This article is the second to last in a series of six columns on Afghanistan I am writing for Military.com after publishing the book A Democracy Is Born about the American military campaign and creation of Afghanistan's new democratic system. 

Thus far, I have discussed recent setbacks in Afghanistan, reasons for these problems, and began to list the underlying challenges in bringing stability and democracy to this troubled country.  The first two of those challenges were (1) ethnic differences that might lead to tensions in Afghanistan as we see in Iraq now or in Bosnia in the 1990s and (2) the booming narcotics trade that funds the insurgency and makes governance difficult.  We are now onto the third of the major four challenges that faces Afghanistan: warlordism.

The fact remains that for much of the country, "might makes right." While the inauguration ceremony in November 2004 signaled the transitional government's succession to a new government, many parts of the country are still outside the reach of the government. In these areas, local warlords continue to hold sway over the communities. An organized disarmament process, Demobilization, Disarmament, and Reintegration (DDR), has been underway to reduce the capabilities of armed militia forces and thus reduce the power of local warlords. The DDR program has boasted of progress since it was first implemented in late 2003. However, the program was too narrowly scoped, preventing it from reaching the heart of the problem. DDR has been limited to organized Afghan Militia Forces, which were independent militias nominally under the control of the Ministry of Defense. Private militias were not involved with this disarmament process. Thus, the most unaccountable and dangerous parts of the warlord system have not even begun any disarmament process. Additionally, the DDR process was largely focused on heavy weapons, but small arms, including rifles and light machine guns, were often left untouched. Anti-air implements, mortars, rockets, and heavy machine guns are more frequently seized in the disarmament process. Part of this is because of a "gun culture" in Afghanistan, where it is not only a pragmatic need to possess a weapon, but owning a firearm is also connected with an individual's sense of independence, capability, and manhood. All of this creates an environment of potential violence that could be threatening for democratization, especially due to the connection of warlords to the narcotics problem.

The tensions between democratization and warlordism are revealed in an e-mail I received from my young Afghan friend Murad in early 2007. Murad still lives and works in Afghanistan, in a small village outside of the major city of Jalalabad. He titled the subject line of the message, "zama malgari wrowr salaam," which I translate from the Pashtun as "my friend and brother, hello."

. . . As you have already informed that life became difficult for me in Jalalabad, so, for a long time I lived in Khugyani district with my wife and my in laws family.

A few months ago I got a job as a language assistant with U.S. forces in south Afghanistan after 3 months my family were informed so my father called me to leave the job because of danger and I did.

After that I was not looking for jobs every where because still some of the candidates and local commanders are threatening me that why I did not help them in the election and why I have been working with foreign forces, but I will not change my mind and I will do more then that for the stability, peace, freedom and security in Afghanistan . . .

I understood from his letter that the candidates themselves are the local strongmen who oppose the international forces in Afghanistan. It seems that young Afghan men cannot escape threats from local officials when they choose to work with the international soldiers in the country trying to stop insurgents and develop the infrastructure of Afghanistan. One can also understand from my friend's message that thuggish pressure is being applied by candidates to enlist help in the election. Perhaps the strongmen revealed in Murad's letter are similar to the political machines of early American democracy, such as Tammany Hall in New York City. The account is revealing about how, in the near term at least, democratically elected officials will not replace the warlords and militia commanders of the past. The election process will merely allow those power players to exercise their control in a different system.

Among the citizens of the country, Afghanistan is progressing toward democracy with a popular enthusiasm that is very encouraging for outside observers. However, such optimistic appraisals must be tempered with an understanding of the very real challenges the country faces. With an incredible voter turnout in 2004 and a diminishing terrorist presence in the aftermath of the election, Afghanistan took giant first steps toward democratization. These political developments must be coupled with social reform to reduce the influence of armed warlords. With continued support from the international community, Afghanistan will be able to make progress toward these goals.

In many ways, the country is at a unique crossroads. It has the potential to return to a more egalitarian, wealthier, and freer society. Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was not the dangerous, impoverished, and extremist country that it has been for the past twenty-five years. Whether it can recapture the encouraging path to development that it previously enjoyed remains to be seen. The threat of lawlessness is among the most pressing issues, and the shadow of the former Taliban government still remains.  Earlier this week, Khaled Hosseini, author of the best-selling Kite Runner (now a feature film), wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal calling for greater attention from the rest of the world on Afghanistan.  "Has the world forgotten us again?" a tribal elder asked plaintively.  The civil unrest that preceded the Taliban regime in the 1990s shows what the warlordism of Afghanistan can lead to when foreign countries enter Afghanistan, stir the pot to a boil, and leave it behind. 

So with the major challenges of ethnic divisions, the narcotics trade, and warlordism discussed thus far, there is one more to discuss in this column next week.  What else could there be?  This will be the "elephant in the room," to borrow a metaphor from one of my readers in the discussion board from an earlier article in the series.  With these three powerful impediments to democracy, there is one I judge to be even more difficult to overcome, and I will leave it until next week to discuss that "elephant."