KABUL: Afghanistan is considering training and arming 20,000 civilians to defend territories where Islamic militants have been driven out, officials say, sparking fears the local forces could become another thuggish militia.
The proposal for a government-backed armed group that would protect its own communities from the Taliban and the Daesh group comes as Afghanistan’s security forces, demoralized by killings and desertions, struggle to beat back a rampant insurgency.
But the proposal has raised concerns that the local forces could become unruly and turn into another abusive militia terrorizing the people it is supposed to defend.
“The Afghan government’s expansion of irregular forces could have enormously dangerous consequences for civilians,” said Patricia Gossman, a senior researcher at Human Rights Watch.
The New York-based group said Western diplomats in Kabul familiar with the plan — modelled on the Indian Territorial Army that supports the country’s regular forces — said Afghan officials had expressed concerns the militia could be used by “powerful strongmen” or become “dependent on local patronage networks.”
American and Afghan officials told AFP the fighters would come under the command of the Afghan army and be better trained than the Afghan Local Police — a village-level force set up by the US in 2010 and accused of human rights violations.
“Right now we rely on commandos and air strikes to retake the lost territories but after the commandos leave we don’t have enough forces to hold onto the territories,” said a senior Defense Ministry official who asked not to be named.
“The force will operate under an army corps and will be used to fill the gaps. They will be recruited from the locals and will be numbered around 20,000.”
Defense Ministry spokesman Dawlat Waziri confirmed to AFP that a plan for “local forces” was being discussed.
“People will be recruited from their areas because they know their regions and how to keep them,” Waziri said, but added there was no guarantee it would be implemented.
A spokesman for NATO’s Resolute Support train and assist mission also confirmed a proposal for an Afghan territorial army was on the table.
But another American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told AFP the idea was still in “the brainstorming phase.”
The Afghan government and its foreign backers have been cultivating militias to bolster the 330,000-strong Afghan National Security and Defense Forces as they battle to get the upper hand in the grinding conflict.
In Afghanistan, militias — private armies and government-backed armed groups — have a long and chequered history in the war-torn country and many Afghans are wary of them.
Civilian casualties were at record highs in the first six months of 2017, a UN report showed, with forces loyal to the Afghan government accounting for nearly 20 percent of the deaths and injuries.
Since NATO ended its combat mission in 2014 the Taliban has been gaining ground and Daesh is expanding its footprint.
As of February only about 60 percent of Afghanistan’s 407 districts were reported to be under government control, according to the US watchdog agency SIGAR.
Earlier this year Afghan President Ashraf Ghani ordered a near doubling of the country’s elite fighting force from 17,000 as part of a four-year roadmap that also aims to strengthen Afghanistan’s air force.
While US President Donald Trump’s commitment to increase American troop numbers and leave them there indefinitely has been welcomed by Afghan authorities, they know it will take time to improve the fighting abilities of their security forces.
With parliamentary and presidential elections planned in the next two years they want a security quick fix.
But critics fear that rather than support Afghanistan’s beleaguered security forces, the militia could aggravate factionalism and push Afghanistan deeper into conflict.
“It’s a tool that the US military and successive Afghan governments have reached for and it looks like a solution to their problems but actually the real solution would be to have a functioning ANA (Afghan National Army) and ANP (Afghan National Police),” Kate Clark, a senior analyst at Afghanistan Analysts Network, told AFP.
“It’s a dangerous thing to play with, arming your civilians.”
![]()
Kabul mulls plan to arm 20,000 civilians to fight insurgents
Kabul mulls plan to arm 20,000 civilians to fight insurgents
US House of Representatives passes war powers resolution backing Trump’s attacks on Iran
WASHINGTON: The House narrowly rejected a war powers resolution Thursday to halt President Donald Trump’s attacks on Iran, an early sign of unease in Congress over the rapidly widening conflict that is reordering US priorities at home and abroad.
It’s the second vote in as many days, after the Senate defeated a similar measure. Lawmakers are confronting the sudden reality of representing wary Americans in wartime and all that entails — with lives lost, dollars spent and alliances tested by a president’s unilateral decision to go to war with Iran.
While the tally in the House, 212-219, was expected to be tight, the outcome provided a clarifying snapshot of political support for, and opposition to, the US-Israel military operation and Trump’s rationale for bypassing Congress, which alone has the power to declare war. At the Capitol, the conflict has quickly carried echoes of the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many Sept. 11-era veterans now serve in Congress.
“Donald Trump is not a king, and if he believes the war with Iran is in our national interest, then he must come to Congress and make the case,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
House Speaker Mike Johnson warned that it would be “dangerous” to limit the president’s authority while the US military is already in conflict.
“We are not at war,” said Johnson, R-Louisiana, a close ally of Trump, contradicting others. He said the operation is limited in scope and duration, and the “mission is nearly accomplished.”
Republicans largely back Trump, and most Democrats oppose the war
Trump’s Republican Party, which narrowly controls the House and Senate, largely sees the conflict with Iran not as the start of a new war, but the end of a government that has long menaced the West. The operation has killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which some view as an opportunity for regime change, though others warn of a chaotic power vacuum.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his own constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” the country posed.
Mast, an Army veteran who worked as a bomb disposal expert in Afghanistan, said the war powers resolution was effectively asking “that the president do nothing.”
For Democrats, Trump’s attack on Iran, influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a war of choice that is testing the balance of powers in the Constitution.
“The framers weren’t fooling around,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., arguing that the Constitution is clear that only Congress can decide matters of war. “It’s up to us.”
Crossover coalitions emerged among those in Congress. Two Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the war powers resolution, while four Democrats joined Republicans to reject it.
The war powers resolution, if signed into law, would have immediately halted Trump’s ability to conduct the war unless Congress approved the military action. The president would likely veto it.
Trump officials provide shifting rationale for war
Trump has scrambled to win support for the nearly week-old conflict as Americans of all political persuasions take stock. Administration officials spent hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week trying to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
Six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait, and Trump has said more Americans could die. Thousands of Americans abroad have scrambled for flights, many lighting up phone lines at congressional offices as they sought help trying to flee the Middle East.
Trump said Thursday he must be involved in choosing Iran’s new leader. Yet Johnson, R-Louisiana, said this week that America has enough problems at home and is not about to be in the “nation-building business.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the war could extend eight weeks, twice as long as the president first estimated. Trump has left open the possibility of sending US troops into what has largely been a bombing campaign. More than 1,230 people in Iran have died.
The administration said the goal is to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles that it believes are shielding its nuclear program. It has also said Israel was ready to act, and American bases would face retaliation if the US did not strike Iran first. The US said Wednesday it torpedoed an Iranian warship near Sri Lanka.
“This administration can’t even give us a straight answer of as to why we launched this preemptive war,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, the Republican from Kentucky, an outlier in his party.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who had teamed up to force the release the Jeffrey Epstein files, also pushed the war powers resolution to the floor, past objections from Johnson’s GOP leadership. Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, a former Army Ranger, also voted for it. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Greg Landsman of Ohio and Juan Vargas of California voted against.
“Congress must stand with the president to finally close, once and for all, this dark chapter of history,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, said that as the daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled their homeland, she opposes the regime but is concerned that a democratic transition for the people of Iran never seems to a priority for Trump or the officials who briefed Congress.
“War carries profound and deadly consequences for our troops, for the American people and for the entire world,” she said. “It’s the most serious decision that a nation can make.”
Other Democrats have proposed an alternative resolution that would allow the president to continue the war for 30 days before he must seek congressional approval. The House also approved a separate measure affirming that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Senators sit in their desks for solemn vote
In the Senate, Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts during Trump’s second term. This one, however, was different.
Underscoring the gravity Wednesday, Democratic senators sat at their desks as the voting got underway.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that every senator will pick a side. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East?” he asked. Or with Trump and Hegseth “as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Sen. John Barrasso, second in Senate Republican leadership, said, “Democrats would rather obstruct Donald Trump than obliterate Iran’s national nuclear program.”
The legislation failed on a 47-53 tally mostly along party lines, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in favor and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, against.
It’s the second vote in as many days, after the Senate defeated a similar measure. Lawmakers are confronting the sudden reality of representing wary Americans in wartime and all that entails — with lives lost, dollars spent and alliances tested by a president’s unilateral decision to go to war with Iran.
While the tally in the House, 212-219, was expected to be tight, the outcome provided a clarifying snapshot of political support for, and opposition to, the US-Israel military operation and Trump’s rationale for bypassing Congress, which alone has the power to declare war. At the Capitol, the conflict has quickly carried echoes of the long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and many Sept. 11-era veterans now serve in Congress.
“Donald Trump is not a king, and if he believes the war with Iran is in our national interest, then he must come to Congress and make the case,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
House Speaker Mike Johnson warned that it would be “dangerous” to limit the president’s authority while the US military is already in conflict.
“We are not at war,” said Johnson, R-Louisiana, a close ally of Trump, contradicting others. He said the operation is limited in scope and duration, and the “mission is nearly accomplished.”
Republicans largely back Trump, and most Democrats oppose the war
Trump’s Republican Party, which narrowly controls the House and Senate, largely sees the conflict with Iran not as the start of a new war, but the end of a government that has long menaced the West. The operation has killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which some view as an opportunity for regime change, though others warn of a chaotic power vacuum.
Republican Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, publicly thanked Trump for taking action against Iran, saying the president is using his own constitutional authority to defend the US against the “imminent threat” the country posed.
Mast, an Army veteran who worked as a bomb disposal expert in Afghanistan, said the war powers resolution was effectively asking “that the president do nothing.”
For Democrats, Trump’s attack on Iran, influenced by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a war of choice that is testing the balance of powers in the Constitution.
“The framers weren’t fooling around,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., arguing that the Constitution is clear that only Congress can decide matters of war. “It’s up to us.”
Crossover coalitions emerged among those in Congress. Two Republicans joined most Democrats in voting for the war powers resolution, while four Democrats joined Republicans to reject it.
The war powers resolution, if signed into law, would have immediately halted Trump’s ability to conduct the war unless Congress approved the military action. The president would likely veto it.
Trump officials provide shifting rationale for war
Trump has scrambled to win support for the nearly week-old conflict as Americans of all political persuasions take stock. Administration officials spent hours behind closed doors on Capitol Hill this week trying to reassure lawmakers that they have the situation under control.
Six US military members were killed over the weekend in a drone strike in Kuwait, and Trump has said more Americans could die. Thousands of Americans abroad have scrambled for flights, many lighting up phone lines at congressional offices as they sought help trying to flee the Middle East.
Trump said Thursday he must be involved in choosing Iran’s new leader. Yet Johnson, R-Louisiana, said this week that America has enough problems at home and is not about to be in the “nation-building business.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that the war could extend eight weeks, twice as long as the president first estimated. Trump has left open the possibility of sending US troops into what has largely been a bombing campaign. More than 1,230 people in Iran have died.
The administration said the goal is to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles that it believes are shielding its nuclear program. It has also said Israel was ready to act, and American bases would face retaliation if the US did not strike Iran first. The US said Wednesday it torpedoed an Iranian warship near Sri Lanka.
“This administration can’t even give us a straight answer of as to why we launched this preemptive war,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, the Republican from Kentucky, an outlier in his party.
Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who had teamed up to force the release the Jeffrey Epstein files, also pushed the war powers resolution to the floor, past objections from Johnson’s GOP leadership. Republican Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, a former Army Ranger, also voted for it. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Greg Landsman of Ohio and Juan Vargas of California voted against.
“Congress must stand with the president to finally close, once and for all, this dark chapter of history,” said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, said that as the daughter of Iranian immigrants who fled their homeland, she opposes the regime but is concerned that a democratic transition for the people of Iran never seems to a priority for Trump or the officials who briefed Congress.
“War carries profound and deadly consequences for our troops, for the American people and for the entire world,” she said. “It’s the most serious decision that a nation can make.”
Other Democrats have proposed an alternative resolution that would allow the president to continue the war for 30 days before he must seek congressional approval. The House also approved a separate measure affirming that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Senators sit in their desks for solemn vote
In the Senate, Republican leaders have successfully, though narrowly, defeated a series of war powers resolutions pertaining to several other conflicts during Trump’s second term. This one, however, was different.
Underscoring the gravity Wednesday, Democratic senators sat at their desks as the voting got underway.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said that every senator will pick a side. “Do you stand with the American people who are exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East?” he asked. Or with Trump and Hegseth “as they bumble us headfirst into another war?”
Sen. John Barrasso, second in Senate Republican leadership, said, “Democrats would rather obstruct Donald Trump than obliterate Iran’s national nuclear program.”
The legislation failed on a 47-53 tally mostly along party lines, with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, in favor and Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, against.
Latest updates
© 2026 SAUDI RESEARCH & PUBLISHING COMPANY, All Rights Reserved And subject to Terms of Use Agreement.