Pakistan is wary that a government dominated by the
Northern Alliance would be backed by India, which Pakistan says is using its
diplomatic facilities in Afghanistan to train and recruit anti-Pakistan insurgents.
Pakistan says it is too difficult to distinguish Afghan Taliban from Pakistani
nationals, but President Musharraf promised, at a meeting with Karzai on August 23,
2004, to prevent militants in Pakistan from disrupting Afghanistan’s October 9
presidential elections. In July 2005, Pakistan reiterated that pledge for the upcoming
September parliamentary elections in Afghanistan. On July 19, 2005, Pakistan
arrested five suspected senior Taliban leaders, including a deputy to Mullah Umar.
Despite the improving climate between these neighbors, there are occasional
border clashes, apparently caused by the lack of clear border delineation, and the
presence of independent armed factions on the Afghan side of the border or
aggressive commanders on the Pakistani side. The most recent border clash was on
January 4, 2005. Pakistan wants the government of Afghanistan to pledge to abide
by the “Durand Line,” a border agreement reached between Britain (signed by Sir
Henry Mortimer Durand) and then Afghan leader Amir Abdul Rahman Khan in
1893, separating Afghanistan from what was then British-controlled India (later
Pakistan after the 1947 partition). As of October 2002, about 1.75 million Afghan
refugees have returned from Pakistan since the Taliban fell. About 300,000 Afghan
refugees remain in Pakistan.
Iran
Iran perceives its key national interests in Afghanistan as exerting its traditional
influence over western Afghanistan, which Iran borders and was once part of the
Persian empire, and to protect Afghanistan’s Shiite minority. Iranian firms are also
profiting from reconstruction work in western Afghanistan. Iran has long been
politically close to Northern Alliance figures and remains so. Iran has confirmed that
it offered search and rescue assistance in Afghanistan during the U.S.-led war, and
it also allowed U.S. humanitarian aid to the Afghan people to transit Iran. However,
some Iranian leaders were harshly critical of U.S. military action, referring to the
action as a U.S. war on Islam.
Iran saw the Taliban as a threat to its interests in Afghanistan, especially after
Taliban forces captured Herat (the western province that borders Iran) in September
1995. Iran subsequently drew even closer to the Northern Alliance than previously,
45 Gall, Carlotta. “U.S. Training Pakistani Units Fighting Qaeda.” New York Times, April
27, 2005.


CRS-35
providing its groups with fuel, funds, and ammunition,46 and hosting fighters loyal
to Ismail Khan, who was captured by the Taliban in 1998 but escaped and fled to
Iran in March 2000. In September 1998, Iranian and Taliban forces nearly came into
direct conflict when Iran discovered that nine of its diplomats were killed in the
course of Taliban’s offensive in northern Afghanistan. Iran massed forces at the
border and threatened military action, but the crisis cooled without a major clash,
possibly because Iran lacked confidence in its military capabilities or out of fear that
Pakistan would intervene on behalf of the Taliban.
Amid reports Iran seeks to exert influence over the new government by arming
pro-Iranian Afghan factions, in early January 2002 President Bush warned Iran
against meddling in Afghanistan. Since then, the Bush Administration has continued
to accuse Iran of trying to build influence over the interim government and of failing
to send Al Qaeda leaders in Iran back to their countries of origin for trial. Partly in
response to the U.S. criticism, in February 2002 Iran expelled Karzai-opponent
Gulbuddin Hikmatyar, although it did not arrest him and allowed him to return to
Afghanistan. For his part, Karzai has said that Iran is an important neighbor of
Afghanistan and visited Iran in late February 2002, pledging to build ties with the
Islamic republic. Iran did not strongly oppose Karzai’s firing of Iran ally Ismail Khan
in September 2004, although Iran has opposed the subsequent U.S. use of the
Shindand air base.47 Iran is said to be helping Afghan law enforcement with anti-
narcotics along their border. About 300,000 Afghan refugees have returned from
Iran since the Taliban fell, but about 1.2 million remain, mostly integrated into
Iranian society.
Russia
A number of considerations might explain why Russia supported the U.S. effort
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. First and foremost was the fear of Islamic
radicals, primarily Chechens, allegedly associated with Al Qaeda and harbored by the
Taliban regime in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the United States has not blindly
supported Russia’s apparent attempts to place a large share of the blame for the
rebellion in Chechnya on the Taliban or Al Qaeda. Some reports linked at least one
faction of the guerrillas to Al Qaeda.48 This faction was led by a Chechen of Arab
origin who is referred to by the name “Hattab” (full name is Ibn al-Khattab), although
there are some reports he was killed in Chechnya in 2002. In January 2000, the
Taliban government became the only government in the world to recognize
Chechnya’s independence, and some Chechen fighters fighting alongside Taliban/Al
Qaeda forces have been captured or killed. During the late 1990s, Russia supported
the Northern Alliance against the Taliban with some military equipment and
46 Steele, Jonathon, “America Includes Iran in Talks on Ending War in Afghanistan.”
Washington Times, December 15, 1997.
47 Rashid, Ahmed. “Afghan Neighbors Show Signs of Aiding in Nation’s Stability.” Wall
Street Journal
, October 18, 2004.
48 Whittell, Giles. “Bin Laden Link to Dagestan Rebel Fightback.” Times of London,
September 6, 1999.


CRS-36
technical assistance.49 U.S.-Russian cooperation on Afghanistan led to the passage
of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1267 and 1233, discussed below.
India
The interests and activities of India in Afghanistan are almost the reverse of
those of Pakistan. India’s goal has been to deny Afghanistan from becoming a
provider of “strategic depth” to Pakistan. In India’s view, Pakistan is attempting to
keep some Taliban elements active because Pakistan wants to have the option of
installing another pro-Pakistan government in Afghanistan.50 India supported the
Northern Alliance against the Taliban in the mid 1990s. India saw the Taliban’s
hosting of Al Qaeda as a major threat to India itself because of Al Qaeda’s
association with radical Islamic organizations in Pakistan dedicated to ending Indian
control of parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Some of these organizations have
committed major acts of terrorism in India. India denies Pakistan’s recent allegations
that India is recruiting anti-Pakistan insurgents in Afghanistan through its diplomatic
facilities or other means.
India is currently considering co-financing, along with the Asian Development
Bank, several power projects in northern Afghanistan. In other signs of cooperation,
in January 2005 India, among other joint projects announced, promised to help
Afghanistan’s struggling Ariana national airline and to begin India Air flights from
Delhi to Kabul.
Central Asian States
During Taliban rule, leaders in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan grew
increasingly alarmed that Central Asian radical Islamic movements were receiving
safe haven in Afghanistan. Several had local allies in Afghanistan, including the
Uzbekistan-supported Dostam and the Tajikistan-supported Northern Alliance, that
had were losing ground to the Taliban in the late 1990s. 1996, several of these states
banded together with Russia and China into a regional grouping called the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization to discuss the threat emanating from Afghanistan’s
Taliban regime. The organization groups China, Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan; Karzai attended its meeting in April 2004 signaling the
possible eventual entry of Afghanistan into the grouping. However, the group issued
a statement in early July 2005 indicating that members of the group want the United
States to begin discussing the winding down of its military presence at bases in
Central Asia.
49 Risen, James. “Russians Are Back in Afghanistan, Aiding Rebels.” New York Times, July
27, 1998.
50 These views were expressed by Indian officials during a visit to India in December 2004.


CRS-37
Uzbekistan has long asserted that the group Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
(IMU), allegedly responsible for four simultaneous February 1999 bombings in
Tashkent that nearly killed President Islam Karimov, is linked to Al Qaeda.51 One
of its leaders, Juma Namangani, reportedly was killed while commanding Taliban/Al
Qaeda forces in the battle for Mazar-e-Sharif in November 2001. However, recent
unrest in Uzbekistan could suggest that the IMU is regrouping or is being superseded
by domestic opposition groups of differing ideology.
Tajikistan, heavily influenced by Russia, was initially reluctant to allow the
United States the use of military facilities in Tajikistan. However, on September 26,
2001, Moscow officially endorsed the use by the United States of three air bases in
Tajikistan, paving the way for Tajikistan to open facilities for U.S. use, which it did
formally offer in early November 2001. France bases some combat aircraft there for
the OEF effort. In July 2003, Afghanistan and Tajikistan agreed that some Russian
officers would train some Afghan military officers in Tajikistan. There are concerns
that much of the opium grown in Afghanistan might be flowing through Tajikistan;
Lt. Gen. Barno visited Tajikistan in April 2005 to discuss this issue, in concert with
the increased U.S. military role in Afghan counter-narcotics efforts.
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan do not directly border Afghanistan. However, IMU
guerrillas have transited Kyrgyzstan during past incursions into Uzbekistan.52 As
noted above, since December 2001 Kyrgyzstan has hosted U.S. air operations at
Manas airport. Kazakhstan had begun to diplomatically engage the Taliban over the
year prior to the September 11 attacks, but it publicly supported the U.S. war effort
against the Taliban. Kazakhstan signed an agreement with the United States in July
2002 to allow coalition aircraft to use Kazakhstan’s airports in case of an emergency
or short term need related to the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
Of the Central Asian states that border Afghanistan, only Turkmenistan chose
to seek close relations with the Taliban leadership when it was in power, possibly
viewing engagement as a more effective means of preventing spillover of radical
Islamic activity from Afghanistan. Turkmenistan’s leader, Saparmurad Niyazov,
saw Taliban control as facilitating construction of a natural gas pipeline from
Turkmenistan through Afghanistan. However, the September 11 events stoked
Turkmenistan’s fears of the Taliban and its Al Qaeda guests and the country publicly
supported the U.S.-led war. No OEF forces have been based in Turkmenistan. Talks
on the trans-Afghan gas pipeline have revived in recent years.
China
China has a small border with a sliver of Afghanistan known as the “Wakhan
corridor” (see map) and had become increasingly concerned about the potential for
Al Qaeda to promote Islamic fundamentalism among Muslims (Uighurs) in
northwestern China. A number of Uighurs fought in Taliban and Al Qaeda ranks in
the U.S.-led war, according to U.S. military officials. China expressed its concern
51 The IMU was named a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department in
September 2000.
52 Patterns of Global Terrorism: 1999, pp. 14, 92.


CRS-38
through active membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as noted
above. In December 2000, sensing China’s increasing concern about Taliban
policies, a Chinese official delegation met with Mullah Umar.
Although it has long been concerned about the threat from the Taliban and bin
Laden, China did not, at first, enthusiastically support U.S. military action against the
Taliban. Many experts believe this is because China, as a result of strategic
considerations, was wary of a U.S. military buildup nearby. In addition, China has
been an ally of Pakistan, in part to balance out India, a rival of China. Pakistan’s
cooperation with OEF appeared to allay China’s opposition to U.S. military action.
Saudi Arabia
During the Soviet occupation, Saudi Arabia channeled hundreds of millions of
dollars to the Afghan resistance, primarily the Hikmatyar and Sayyaf factions. Saudi
Arabia, which itself practices the strict Wahhabi brand of Islam practiced by the
Taliban, was one of three countries to formally recognize the Taliban government.
The Taliban initially served Saudi Arabia as a potential counter to Iran, with which
Saudi Arabia has been at odds since Iran’s 1979 revolution, but Iranian-Saudi
relations improved dramatically beginning in 1997 and balancing Iranian power
ebbed as a factor in Saudi policy toward Afghanistan.
Drawing on its intelligence ties to Afghanistan during the anti-Soviet war, Saudi
Arabia worked with Taliban leaders to persuade them to suppress anti-Saudi
activities by Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia apparently believed that Al Qaeda’s presence
in Afghanistan drew Saudi Islamic radicals away from Saudi Arabia itself and
thereby reduced their opportunity to destabilize the Saudi regime. Some press reports
indicate that, in late 1998, Saudi and Taliban leaders discussed, but did not agree on,
a plan for a panel of Saudi and Afghan Islamic scholars to decide bin Laden’s fate.
Other reports, however, say that Saudi Arabia refused an offer from Sudan in 1996
to extradite bin Laden to his homeland on the grounds that he could become a
rallying point for opposition to the regime. In March 2000 and again in May 2000,
the Saudi-based Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) sponsored indirect peace
talks in Saudi Arabia between the warring factions.
According to U.S. officials, Saudi Arabia generally cooperated with the U.S.
war effort. It broke diplomatic relations with the Taliban in late September 2001 and
quietly permitted the United States to use a Saudi base for command of U.S. air
operations over Afghanistan, but it did not permit U.S. aircraft to launch strikes in
Afghanistan from Saudi bases. The Saudi position has generally been to allow the
United States the use of its facilities as long as doing so is not publicized.


CRS-39
Residual Issues from Past Conflicts
A few issues remain unresolved from Afghanistan’s many years of conflict.
Among them are the “Stinger” anti-aircraft missiles provided to the mujahedin during
the Soviet occupation, and the elimination of land mines.
Stinger Retrieval. Beginning in late 1985 and following an internal debate,
the Reagan Administration provided “hundreds” of man-portable “Stinger” anti-
aircraft missiles to the mujahedin for use against Soviet combat helicopters and
aircraft. Prior to the U.S.-led war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda, common
estimates suggested that 200-300 Stingers remained at large in Afghanistan out of
about 2,000 provided during the war against the Soviet Union, although more recent
estimates put the number below 100.53 The Stinger issue resurfaced in conjunction
with 2001 U.S. war effort, when U.S. pilots reported that the Taliban fired some
Stingers at U.S. aircraft during the war. No hits were reported. Any Stingers that
survived the anti-Taliban war were controlled by Afghans now allied to the United
States and presumably posed less of a threat. However, there are continued concerns
that remaining Stingers could be sold to terrorists for use against civilian airliners.
In February 2002, the Afghan government found and returned to the United States
“dozens” of Stingers.54 In late January 2005, the Afghan intelligence service began
a new push to buy remaining Stingers back, at a reported cost of $150,000 each.55
The practical difficulties of retrieving the weapons had caused this issue to fade
from the U.S. agenda for Afghanistan during the 1990s. In 1992, after the fall of the
Russian-backed government of Najibullah, the United States reportedly spent about
$10 million to buy the Stingers back, at a premium, from individual mujahedin
commanders. The New York Times reported on July 24, 1993, that the buy back
effort failed because the United States was competing with other buyers, including
Iran and North Korea, and that the CIA would spend about $55 million in FY1994
in a renewed Stinger buy-back effort. On March 7, 1994, the Washington Post
reported that the CIA had recovered only a fraction of the at-large Stingers. Many
observers speculate that the CIA program retrieved perhaps 50 or 100 of them.
The lingering danger of these weapons has become apparent on several
occasions. Iran bought 16 of the missiles in 1987 and fired one against U.S.
helicopters; some reportedly were transferred to Lebanese Hizballah, according to
press reports in January 2002. India claimed that it was a Stinger, supplied to Islamic
rebels in Kashmir probably by sympathizers in Afghanistan, that shot down an Indian
helicopter over Kashmir in May 1999.56 It was not the Stinger but Soviet-made SA-7
“Strella” man-portable launchers that were fired, allegedly by Al Qaeda, against a
U.S. military aircraft in Saudi Arabia in June 2002 and against an Israeli passenger
53 Saleem, Farrukh. “Where Are the Missing Stinger Missiles? Pakistan,” Friday Times.
August 17-23, 2001.
54 Fullerton, John. “Afghan Authorities Hand in Stinger Missiles to U.S.” Reuters,
February 4, 2002.
55 “Afghanistan Report,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. February 4, 2005.
56 “U.S.-Made Stinger Missiles — Mobile and Lethal.” Reuters, May 28, 1999.


CRS-40
aircraft in Kenya on November 30, 2002. Both missed their targets. SA-7s have
been discovered in Afghanistan by U.S.-led forces, most recently in December 2002.
Mine Eradication. Land mines laid during the Soviet occupation constitute
one of the principal dangers to the Afghan people. The United Nations estimates that
5 -7 million mines remain scattered throughout the country, although some estimates
by outside organizations are significantly lower. An estimated 400,000 Afghans have
been killed or wounded by land mines. U.N. teams have succeeded in destroying one
million mines and are now focusing on de-mining priority-use, residential and
commercial property, including land surrounding Kabul. As shown in the U.S. aid
table for FY1999-FY2002, the U.S. de-mining program was providing about $3
million per year for Afghanistan, and the amount escalated to about $7 million in the
post-Taliban period. Most of the funds went to HALO Trust, a British organization,
and the U.N. Mine Action Program for Afghanistan.
U.S. and International Aid to Afghanistan
The war-ravaged Afghan economy and society deteriorated further under
Taliban rule. In addition to 3.6 million Afghan refugees at the start of the U.S.-led
war,57 another 500,000 Afghans were displaced internally even before U.S. military
action began, according to Secretary General Annan’s April 19, 2001, report on
Afghanistan. Many of the displaced persons had fled the effects of a major drought
that affected the 85% of the population that directly depends on agriculture. The
conflicts in Afghanistan, including the war against the Soviet Union, left about 2
million dead, 700,000 widows and orphans and about one million Afghan children
who were born and raised in refugee camps outside Afghanistan. However, over 3
million Afghan refugees have returned since January 2002. A variety of U.N.
agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) serve as the vehicles for
international assistance to Afghanistan. The U.N. High Commission for Refugees
(UNHCR) supervises Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan and Afghan repatriation.
U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan
During the 1990s, the United States became the largest single provider of
assistance to the Afghan people, even during Taliban rule. No U.S. aid went directly
to the Taliban government; monies were provided through recognized NGOs and
relief organizations. During 1985-1994, the United States did have a cross-border
aid program for Afghanistan, through which aid was distributed in Afghanistan via
U.S. aid workers in Pakistan. However, citing the difficulty of administering a
cross-border program, there was no USAID mission for Afghanistan from the end
of FY1994 until the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in late 2001. Table 1 breaks
down FY1999-FY2002 aid by program, and the other tables cover FY2003- FY2005.
The FY2002 aid included a U.S. pledge of $296 million in reconstruction aid,
pledged at a donors’ conference in Tokyo that was held in January 2002, just after the
57 About 1.5 million Afghan refugees were in Iran; 2 million in Pakistan; 20,000 in Russia;
17,000 in India, and 9,000 in the Central Asian states.


CRS-41
fall of the Taliban regime. For a history of U.S. aid to Afghanistan prior to 1999
(FY1978-FY1998), see Table 3.58
Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 and Amendments. An
authorization bill, S. 2712, the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-
327, December 4, 2002), as amended, authorized the following:
! $60 million in total counter-narcotics assistance ($15 million per
year for FY2003-FY2006);
! $30 million in assistance for political development, including
national, regional, and local elections ($10 million per year for
FY2003-FY2005);
! $80 million total to benefit women and for Afghan human rights
oversight ($15 million per year for FY2003-FY2006 for the Afghan
Ministry of Women’s Affairs, and $5 million per year for FY2003-
2006 to the National Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan);
! $1.7 billion in humanitarian and development aid ($425 million per
year for FY2003-FY2006);
! $300 million for an Enterprise Fund;
! $550 million in draw-downs of defense articles and services for
Afghanistan and regional militaries. (The original law provided for
$300 million in drawdowns. That was increased to $450 million by
P.L. 108-106, an FY2004 supplemental appropriations); and
! $1 billion ($500 million per year for FY2003-FY2004) to expand
ISAF if such an expansion takes place.
The total authorization, for all categories for all years, is over $3.7 billion. For
the most part, the humanitarian, counter-narcotics, and governance assistance targets
authorized by the act have been met or exceeded by successive appropriations.
However, no Enterprise Funds have been appropriated, and ISAF expansion has
been funded by contributing nations, not U.S. appropriations.
A bill, S. 2845 (P.L. 108-458, signed December 17, 2004), the version of
legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, contains a
subtitle called “The Afghanistan Freedom Support Act Amendments of 2004.” The
subtitle mandates the appointment of a U.S. coordinator of policy on Afghanistan and
contains provisions requiring additional Administration reports to Congress on
progress in reconstruction: (1) a report on long-term U.S. strategy and progress of
reconstruction, an amendment to the report required in the original version of this
law; (2) a report on how U.S. assistance is being used; (3) a report on U.S. efforts to
persuade other countries to participate in Afghan peacekeeping; and (4) a joint State
and Defense Department report on U.S. counter-narcotics efforts in Afghanistan.
The law also contains several “sense of Congress” provisions recommending more
rapid DDR activities; expansion of ISAF; and new initiatives to combat narcotics
58 In some cases, aid figures are subject to variation depending on how that aid is measured.
The figures cited might not exactly match figures in appropriated legislation; in some, funds
were added to specified accounts from monies in the September 11-related Emergency
Response Fund.


CRS-42
trafficking. The law does not specify dollar amounts for U.S. aid for FY2005 and
FY2006, authorizing “such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years
2005 and 2006.”
FY2006. The regular request for FY2006 requests a total of $920 million, as
follows: $43 million for child survival and health; $430 million to train and equip the
ANA; $260 million for State Department police training and counter-narcotics; $18
million for Karzai protection; $18 million for peacekeeping operations; and $150
million for “other.” The amount appropriated in the House version of H.R. 3057 is
$954 million, with the restrictions pending counter-narcotics cooperation, mentioned
above. The amount in the Senate version is $920 million.
Additional Forms of U.S. Assistance. In addition to providing U.S.
foreign assistance, since 2002 the U.S. Treasury Department (Office of Foreign
Assets Control, OFAC) unblocked over $145 million in assets of Afghan
government-owned banking entities that were frozen under U.S. sanctions imposed
on the Taliban in 1999 (see below). These funds were used for currency
stabilization; mostly gold held in Afghanistan’s name in the United States to back up
Afghanistan’s currency. Together with its allies, over $350 million in frozen funds
were released to the Afghan government. The Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC) has made available total investment credits of $100 million. The
United States also successfully pressed the International Air Transport Association
to pay Afghanistan $20 million in overflight fees that were withheld because of U.N.
sanctions on the Taliban. In April 2002, OFAC unblocked $17 million in privately-
owned Afghan assets.
World Bank/Asian Development Bank. In May 2002, the World Bank
reopened its office in Afghanistan after twenty years. On March 12, 2003, it
announced a $108 million loan to Afghanistan, the first since 1979. In August 2003,
the World Bank agreed to lend Afghanistan an additional $30 million to rehabilitate
the telecommunications system, and $30 million for road and drainage rehabilitation
in Kabul.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been playing a major role in
Afghanistan and has pledged $800 million in loans and grants and $200 million in
project insurance for Afghanistan. Since December 2002, the bank has loaned
Afghanistan $372 million of road reconstruction, fiscal management and governance,
and agricultural development. The Bank has also granted Afghanistan about $90
million for power projects, agriculture reform, roads, and rehabilitation of the energy
sector. One of its projects in Afghanistan was funding the paving of a road from
Qandahar to the border with Pakistan. In December 2004, the Bank approved an
additional loan of $80 million to restore and improve key sections of the road system.
International Reconstruction Pledges. Afghan leaders say that
Afghanistan needs $27.5 billion for reconstruction for 2002-2010. At a 2002 Tokyo
donors’ conference, total pledges for reconstruction amounted to $2 billion for 2002
and $4.5 billion over five years, as follows: European Union, $495 million in 2002;
Japan, $500 million over 30 months; Germany, $362 million over four years; Saudi
Arabia, $220 million over three years; Iran, $560 million over five years; Pakistan,
$100 million over five years; India, a $100 million line of credit; South Korea, $45


CRS-43
million over 30 months; and United Kingdom, $86 million in 2002. In March 2003,
the EU announced an additional $410 million donation for 2003-2004.
In April 2004 international donors meeting in Berlin pledged $8.2 billion for
Afghanistan for 2004-2006, of which about $4.5 billion (including U.S. funds) was
to be provided in 2004. Other pledges for 2004-2006 included European Union ($2.2
billion); Canada (200 million); Japan ($400 million); World Bank loans ($900
million); Asia Development Bank loans ($560 million); India ($225 million); and
Iran ($155 million).
Another donors’ meeting was held in Kabul on April 4, 2005, primarily to
reaffirm and structure previous pledges rather than attract new promises of aid. At
the meeting, Afghan leaders insisted that international aid be channeled through the
Afghan government, curbing the prerogatives of NGOs in assisting the Afghan
people. This call reflected the view of many Afghan ministers, including Finance
Minister Ahady, that the NGOs have become a virtual “parallel government” of
Afghanistan and are not accountable to the Afghan government. No firm
commitments were made, although the United States and Britain expressed
receptivity to the request.
Domestically Generated Funds. Obtaining control over revenues has been
a key U.S. and Kabul goal. In May 2003, Karzai insisted that regional governors
remit some of their privately collected customs revenue to the central government.
Twelve regional leaders did so, subsequently giving $100 million to Kabul. Kabul
raised internally about $210 million of its $600 million budget for the fiscal year
ended March 2004, and funds are increasingly being collected and handled by the
central government. Karzai has sought to reassure international donors by
establishing a transparent budget and planning process.
Promoting Long-Term Economic Development. In an effort to find a
long-term solution to Afghanistan’s acute humanitarian problems, the United States
has tried to promote major development projects as a means of improving Afghan
living standards and political stability over the long term. During 1996-98, the
Clinton Administration supported proposed natural gas and oil pipelines through
western Afghanistan as an incentive for the warring factions to cooperate. A
consortium led by Los Angeles-based Unocal Corporation proposed a $2.5 billion
Central Asia Gas Pipeline (CentGas) that would originate in southern Turkmenistan
and pass through Afghanistan to Pakistan, with possible extensions into India.59
The deterioration in U.S.-Taliban relations after 1998 largely ended hopes for
the pipeline projects while the Taliban was in power. Immediately after the August
20, 1998 U.S. strikes on bin Laden’s bases in Afghanistan, Unocal suspended all its
Afghan pipeline-related activities, including a U.S.-based training program for
Afghans who were expected to work on the project. It subsequently withdrew from
59 Other participants in the Unocal consortium include Delta of Saudi Arabia, Hyundai of
South Korea, Crescent Steel of Pakistan, Itochu Corporation and INPEX of Japan, and the
government of Turkmenistan. Some accounts say Russia’s Gazprom would probably
receive a stake in the project. Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Moscow), October 30, 1997, p. 3.


CRS-44
its consortium. A rival consortium led by Bridas of Argentina continued to try to
win the project.
Prospects for the project have improved in the post-Taliban period. In a summit
meeting in late May 2002 between the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan, the three countries agreed to revive the gas pipeline project. Sponsors of
the project held an inaugural meeting on July 9, 2002 in Turkmenistan, signing a
series of preliminary agreements. They recommitted to it on March 1, 2005, although
financing for the project is unclear. Some U.S. officials view this project as a
superior alternative to a proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India, transiting Pakistan.
Trade and Investment Framework Agreement and WTO
Membership. The United States is trying to build on Afghanistan’s post-war
economic rebound. The Afghan economy grew 30% in 2002, 25% in 2003, and it
is expected to grow 20% in 2004, according to Karzai. Following a meeting with
Karzai on June 15, 2004, President Bush announced the United States and
Afghanistan would negotiate a bilateral trade and investment framework agreement
(TIFA). These agreements are generally seen as a prelude to a broader but more
complex bilateral free trade agreement. On December 13, 2004, the 148 countries
of the World Trade Organization voted to start membership talks with Afghanistan.
Lifting of U.S. and International Sanctions. Shoring up a post-Taliban
government of Afghanistan with financial and other assistance required waivers of
restrictions or the permanent modification of U.S. and U.N. sanctions previously
imposed on Afghanistan. Virtually all U.S. and international sanctions on
Afghanistan have now been lifted.
! On May 2, 1980, Afghanistan was deleted from the list of designated
beneficiary countries under the U.S. Generalized System of
Preferences (GSP), denying Afghanistan’s exports duty free
treatment, by Executive Order 12204 (45 F.R. 20740). This was
done under the authority of Section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974, as
amended [P.L. 93-618; 19 U.S.C. § 2464]. On January 10, 2003, the
President signed a proclamation making Afghanistan a beneficiary
of GSP, eliminating U.S. tariffs on 5,700 Afghan products.
! On June 3, 1980, as part of the sanctions against the Soviet Union
for the invasion of Afghanistan, the United States imposed controls
on exports to Afghanistan of agricultural products, oil and gas
exploration and production equipment, and phosphates. This was
implemented at 15 C.F.R. Part 373 et seq (45 F.R. 37415) under the
authority of Sections 5 and 6 of the Export Administration Act of
1979 [P.L. 96-72; 50 U.S.C. app. 2404, app. 2405]. On April 24,
1981, these sanctions were modified to terminate controls on U.S.
exports to Afghanistan of agricultural products and phosphates.
! In mid-1992, the George H.W. Bush Administration determined that
Afghanistan no longer had a “Soviet-controlled government.” This
opened Afghanistan to the use of U.S. funds made available for the


CRS-45
U.S. share of U.N. organizations that provide assistance to
Afghanistan.
! On October 7, 1992, President George H.W. Bush issued
Presidential Determination 93-3 that Afghanistan is no longer a
Marxist-Leninist country. That designation had prohibited
Afghanistan from receiving Export-Import Bank guarantees,
insurance, or credits for purchases under Sec. 8 of the 1986 Export-
Import Bank Act, which amended Section 2(b)(2) of the Export-
Import Bank Act of 1945 (P.L. 79-173, 12 U.S.C. § 635). However,
President George H.W. Bush’s determination was not implemented
before he left office.
! President George H.W. Bush’s October 7, 1992 determination (93-
3) also found that assistance to Afghanistan under Section 620D of
the Foreign Assistance Act is in the national interest of the United
States because of the change of regime in Afghanistan. The
presidential determination, had it been implemented in regulations,
would have waived restrictions on assistance to Afghanistan
provided for in the act, as amended [P.L. 87-195; 22 U.S.C. § 2374];
as added by Section 505 of the International Development
Cooperation Act of 1979 [P.L. 96-53]. These provisions prohibit
foreign assistance to Afghanistan until it apologizes for the death of
U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Adolph Dubs, who was kidnapped
in Kabul in 1979 and killed when Afghan police stormed the hideout
where he was held, unless the President determines that such
assistance is in the national interest because of changed
circumstances in Afghanistan. This restriction has consistently been
waived since the fall of the Taliban. P.L. 108-458 (9/11
Commission recommendations) repeals this restriction outright.
! Section 552 of the Foreign Assistance Appropriations for FY1986
[P.L. 99-190] authorized the President to deny any U.S. credits or
most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff status for Afghanistan. Under that
law, on February 18, 1986, the height of the Soviet occupation,
President Reagan had issued Presidential Proclamation 5437,
suspending (MFN) tariff status for Afghanistan (51 F.R. 4287). On
May 3, 2002, President Bush restored normal trade treatment to the
products of Afghanistan.
! On March 31, 1993, President Clinton, on national interest grounds,
waived restrictions provided for in Section 481 (h) of the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, as amended [P.L. 87-195]; as amended and
restated by Section 2005(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986
[P.L. 99-570]. The waiver was renewed in 1994. Mandatory
sanctions include bilateral aid cuts and suspensions, including denial
of Ex-Im Bank credits; the casting of negative U.S. votes for
multilateral development bank loans; and a non-allocation of a U.S.
sugar quota. Discretionary sanctions included denial of GSP;
additional duties on country exports to the United States; and


CRS-46
curtailment of air transportation with the United States. On February
25, 2002, President Bush waived restrictions on FY2002 aid to
Afghanistan under this act.
! On June 14, 1996, Afghanistan was formally added to the list of
countries prohibited from receiving exports or licenses for exports
of U.S. defense articles and services. This amended the International
Traffic in Arms Regulations (22 CFR Part 121 et seq.) under the
authority of Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended
(P.L. 90-629; 22 U.S.C. § 2778) by adding Afghanistan at Section
126.1 of 22 C.F.R. Part 126. On July 2, 2002, the State Department
amended U.S. regulations (22 C.F.R. Part 126) to allow arms sales
to the new Afghan government.
! In a ruling largely redundant with the one above, on May 15, 1997,
the State Department designated Afghanistan under the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
132), as a state that is not cooperating with U.S. anti-terrorism
efforts. The designation, made primarily because of the Taliban’s
harboring of bin Laden, makes Afghanistan ineligible to receive
U.S. exports of items on the U.S. Munitions List. The designation
was repeated every year since 1997. Afghanistan was deleted from
the list of non-cooperative states when the list was reissued on May
15, 2002, thereby eliminating this sanction on Afghanistan.
! On July 4, 1999, the President declared a national emergency with
respect to Taliban because of its hosting of bin Laden, and issued
Executive Order 13129 that imposed sanctions. The sanctions
include the blocking of Taliban assets and property in the United
States, and a ban on U.S. trade with Taliban-controlled areas of
Afghanistan. On August 10, 1999, the Administration determined
that Ariana Afghan Airlines was a Taliban entity. That
determination triggered a blocking of Ariana assets (about $500,000)
in the United States and a ban on U.S. citizens’ flying on the airline.
On January 29, 2002, the State Department issued a determination
that the Taliban controls no territory within Afghanistan, thus
essentially ending this trade ban. On July 2, 2002, President Bush
formally revoked this executive order.
! On October 15, 1999, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution
1267; on December 19, 2000, it adopted U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1333, imposed a number of new sanctions against the
Taliban. For the provisions of these sanctions, see the section on the
harboring of bin Laden. As noted, these sanctions were narrowed to
penalize only Al Qaeda by virtue of the adoption of U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1390 of January 17, 2002.


CRS-47
Table 1. U.S. Aid to Afghanistan, FY1999-FY2002
($ in millions)
FY2002
FY1999
FY2000
FY2001
(Final)
U.S. Department of
$42.0 worth of
$68.875 for
$131.0
$198.12 (for
Agriculture (DOA)
wheat
165,000 metric
(300,000
food
and USAID Food For
(100,000
tons. (60,000
metric tons
commodities)
Peace (FFP), via
metric tons
tons for May
under P.L.480,
World Food
under
2000 drought
Title II, and
Program(WFP)
“416(b)”
relief)
416(b))
program.
State/Bureau of
$16.95 for
$14.03 for the
$22.03 for
$136.54 (to
Population, Refugees
Afghan
same purposes
similar
U.N. agencies)
and Migration (PRM)
refugees in
purposes
via UNHCR and
Pakistan and
ICRC
Iran, and to
assist their
repatriation
State Department/
$7.0 to various
$6.68 for
$18.934 for
$113.36 (to
Office of Foreign
NGOs to aid
drought relief
similar
various U.N.
Disaster Assistance
Afghans inside
and health,
programs
agencies and
(OFDA)
Afghanistan
water, and
NGOs)
sanitation
programs
State
$2.615
$3.0
$2.8
$7.0 to Halo
Department/HDP
Trust/other
(Humanitarian
demining
Demining Program)
Aid to Afghan
$5.44 (2.789
$6.169, of
$5.31 for
Refugees in Pakistan
for health,
which $3.82
similar
(through various
training -
went to similar
purposes
NGOs)
Afghan
purposes
females in
Pakistan
Counter-Narcotics
$1.50
$63.0
USAID/
$0.45 (Afghan
$24.35 for
Office of Transition
women in
broadcasting/
Initiatives
Pakistan)
media
Dept. of Defense
$50.9 ( 2.4
million
rations)
Foreign Military
$57.0 (for
Financing
Afghan
national army)
Anti-Terrorism $36.4
Economic Support
$105.2
Funds (E.S.F)
Peacekeeping
$24.0
Totals
$76.6 $113.2 $182.6
$815.9


CRS-48
Table 2. U.S. Aid to Afghanistan, FY2003
(in millions, same acronyms as above table)
From the FY2003 Foreign Aid Appropriations (P.L. 108-7)
Development/Health
$90
Food Aid
$47
Peacekeeping
$10
Disaster Relief
$94
ESF
$50
Non-Proliferation, Demining, Anti-
$5
Terrorism (NADR)
Refugee Relief
$55
Military aid
$21
Total from this law:
$372
From the FY2003 Supplemental (P.L. 108-11)
Road Construction (ESF, Kabul-
$100
Qandahar road)
PRTs (ESF)
$10
Afghan government support (ESF)
$57
Military Aid (FMF)
$170
(to train Afghan national army)
Anti-terrorism/de-mining
$28
Total from this law:
$365
Total for FY2003
$737


CRS-49
Table 3. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY2004
(in millions, same acronyms as previous tables)
From the FY2004 Supplemental (P.L. 108-106)
Disarmament, Demobilization, and
$30
Reintegration (DDR program)
Support to Afghan government
$70
Elections/governance
$69
Roads
$181
Schools/Education
$95
Health Services/Clinics
$49
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)
$58
Private Sector/Power Generation
$95
Water Projects
$23
Counter-narcotics/police training
$220
(INCLE)
Afghan National Army (FMF)
$364
Anti-Terrorism/Afghan Leadership
$64
Protection
Total from this law:
$1,320
From the FY2004 Regular Appropriations (P.L. 108-199)
Development/Health
$171
Disaster Relief
$35
Refugee Relief
$72
Afghan women (ESF)
$5
Judicial reform commission (ESF)
$2
Reforestation (ESF)
$2
Aid to communities and victims of U.S.
$2
military operations (ESF)
Other reconstruction ESF
$64
Military Assistance
$50
Total from this law:
$403
Total for FY2004
$1,723


CRS-50
Table 4. U.S. Aid to Afghanistan, FY2005
(In millions)
From the FY2005 Regular Appropriations (P.L. 108-447
ESF to assist Afghan governing
$225
institutions
FMF to train and equip the ANA
$400
Assistance to benefit women and girls
$50
Agriculture, private sector investment,
environment, primary education,
$300
reproductive health, and democracy-
building
Reforestation
$2
Child and maternal health
$6
Afghan Independent Human Rights
$2
Commission
Total from this law
$985
From First FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 108-287)
FMF for training and equipping the ANA
$500
(and the Iraqi security forces)
From Second FY2005 Supplemental (P.L. 109-13)
DoD funds to train and equip Afghan
$1,285
security forces
DoD counter-narcotics operations
$242
ESF for reconstruction and democracy
and governance (including alternative
$1,086
livelihoods)
INL counter-narcotics
$260
INL Afghan police training
$360
Karzi protection (NADR funds)
$17.1
Commanders’ Emergency Response
$34
Program (CERP), mostly for counter-
narcotics
DEA operations in Afghanistan
$7.7
Operations of U.S. Embassy Kabul
$60
Total from this law
$3,351
Total from all FY2005 laws
$4,336 (plus ANA portion of $500
million for ANA and Iraqi forces)


CRS-51
Table 5. U.S. Assistance to Afghanistan, FY1978-FY1998
Econ.
Other
Fiscal
Devel.
P.L. 480
Supp.
Military
(Incl. Regional
Total
Year
Assist.
(Title I and II)
(ESF)
Refugee Aid)
1978
4.989

5.742
0.269
0.789
11.789
1979
3.074

7.195

0.347
10.616
1980

(Soviet invasion - December 1979)


1981






1982






1983






1984






1985
3.369




3.369
1986


8.9


8.9
1987
17.8
12.1
2.6


32.5
1988
22.5
22.5
29.9


74.9
1989
22.5
22.5
32.6


77.6
1990
35.0
35.0
18.1


88.1
1991
30.0
30.0
20.1


80.1
1992
25.0
25.0
31.4


81.4
1993
10.0
10.0
18.0

30.2
68.2
1994
3.4
2.0
9.0

27.9
42.3
1995
1.8

12.4

31.6
45.8
1996


16.1

26.4
42.5
1997


18.0

31.9*
49.9
1998


3.6

49.14**
52.74
Source: U.S. Department of State.
* Includes $3 million for demining and $1.2 million for counternarcotics.
** Includes $3.3 million in projects targeted for Afghan women and girls, $7 million in earthquake
relief aid, 100,000 tons of 416B wheat worth about $15 million, $2 million for demining, and
$1.54 for counternarcotics.


CRS-52
Table 6. ISAF Contributing Nations
(As of May 2005)
NATO website: [http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm]
NATO Countries
Non-NATO Partner Nations
Belgium
600
Albania
22
Bulgaria
35
Austria
3
Canada
1,250
Azerbaijan
22
Czech Republic
17
Croatia
47
Denmark
55
Finland
82
Estonia
9
Macedonia
20
France
800
Georgia
50
Germany
1,000
Ireland
10
Greece
151
Sweden
85
Hungary
140
Switzerland
4
Iceland
14
New Zealand
6
Italy
500
Latvia
11
Lithuania
10
Luxemburg
10
Netherlands
400
Norway
250
Poland
20
Portugal
47
Romania
73
Slovakia
17
Slovenia
22
Spain
500
Turkey
1,800
Britain
538
United States
194


CRS-53
Table 7. Major Factions in Afghanistan
Ideology/
Party/Commander
Leader
Power Base
Ethnicity
Taliban
Mullah
ultra-orthodox Small opposition
(Islamic cleric)
Islamic,
groups, mostly in the
Muhammad Umar Pashtun
south and east. No
official presence in
government.
Islamic Society (dominant Burhannudin
moderate
Much of northern
party in the “Northern
Rabbani (political
Islamic,
and western
Alliance”)
leader),
mostly Tajik
Afghanistan,
Muhammad
including Kabul.
Fahim (military
leaders)
Ismail Khan (part of
Ismail Khan
Tajik
Herat Province and
Islamic Society/Northern
environs; Khan
Alliance)
removed as Herat
governor in
September 2004
Eastern Shura (Council)
No clear leader,
moderate
Jalalabad and
after death of
Islamic,
environs; Qadir was
Abdul Qadir; son
Pashtun
vice president.
succeeded him as
Jalalabad
governor
National Islamic
Abdul Rashid
secular, Uzbek Mazar-e-Sharif,
Movement of Afghanistan Dostam
Shebergan, and
environs.
Hizb-e-Wahdat Karim
Khalili
Shiite, Hazara
Bamiyan province.
(Vice President)
tribes
Pashtun Leaders
Various leaders;
mostly
Southern, eastern
government led
conservative
Afghanistan,
by Karzai. Gul
Islamic,
including Qandahar,
Agha Shirzai
Pashtun
Gardez, Ghazni,
reappointed
Khost, Tarin Kowt,
Qandahar
Spin Buldak.
governor (Dec.
04)
Hizb-e-Islam Gulbuddin
Mujahedin party
orthodox
Small groups around
(HIG)
leader Gulbuddin
Islamic,
Jalalabad and in the
Hikmatyar
Pashtun
southeast. Allied
with Taliban.
Islamic Union
Abd-I-Rab Rasul
orthodox
No clear regional
Sayyaf
Islamic,
base
Pashtun



CRS-54
Figure 1. Map of Afghanistan