‘That Guy’ by LMS Defense- The Comics. Artwork by Righteous Duke.
Posts Tagged private military companies
But executives with international mining firms said in interviews that while they believed that Afghanistan’s mineral deposits held great potential, their businesses were not planning to move into the country until the war was over and the country more stable.
“There are huge deposits there,” said David Beatty, chief executive of Rio-Novo Gold, a mining company based in Toronto. “But as chief executive, would I send a team to Kandahar? And then call a guy’s wife after he gets shot? No.”
*****
I was reading an excellent book the other day called “The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations” by Ian Bremmer, and it was quite the read. Basically, if you track the actions of countries like China in places like Iraq, Africa or Afghanistan, you start to get the idea that something is going on here. That state owned companies have the advantage over private industry in these war ravaged and resource rich countries. That reality is what worries me, and in the larger battle over resources in this world, we need to make some adjustments.
The problem is that private industry just does not want to take the risk of entering these places, because there is just too much liability. Besides, a private company does not have the full weight and support of a country behind it, but a Chinese owned company does. That is a huge advantage.
I have talked about clashes before between free markets and state capitalism in the past, and a prime example was the battle between China and Google. Another example was between Chinese companies and all of the privately owned oil companies going after contracts in Iraq. In both examples, China is able to win contracts or do whatever they want to bend the markets to their advantage, all because they have the full strength of a country behind such endeavors. They can absorb risk, do whatever they want to their people, pay whatever they want, etc., and this hybrid machine called state capitalism is definitely a factor to deal with in the market place.
So how do companies compete against such a thing? That is a question that I am not qualified to answer. The book provides some answers, and I highly suggest folks to check it out. All I can provide in this conversation are some ideas to alleviate concerns about risk in these countries. Private security is what private industry (along with free market supporting governments like the US) uses to protect their investments, and that is what I specialize in. In this war between state capitalism and free markets, security contractors are right there on the front lines.
One thing that can happen to help in our fight against state capitalism, is for capitalist countries to empower private security to do their job. If you make it impossible or difficult for us to be effective, then of course the risk will go up for those investors. This is a fine line to walk, but it is necessary to address if you want to benefit from that free markets that capitalism needs in order to flourish.
Now with Afghanistan, we have a deal where Chinese companies are aggressively pursuing these mineral claims and the rest of the world wants nothing to do with the things. They fear the risk due to the war and politics of the region, and rightly so. With that said, all and effort must be made by the coalition to make that market more attractive to private industry and to allow private industry to do what it needs to do in order to alleviate that risk. Because right now, we are losing that war between state capitalism and free markets in the places where the West has done all of the heavy lifting and dying. -Matt
——————————————————————-
Afghanistan Moves Quickly to Tap Newfound Mineral Reserves
By ALISSA J. RUBIN and MUJIB MASHAL
June 17, 2010
KABUL, Afghanistan — The Ministry of Mines announced Thursday that it would take the first steps toward opening the country’s reserves to international investors at a meeting next week in London even as Afghans expressed a mixture of hope and doubt about the government’s commitment to develop the country’s newly documented mineral wealth.
The focus of the meeting will be the Hajigak area of Bamian Province, which has major iron ore deposits, the Mines Minister, Wahidullah Shahrani, said at a news conference here.
It was Mr. Shahrani’s first public appearance since news that the country had at least $1 trillion in untapped mineral resources became public after an article appeared Monday in The New York Times that detailed findings of the Pentagon and United States Geological Survey. Afghan officials described the $1 trillion estimate conservative and said their estimates suggested the reserves could be worth as much as $3 trillion.
“This good news has the potential of adding a lot of value to the economy of Afghanistan and it will serve the development of Afghanistan,” Mr. Shahrani said.
The previously unknown deposits include huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium. With so many minerals that are essential to modern industry, Afghanistan could be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, according to American officials.
Two hundred mining investors from around the world have been invited to next week’s meeting in London where they will offer suggestions for how to develop the iron ore deposits at Hajigak, said Craig Andrews, the principal mining specialist for Afghanistan for the World Bank.
Well duh! It all makes sense now. CNAS comes out with a report on contractors, fully supporting our use and the future use of contractors in our wars, and now DoS wants to form a ‘mini-army’?(well…. they’ve always had a mini-contractor army)
And the ‘monopoly of force’ argument gets another challenge by none other than…… the US Department of State? Max Weber is rolling in his grave as we speak. lol (I had to stick that one in there…)
I am also reminded of the scenes of Air America rescuing South Vietnamese and American civilians off of the roof top during the last days of the Vietnam War. That was a contractor air force that did that, and not a military one. The idea here is that contractors are the filler during the dangerous stages of a draw down or build up of a war. We can fill those gaps of operational need, and as fast as they come up. Private industry is flexible enough to do this, and account for the surprises or worse yet, poor planning of the war.
Even with natural disasters like the BP spill in the gulf, you must have a partnership between private and public forces in order to meet the operational requirements of the disaster. When the feds run out of a specific resource, or let’s say a disaster has done something completely unexpected, private industry can instantly address the problem. Or in some cases, the federal government can jump in and take over where private industry is faltering. The key to me is to find some kind of equilibrium within that war or disaster, where we reach the sweet spot of private and public partnership. -Matt
Edit: 6/14/2010- I would like to correct one of the things I mentioned in this post that one of my readers brought to my attention as partially wrong. During the draw down stage of the Vietnam war, this was largely a military effort. So I want to emphasize that the military did most of the heavy lifting, and Air America ‘assisted’ in that process. Or in other words, it was a team effort, with the military taking the lead. Here is a run down of Operation Frequent Wind, as just one example of that process.
Also, check this out. The author of this article changed the title of the thing. The content is the same. I will bet that he got some heat for putting together this original title below. The new one says “State Dept Wants Combat Gear For Security In Iraq“. Just a tad bit less flowery or sensationalistic than the original. lol
————————————————–
This BAE Caiman is what the DoS is requesting for their security force. They want 50. They also want 24 Blackhawk Helicopters.
State wants to form a mini-army for Iraq security
By RICHARD LARDNER
June 14, 2010
WASHINGTON — The State Department is quietly forming a small army to protect diplomatic personnel in Iraq after U.S. military forces leave the country at the end of 2011, taking their firepower with them.
Department officials are asking the Pentagon to provide heavy military gear, including Black Hawk helicopters, and say they will also need substantial support from private contractors.
The shopping list demonstrates the department’s reluctance to count on Iraq’s army and police forces for security despite the billions of dollars the U.S. invested to equip and train them. And it shows that President Barack Obama is having a hard time keeping his pledge to reduce U.S. reliance on contractors, a practice that flourished under the Bush administration.
In an early April request to the Pentagon, Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary for management, is seeking 24 Black Hawks, 50 bomb-resistant vehicles, heavy cargo trucks, fuel trailers, and high-tech surveillance systems. Kennedy asks that the equipment, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, be transferred at “no cost” from military stocks.
Contractors will be needed to maintain the gear and provide other support to diplomatic staff, according to the State Department, a potential financial boon for companies such as the Houston-based KBR Inc. that still have a sizable presence in Iraq.
One of the problems I have with this paper is that a government should embrace the power of private enterprise and the free markets, and find ways of using these security companies to only help in their war time strategy. This paper operates on the assumption that the state has to have a monopoly on force in the first place, and I don’t think this is correct. It seems that CNAS has recognized that we shouldn’t assume this either, and I think the ISW should reconsider this point of the paper. The state should not be afraid to use private security, and instead should be thankful that a company would even serve in this capacity for the state.
Now how they serve the state is dependent upon the contract/war strategy and how much effort the government puts into ensuring they get a good deal. You have to care if you want a good service, and caring means monitoring, regulating, and enforcing, or what I like to refer to as a ‘trust, but verify’ attitude. It is a lesson that the US must learn(or any country for that matter), and it is a lesson that the Afghan government must learn, if in fact they want to take advantage of the strengths of private industry(wealth building, innovation, employment, etc.) and be a player on the world stage.
Check out the paper and let me know what you think. -Matt
——————————————————————
Consolidating Private Security Companies in Southern Afghanistan
May 28, 2010
By Kimberly Kagan and Carl Forsberg
This backgrounder outlines the complex relationship between private security companies and ISAF in southern Afghanistan.
Introduction
Dozens of Private Security Companies (PSCs) operate in Kandahar city and province, frequently doubling as the militias of local powerbrokers. These armed groups also operate on a contractual basis to provide security for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and private, Afghan companies. Because PSCs are under the control of powerful individuals, rather than the Afghan National Security Forces, they compete with state security forces and interfere with a government monopoly on the use of force. There is growing pressure from ISAF and within the Afghan government to reform and regulate these companies. Major General Nick Carter, the commander of Regional Command-South (RC-S), recently briefed that ISAF was developing a strategy to regulate PSCs as part of the Kandahar Operations unfolding in summer 2010.1
If not properly structured, however, the regulation of these PSCs in Kandahar may reinforce the existing power structures, strengthen the hand of local powerbrokers such as Ahmed Wali Karzai, and further weaken the ANSF. An initiative underway to consolidate the security companies in southern Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate the problems caused by PSCs, rather than reducing their influence.
Download the publication here.
Link to webpage here.
Now this is a better product and I can tell they actually listened to their contributors. So bravo to CNAS for putting together a great report. If you look at the cast of contributors, you will also see that they took advice from guys like Doug Brooks, David Isenberg and a whole bunch of private military companies and military professionals. For the record, I was not a direct contributor, but I know some of the ideas of FJ made it out there in one way or another.
For one, they actually brought in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution as a counter to Max Weber’s definition of the state. (the Second Amendment could also be looked at as a counter as well) I was beside myself when I read this in their ‘inherently governmental’ section, and I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they actually went there. They did and bravo to them for having the courage to challenge this sacred cow of thought.
This kind of sets the pace for the entire publication, because CNAS and all of it’s contributors were actually making the argument for the use of contractors in war time. It is an acknowledgement of that ‘elephant in the room’ called contractors, and it is an excellent first step towards combining private industry and government for the good of the nation and the wars it fights. To me, it has always been about unity of effort and command, and ensure private industry only helps government, not hurt it. If we can figure out how to achieve that unity of effort and command, I think the next step is what will really be radical.
I have argued on this blog that today’s war planners, leaders and strategists should make an effort to at least acknowledge that elephant in the room called contractors or private industry. We are getting there and I am enthused about the process. But to me, the next level of discourse about private industry is how do you turn that animal into a war elephant?
To me, it is not enough to just acknowledge our existence and say ‘oh well, private industry is that big dumb animal that we all have to get used to’. That is like using a pistol to hammer nails. I would make the argument that instead, private industry should be looked at from a strategic point of view and the question should be asked is ‘how do we use private industry to help win our wars and maintain a position of strength in the world today’? That is the next level of discourse about this subject, and that is the kind of thinking that could possibly lead to victory in our current wars. I say this, because there is a tremendous effort taking place to actually figure out how to regulate and utilize private industry during times of war, and this paper and current legislative action is proof of that process. So once we figure out how to shoot the pistol, as opposed to using it to hammer nails, we can then start discussing how to use that pistol in warfare.
Now on to the paper. Below I have listed some of the issues that popped up as I was reading it. Just little things that came to mind, that could help refine the product. Ideas are cheap, and I throw them around freely here. I have also listed some interesting portions of the paper to give the reader a taste. Be sure to check out all of the contributors, to include Allison Stanger (she provided the forward). Enjoy and let me know what you think.-Matt
——————————————————————
Contracting In Conflicts: The Path To Reform
By John Nagl and Richard Fontaine
06/07/2010
In both Iraq and Afghanistan today there are more private contractors than U.S. troops on the ground. This exploding reliance on contractors costs U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and has grown with inadequate government oversight. This report – authored by Richard Fontaine and John Nagl - details the urgent need for comprehensive reform. The United States must embark on a path of ambitious reform that will require: new laws and regulations; an expansion of the government’s contracting workforce; a coordination mechanism within the executive branch; greater scrutiny, more transparency and clearer standards for private contractors; a strategic view of the roles contractors play in American operations; and a change in culture within the government.
Download the paper here.
Link to website here.
I am digging this, because if government or private industry wants to fully integrate mobile devices into their operations, security is paramount. Any means of either shutting down a device remotely or automatically if it is breached, stolen or lost, is a good idea. I could also see a bio-button having application for other tools of this industry.
For one, a bio-button could be used to control the fire control mechanism of a sidearm? Meaning if someone takes your weapon or god forbid you lost it, then it would not be capable of firing because it is outside of the range of the bio-button. Just don’t lose the bio-button! lol You could also apply the bio-button concept to vehicles, safes, entry points, you name it. Although I would put a manual over ride on the button, just incase there is a problem or an attacker uses some kind of electronics frying weapon. Cyber warfare comes to mind with these kinds of devices as well, hence why it is so important to have a strategy within the organization to deal with these threats.
One cool thing with losing the bio-button according to these guys, is that you can shut down everything remotely using a computer. The other handy feature is the button can be set up to vibrate if for chance, whatever you are tracking has gotten out of your range. You could also use such a device for close protection, and have a specialist carrying the button and the principal having the mobile device. Lot’s of uses for something like this. I could also see bio-buttons being integrated into every day items that we keep on us anyways. A watch, a necklace, a ring, sunglasses, etc. I look at a device like this as adding redundancy to your sensitive/valuable equipment management system. I don’t look at it as way to shirk personal responsibility towards managing your stuff, but it could definitely help.
It can also help companies to ensure their stuff is being taken care of by their employees or contractors. If the device can be shut down remotely, well then it can be monitored remotely as well. A company can tell if an employee or contractor has that equipment within their reach or not, and this is just one more way of insuring accountability of that equipment. Stuff to think about and this is definitely PMC 2.0 material. -Matt
—————————————————————–
Microlatch ID me Solution
The new Bluetooth ‘bio-button’ mobile security system
Microlatch and a Sydney based development group has created a system that will conveniently and effectively shut down internet fraud, at the same time create a convenient all in one, secure mobile phone (or mobile device) solution to access control, mobile banking, online shopping, home automation, alarm systems, computer and network logins and any number of customised access or login scenarios.
This innovative, patented, three factor securi ty approach using biometrics to provide positive ID in conjunction with mobile phones using a bluetooth interface will allow users to harness the processing power of the modern mobile device in a convenient yet secure form.
User controlled and ‘user friendly’, this method of ensuring positive ID via a biometric ‘Bio-button’ wirelessly ‘paired and tethered’ to a mobile device resolves the security risks inherent with keeping the ‘registered users’ biometric data and digital keys stored on such devices.
For example, a convenient ‘one time’ biometric authentication via the separate ‘Bio-button’ to a ‘smart phone’ allows the user to make full use of the enormous computing and processing power now available in this type of mobile platform.
By utilising the processing power and wireless connectivity available to users via such devices, the ‘id-me’application will allow users to configure various levels of security thereby providing the user customised, secure physical access but also allowing expansion into ‘positive ID’ security for financial institutions, online payment systems, online shopping, contact-less payment systems etc.
Excellent little paper on the nuances of calling for and attending a Jirga or Shura. I put this up on the blog because contractors attend these meetings all the time, as well as the military. That means we can hurt the war effort or help the war effort, all based on how we conduct ourselves at these kinds of meetings. Do you want to be the guy or the company that completely pisses off a region or village because you did not know how these meetings worked?
My intention here is to get individual contractors thinking about this stuff, and try to apply some of these lessons learned to their own processes out there. That is Kaizen and that is what is required of any company or individual that claims to have a learning organization or claims to be a student of warfare. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Also, if you go to this link at Small Wars Journal, you can follow along in the conversation and talk with the authors about the subject. Enjoy. -Matt
—————————————————————–
Tribal Engagement: The Jirga and the Shuraby Major Jim Gant and William “Mac” McCallister
According to NATO’s military chief of intelligence in Afghanistan, the Taliban now maintain shadow governors in thirty-three out of thirty-four provinces. While we like to see the world in black and white, the complexities of relationships and alliances in the village and valley make it anything but a straightforward contest between two parties. The U.S. strategy of stripping away Taliban loyalists is not easy in a very complex socio-political landscape. This landscape includes different types of traditional authority, local rivalries and the various configurations of social power in each village and valley.
The rubber of U.S. strategy meets the road in the village assembly. It is in the local assemblies where Coalition Forces speak directly with the local inhabitants and indirectly with the shadow governors of the Taliban. Identifying ahead of time the familial, sectarian, security, economic and political alliances represented in a given village or valley assembly will assist in identifying how these alliances might influence group decisions. We must also contemplate, identify and differentiate between two very different village assemblies: the jirga and shura.
*****
Major Jim Gant is currently assigned to the Afghanistan Pakistan Hands (AFPAK Hands) Program as a Tribal Engagement Advisor. AFPAK Hands is designed to develop cadres of officers (and civilians) from each of the military’s services who agree to three to five year tours to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region. He will be returning to Afghanistan in the near future.
William “Mac” McCallister is a retired military officer. He has worked extensively in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. He has applied his study of tribal culture in assessing reconstruction efforts, as well as insurgency and counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Global War on Terror.
Download the paper here.
Link to Small Wars Journal post and discussion here.
“There is no doubt about it — the people of Oruzgan love Matiullah!” said Fareed Ayel, one of Mr. Matiullah’s officers on the route. “The government people are not honest.”
Like many of Mr. Matiullah’s men, Mr. Ayel quit the police to join his militia, which paid him a better salary.
Indeed, many people in Tirin Kot praise Mr. Matiullah for the toughness of his fighters and for keeping the road open. Mr. Matiullah claims to have lost more than 100 men fighting the Taliban. Recently, he and several of his fighters followed an American Special Forces unit to Geezab, where the Taliban had been expelled after six years.
*****
I have to say, I am conflicted with this one. Dexter brings some very compelling points to the table, and I think in this one I will lean on the side of ‘devil’s advocate’. Is Matiullah a warlord or Al Capone type, or is he the CEO of a respected company who is actually doing a better job of taking care of the people than the government? I seem to remember that Al Capone was famous for hearts and minds operations with soup kitchens etc. Or is this a case of a little jealousy and competition between government and private industry, like with the US Postal Service versus Fedex?
In this case, I wouldn’t call Matiullah an enemy of the state. In this war against the Taliban, Matiullah’s men are fighting and dying for our side and that to me makes him less of an Al Capone type. He is a businessman, and his business is security. He has also lost over a hundred men in defense of NATO convoys, and Matiullah is employing thousands of Afghans with his businesses.
Just look at his actions. In order to command over these roads with his security teams, he has to go up against the same enemy forces that the coalition has to. And because he has the manpower and logistical ability, he can effectively canvass entire roads to keep them safe for convoys. This so-called warlord, is winning over the people of these districts, so he can successfully deliver these goods for NATO and the coalition. If you get the support of the people by becoming the source of income of the people, then you have effectively created a system that will support your business goals. If protecting the road and these NATO goods is the business, then that is what the local populations will be a part of. Not only that, but he is the guy providing 15,000 jobs to the locals, and he is paying a better salary than the government!
My point is, and I keep bringing this up over and over and over again. You must pay more than your competitors, if you want to attract the best. You must also treat your people better than your competitors treat theirs. Of course police and army officials are going to leave to join Matiullah’s PMC, if in fact he is paying more or treating them better. And if the people respect that PMC and what it has done, then that makes the decision to join that much easier. War and business are a lot alike in this regard.
We are also seeing this in places like Somalia, where Al Shabab is paying more than the TFG government. And if Al Shabab or any other group has the respect of the people or is even tolerable, then the choice to ‘jump contract’ is quite easy. Soldiers and police have to feed their families. More importantly, they have to choose the winning side or face the consequences of being associated with the losing team.(death and imprisonment for self and family come to mind)
I also see where Dexter is going with this article. Of course we want the government to be the top dog in our modern western way of thinking. But it is kind of hypocritical for the US to point this fact out, when we are using over a quarter million contractors in this war. Or if we were to really put some context on this, the US used thousands of privateers during our early wars, and certainly there was no real monopoly on the use of force during that time. Hell, we even implemented the Second Amendment in our constitution which allowed citizens the right to ‘keep and bare arms.’ Not to mention Article 1, Section 8 which allows our congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal. The US is a prime example of why Max Weber’s definition of the state is flawed. There is certainly not a monopoly on the use of force in the US, and my gun locker filled with rifles and pistols is proof positive of that. The key to Afghanistan’s future is how can they co-op with guys like Matiullah and keep him on the right side of the war.
The Aghan government is looking at Matiullah in the wrong light. Instead, they should be studying what he is doing and try to learn from it. But by all means do not demonize him or force him to cross over to the enemy’s side. If anything, his business should be a source of inspiration. After all, his contractors are dying in defense of NATO convoys and not Taliban convoys. With that kind of sacrifice, the government should be embracing Matiullah, and at the same time trying to figure out how to win over the local populations like he has done. If Matiullah is violating any laws or paying off the Taliban, then of course that should be pursued and he should face the consequence. But he should not be demonized or persecuted for running a profitable and legitimate business that employs thousands of people.
Now if the Afghan government wanted to out do Matiullah, a good first step is to pay more than him. The second step is to out do Matiullah in protecting and serving the local population. It is the same with the war against the Taliban. The government must prove to the local populations that they are a better idea. -Matt
——————————————————————
With U.S. Aid, Warlord Builds Afghan Empire
By DEXTER FILKINS
June 5, 2010
TIRIN KOT, Afghanistan — The most powerful man in this arid stretch of southern Afghanistan is not the provincial governor, nor the police chief, nor even the commander of the Afghan Army.
It is Matiullah Khan, the head of a private army that earns millions of dollars guarding NATO supply convoys and fights Taliban insurgents alongside American Special Forces.
In little more than two years, Mr. Matiullah, an illiterate former highway patrol commander, has grown stronger than the government of Oruzgan Province, not only supplanting its role in providing security but usurping its other functions, his rivals say, like appointing public employees and doling out government largess. His fighters run missions with American Special Forces officers, and when Afghan officials have confronted him, he has either rebuffed them or had them removed.
“Oruzgan used to be the worst place in Afghanistan, and now it’s the safest,” Mr. Matiullah said in an interview in his compound here, where supplicants gather each day to pay homage and seek money and help. “What should we do? The officials are cowards and thieves.”
Mr. Matiullah is one of several semiofficial warlords who have emerged across Afghanistan in recent months, as American and NATO officers try to bolster — and sometimes even supplant — ineffective regular Afghan forces in their battle against the Taliban insurgency.
In some cases, these strongmen have restored order, though at the price of undermining the very institutions Americans are seeking to build: government structures like police forces and provincial administrations that one day are supposed to be strong enough to allow the Americans and other troops to leave.
In other places around the country, Afghan gunmen have come to the fore as the heads of private security companies or as militia commanders, independent of any government control. In these cases, the warlords not only have risen from anarchy but have helped to spread it.
Afghanistan: Contractor Bill Shaw Being Held In Violent Afghan Jail, Family Fears For His Life
Jun 4
Boy, this one stinks and I feel for the friends and family of Bill Shaw. I don’t know enough about the case to make an accurate comment, but I do know the IPSSC and others have been involved with trying to get attention on this. In my Robert Langdon post, Bill was mentioned as well. If you would like to support Bill Shaw on Facebook, here is a link and let’s get the word out on this. -Matt
——————————————————————
Former RMP Officer Bill Shaw.
Family fears for Briton held in violent Afghan jail
Jerome Starkey
June 4, 2010
The family of a former British army officer jailed in Afghanistan on corruption charges have spoken of their fears for his safety after visiting him in one of the country’s most violent jails.
Bill Shaw, 52, was sentenced in April to two years in prison and fined $25,000 (£17,000) when a court found him guilty of trying to bribe an Afghan official. The former Royal Military Policeman was a manager of G4S, a security company that guards the British Embassy in Kabul.
Shaw was arrested with an Afghan colleague after handing over $25,000 for the release of two impounded vehicles. In court he said he thought it was a legitimate release fee, paid to a uniformed Afghan official. “He has been a victim of something set up,” said his daughter Lisa, 32, who travelled to Kabul with her mother Liz, 51, on Monday. Kimberley Motley, an American lawyer, is mounting Shaw’s appeal.
President Karzai has been repeatedly criticised for failing to reduce corruption within his Government. Although he referred to it as a cancer, he maintains that the West is just as guilty.
The country’s courts are notoriously opaque, justice can often be bought, and judges can be influenced by warlords, religious leaders or power brokers. In many parts of the country, Afghans turn to the Taleban who offer strict Islamic law, because it is preferable to the lengthy, expensive and often unfathomable state alternative. Shaw was convicted by a panel of three judges despite the prosecution’s failure to present witnesses.
