Posted by revolution in : JihÄd, Knowledge, True ShuyÅ«kh, TÄlibÄn ,
The Mujahid Shaykh, Abu Yahya al-Libi - hafidhullah - said regarding the Taliban:
“Our brothers the Taliban, all praises and thanks belong to Allah, are a group of action and learning with the ‘Ulema as the leaders and the students as the troops. Those who know them or live with them in war and peace, prosperity and hardship, realize that they are people of piety, faith, and a search for righteousness on numerous issues. If you asked any individual, he would not need to scratch his head before he answered.
It is enough to say in all fairness and frankness that it is the only contemporary Jihadi movement that was raised by the ‘Ulema and their students, both leaders and grassroots. They have been its vast majority before it came to power and during its governorship and will be again when it returns to power, Allah willing. When people ask when, answer soon, hopefully.”
["Defending the Group that Took Korean Hostages," pgs. 3 & 4]
Posted by revolution in : AfghÄnistÄn, News, TÄlibÄn, United States of Losers ,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ30Df02.html
As the US public is dimly aware, things are not going very well in Afghanistan.
The most recent United Nation situation map for Afghanistan issued September 3 paints a grim picture: there are large swaths of the country where things are getting worse. This includes the entire area surrounding Kandahar on the Pakistan border in the south, as well as areas on the Pakistan-Tajikistan border in the northeast and other areas on the Turkmenistan border to the northwest.
Despite the deterioration of security in the Afghan countryside - illustrated by the recent massacre of 24 bus passengers by the Taliban on a major highway in Helmand province - a Taliban reconquest of Afghanistan is unlikely. (See Death stalks the highway to hell, Asia Times Online, October 24, 2008)
Recall that it took years, US$5-6 billion in CIA funding matched dollar for dollar by the Saudis, and a concerted national effort by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan assisting a variety of domestic and foreign fighters to expel the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. It also took officially sanctioned safe havens in Pakistan that the Russians wouldn’t violate, and a supply of Stinger missiles to negate the vital Soviet advantage in helicopter-based mobility and firepower.
None of these conditions currently exist in Afghanistan.
The United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) can’t be driven from Afghanistan militarily. Nor, however, can the Taliban be crushed in the foreseeable future.
The political will inside the US to remain in Afghanistan is not lacking, especially since the Taliban insurgency is tangled up with the unresolved issue of Osama bin Laden, who has still escaped American retribution in the Taliban-controlled or Taliban-friendly areas of eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan.
Democratic Senator Barack Obama, the likely victor in the upcoming presidential elections, has made support for the “Good War” in Afghanistan the necessary counterweight to his condemnation of the “Bad War” in Iraq, and has vowed to send two to three more brigades to Afghanistan in order to turn around the situation there. He is not going to put his administration on the wrong side of the “Are the Democrats too weak on national security” debate by trying to disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.
The US is going to be in Afghanistan for years to come. The only thing that’s going to change in Afghanistan is the objectives.
The Afghan adventure is expensive, onerous, and unpopular, and most of the 40 or so countries participating in the International Security Assistance Force and the host of NGOs trying to better the lives of the downtrodden Afghani people would like to see a new policy. Specifically, one that separates the existential goal of crushing al-Qaeda from the strictly local issue of what political grouping gets to run the failed state of Afghanistan, and tries to slice and dice and co-opt the insurgency instead of pursuing the impossible goal of crushing the Taliban’s entrenched power in Afghanistan’s mountains and countryside.
The world has made its voice heard, and America has apparently listened.
All the indications are that the US military and foreign policy establishment has already abandoned the ambitious neo-conservative objective of crushing the Taliban and remaking Afghanistan as a functioning democracy.
America’s Afghanistan policy is falling into the hands of the realists, whose highest priority is maintaining a tractable and viable client in Kabul, keeping Afghanistan securely inside the US sphere of interest, holding on to a key chess piece in Central Asia’s “great game” of energy resources and pipeline infrastructure, and offering the Pentagon another basing option to bedevil Russia and Iran.
Despite the absurdity of a multi-year, multi-billion dollar entanglement in Central Asia that will do little more than advance unilateral US security objectives, America’s allies will be willing to demonstrate their support for new US leadership after the disastrous George W Bush years, and will probably heed an American call for a redoubled effort in Afghanistan.
The key suppliers of money and manpower to the NATO effort in Afghanistan - Great Britain, Canada, Germany, and Australia - are all under administrations that have made continued engagement in Afghanistan a cornerstone of their foreign policies but now demand a fundamental change in course.
With a broad international consensus on Afghanistan, the US will now seek to impose a firm hand on the emerging policy process - and prepare public opinion still mired in the obsolete death-match-versus-the-Taliban-and-al-Qaeda mindset pursued over the past six years at the cost of thousands of lives and tens of billions of dollars for a brave new world in which the Taliban enter the government and Afghan democracy goes out the window.
Time is of the essence - in order to halt the military decline inside Afghanistan and to co-opt a burgeoning non-US peace initiative for the region that might pre-empt US direction of the effort in Afghanistan. Otherwise, control of the terms of engagement in confronting Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgency might slip from America’s fingers.
In counterinsurgency, the US military learned from Vietnam that the battle is not won or lost only on the battlefield; victory in the op-ed pages of the homeland is vital as advocates of a prolonged fight in a distant land struggle to sustain the flagging will and interest of the weary populace and wary commander-in-chief.
Nobody understands this better than David Petraeus, the canny and able general who skillfully orchestrated congressional testimony, opinion pieces by himself and conservative public intellectuals, and media coverage to recast the political terms of debate, and adroitly channel the 2006 wave of US domestic opposition to the Iraq war - and the Baker-Hamilton report intended to serve as its enabling document - into the surge that, for better or worse, will keep American military power at the heart of Iraq’s security equation for the foreseeable future.
General Petraeus will take the top spot in US Central Command, responsible for the entire Middle East, on October 31, and is already preparing his plan to rescue the faltering Western effort in Afghanistan.
He recently gave the Washington Post a tour of the virtual armory in which he is forging his weapons in the battle for public opinion - the Powerpoint presentations, op-ed pieces, leaks, and favorable coverage by pundits and reporters that will encourage a new president hungry for a national security triumph to give him a free hand.
From the October 16 edition of the Washington Post:
General David H Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of US strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it “the longest campaign of the long war”.
The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of US Central Command, beginning October 31.
… experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war. …
Petraeus’ Joint Strategic Assessment Team … is reaching out to handpicked experts as well as State Department, Pentagon and other civilian and military officials with experience in the region.
The team will comprise about 100 people, organized initially into six subregional teams, tasked with investigating the root causes of insecurity in the region with the goal of finding solutions that integrate military action, diplomacy and development work.
Petraeus’ vast authority, resources and latitude in setting the terms of the Afghanistan debate should be a source of concern. As a noted authority on South Asia asserted, “General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can’t decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan,” Barnett Rubin commented.
Ironically, Dr Rubin’s allegiance to the quaint concept of civilian control over foreign policy may have cost him a seat at General Petraeus’s round table of knights questing for the counter-insurgency grail.
Jim Lobe reports that Rubin’s collaborator on the think-piece “From Great Game to Grand Bargain”, one of the seminal documents of the Taliban engagement policy, Ahmed Rashid, was invited to join the general’s brain trust. But Dr Rubin apparently was not.
After eight years of catastrophic civilian foreign policy leadership, maybe the zeitgeist of that war is too important not to be left to the generals.
But fear not. In classic milspeak, we are reassured that the military will keep an eye on the military. There’s a plan:
An overview of the review team’s mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will “mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems”.
Indeed, the trends both in the NATO countries and in the key South Asian countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan all point to a consolidation of expert consensus in favor of an Afghanistan change of course and a concurrent media campaign to enlighten and guide the befuddled populace in support of the new policy, all under military direction.
Already, the British flank has been secured - apparently, the UK is always needed to provide the figleaf of multilateralism for these sorts of things - with the appointment of a new numero uno for the British Army eager to support another push in Afghanistan.
In a sign of how things are changing, this development was reported as an exclusive by Kim Sengupta in Britain’s left-of-center newspaper, The Independent. Those with memories of the run-up to the Iraq war will remember that these sorts of exclusives used to be the preserve of neo-con outlets like Conrad Black’s Telegraph.
A general who believes a “surge” of 30,000 more troops is needed in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban will be appointed as the new head of the British Army today, The Independent has learnt.
General Sir David Richards, who will take over from General Sir Richard Dannatt, is believed to favor sending up to 5,000 more British troops to Afghanistan on top of the 8,000 already in the country. The other 25,000 troops would be made up of US reinforcements and newly trained Afghan soldiers.
In the same issue, The Independent also obligingly excerpted a platitudinous speech given by US Secretary of Defense (and possible holdover in an Obama administration) Robert Gates - to the US Institute of Peace! - apparently to reassure Europe that the Pentagon had moved beyond the Bush administration’s knee-jerk reliance on military force and is prepared do things in Afghanistan in a holistic hearts-and-minds way:
We must be prepared to change old ways of doing business and create new institutions – both nationally and internationally – to deal with the long-term challenges we face abroad. And our own national security toolbox must be well-equipped with more than just hammers.
The context for all this reasonableness is, of course, the fact that Afghan President Hamid Karzai, even with the support of 53,000 foreign troops (23,000 US troops under US command, 30,000 US, British, and other troops in ISAF - the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force), has failed to gain traction in the Taliban areas and in fact is referred to as “The Mayor of Kabul” in a mocking reference to the shrinking size of his realm.
Via Dawn:
LONDON, Oct 5: The UK’s commander in Helmand has dampened Britain’s hopes of a “decisive military victory” in Afghanistan saying that the aim of the mission was to ensure the Afghan army was able to manage the country on its own.
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith told the Sunday Times that this could involve discussing security with the Taliban. … Carleton-Smith is the Commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan.
He paid tribute to his forces and told the newspaper they had “taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008″. But he stated: “We’re not going to win this war.” …
He said: “If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that’s precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this.”
“That shouldn’t make people uncomfortable.”
Well, it doesn’t make the Financial Times uncomfortable:
LONDON, Oct 11: Britain’s Financial Times newspaper has advised the US and NATO to review their present policies in Afghanistan and come to some kind of a peaceful settlement with the Taliban.
“It may be shocking that the military might of the West cannot defeat the Taliban, but it is true,” said the daily in an editorial: “The unwinnable war in Afghanistan”.
The French did their piece by leaking a cable from France’s top diplomat in Kabul, reporting that the British ambassador, Sherard Cowper-Coles, believed that a) Afghanistan was going all to hell b) the Karzai regime was doomed and c) the presence of foreign forces only made things worse. From the International Herald Tribune: “The current situation is bad, the security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has lost all trust … The presence of the coalition, in particular its military presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution,” Cowper-Coles was quoted as saying. “Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would rapidly collapse without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from the crisis.”
And more from the Danes, in a report from AFP:
Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said in an interview published Wednesday he supported the idea of the Afghan government holding talks with the Taliban, albeit with some conditions. …
The rights women have regained since the Taliban were driven from power in 2001 should also not be negotiable, he said.
“We should civilize the Taliban so Afghanistan is not ‘Talibanized’ again, otherwise we’ll have to leave the country,” said the Danish foreign minister.
Japan’s Asahi Shimbun joined the chorus in an October 18, 2008, editorial on “MSDF Refueling Bill”, pointing out that “The best strategy now is to explore reconciliation through talks with moderate members of the Taliban for a peace agreement to isolate the terrorist organization al-Qaeda.”
Even the new commander of the British Army, General Richards, while calling for his 30,000 troop surge into Afghanistan, had to concede the need for negotiations:
General Richards also believes that a negotiated settlement may be necessary to end the conflict, but that any talks must take place with the Afghan government and NATO in a position of strength.
Contrary to General Richards, negotiations have not only already begun, but have already yielded concrete outcomes.
International Peace Day, September 21, was marked in Afghanistan by a truce between Taliban, international, and Afghan government forces to permit the delivery of polio vaccinations to Afghan children:
Medics with polio vaccinations pushed into some of Afghanistan’s most volatile provinces on the United Nations’ Peace Day Sunday with a Taliban pledge they should not be harmed during the three-day drive.
The Taliban had also agreed to not carry out any attacks on Peace Day following a call from President Hamid Karzai that resulted in the Afghan and international military forces agreeing to refrain from offensive operations. …
The Taliban said Saturday it had ordered its followers to allow the vaccinators safe access to their areas. They had copies of a letter from the group’s leadership asking for them to be unharmed, [WHO representative Peter] Graaff said.
In a further sign that the international community sees Taliban political and military strength as signs of a significant domestic insurgency that can and must be negotiated with, and no longer through the lens of the American Global War on Terror (GWOT) as a target for utter annihilation, the UN’s envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide also gave a cringing shout-out on the UN website to the Taliban to help the UN deliver humanitarian aid in significant swaths of the country in which the Karzai writ apparently does not run:
“I will take this opportunity to appeal to the Taliban and to appeal to its leaders to ensure access for food distribution and to expand the humanitarian agenda that we should share,” he said. “There are disagreements on so many things – but let us demonstrate that we can share this humanitarian agenda.”
Most worrisome for the United States, Afghan president Hamid Karzai - aware that America’s peripatetic viceroy, Zalmay Khalilzad, has his eyes on Karzai’s job and perhaps resentful of the overbearing US micromanagement of his administration as a result - apparently slipped the leash and did not wait for a change in US policy to conduct talks with the Taliban.
While American pundits fulminated about terrorist havens in South Waziristan, Karzai sent his brother to participate in a meeting with the Taliban under Saudi Arabia’s aegis in September.
In an article entitled “Source: Saudi hosts peace talks with Afghan, Taliban reps”, CNN reported on September 28:
LONDON, England (CNN) - In a groundbreaking meeting, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently hosted talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban militant group, according to a source familiar with the talks.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia hosted meetings between the Afghan government and the Taliban, a source says.
The historic four-day meeting took place during the last week of September in the Saudi city of Mecca, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the negotiations.
King Abdullah broke fast during the Eid al-Fitr holiday with the 17-member Afghan delegation - an act intended to show his commitment to ending the conflict. . . .
The current round of talks is anticipated to be a first step in a long process. According to the source close to the talks, it has taken two years of behind-the-scenes meetings to get to this point …
During the talks, all parties agreed that the only solution to Afghanistan’s conflict is through dialogue, not fighting.
Saudi Arabia - a US ally and critical security and economic asset in the region for the last six decades - is also the homeland of most of the 9/11 hijackers, protector of the Sunni faithful, and a long-time ally of the Taliban and other conservative and largely anti-American forces in the Middle East. As US credibility and clout waned in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, Saudi Arabia has been quietly but determinedly playing its own hand in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, often to the detriment of US clients elevated to power as part of the US democracy crusade.
In US eyes, there’s only one thing that Karzai could do that’s worse than participating in a competing regional diplomacy initiative spearheaded by the Taliban-friendly Saudi Arabia. And he’s already done it.
From the Pakistan media outlet Dawn:
KABUL: Afghan President Hamid Karzai advised the Taliban leader in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar to return to Afghanistan and guaranteed his safety.
In an exclusive interview to Geo television channel, Karzai said, I propose Mullah Omar to get back to Afghanistan as I will be wholly and solely responsible for his security and I shall be answerable to the whole of the world on his behalf.
Karzai also invited Mullah Omar to join him in the political process of Afghanistan by being hopeful for the next presidential election as Karzai reckoned Omar’s return in the best interest of the prosperity and safety of the country.
Mullah Omar is, of course, the head of the Taliban, brother-in-arms (and according to unconfirmed sources, brother-in-law) of Osama bin Laden, whose government was toppled by Operation Enduring Freedom. From Dawn’s tortured syntax, it appears that Karzai is inviting Mullah Omar to participate in the presidential elections scheduled for next year.
Mullah Omar’s return to Afghanistan political life would be an intolerably vivid illustration of the futility of the world’s six-year effort to remake Afghanistan.
As Bloomberg reports, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, was compelled to say that he drew the line at talks with Mullah Omar. “I, in my wildest imagination, would not consider Mullah Omar a reconcilable,” he said.
If that wasn’t enough, Karzai further hedged his bets by opening talks with the notorious Gulbuddin Hekmatayr of death by shipping container fame, according to The Independent:
According to diplomatic sources the Karzai government opened channels to Hekmatyar through members of his family who visited Kabul. Three months ago the warlord’s son-in-law, Dr Ghairat Baheer, was released after spending six years in an Afghan prison and is said to be playing a part in ongoing negotiations.
Although his forces are engaged in fighting inside Afghanistan, Hekmatyar has remained independent from the Taliban and is said to be at odds with its religious leader Mullah Omar. Some of President Karzai’s advisors believe that a truce, in which he will be rewarded by being given a government post, may encourage other militant leaders to consider negotiations.
US dissatisfaction with Karzai can be divined from the flood of negative press concerning Karzai’s inept and faltering government and the allegation that another brother, who is nominally in charge of Kandahar province, the Taliban stronghold in the southeast, is Afghanistan’s biggest opium-trafficker.
It appears that the key job before General Petraeus will be to co-opt the regional impetus toward a negotiated settlement, prevent Saudi Arabia from mid-wifing a power-sharing arrangement favorable to the Taliban, assert American control and direction over the process to assure America’s continued presence at the center of Afghan’s security equation, and spike the loose cannons that threaten his plan.
Near the top of the list of leaders to be sidelined may well be Hamid Karzai, who apparently does not enjoy the confidence or affection of any of the NATO nations who are being asked to prolong their involvement in Afghanistan, and who have pressed for a housecleaning in Kabul and accommodation with the Taliban.
Britain’s acerbic ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, is apparently ready to wash his hands of Karzai, according to the leaked French cable reported in the IHT:
Within 5 to 10 years, the only “realistic” way to unite [Afghanistan] is for it to be “governed by an acceptable dictator”, the cable said, adding that “we should think of preparing our public opinion” for such an outcome.
However, finding a suitable replacement for Hamid Karzai, perhaps from the nascent Afghan army if the available warlords are too unsavory, is not the only issue for General Petraeus.
Even if NATO, the central Afghan authority, and the Afghan Taliban get on the same page, there is still the question of how much collateral damage to tolerate - or provoke - in Pakistan.
US drone attacks and border raids targeting Taliban sanctuaries in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) are threatening to turn localized unrest in the mountainous fringes of Pakistan into an existential threat to the Pakistani state.
Inside Pakistan, enthusiasm for US aims and tactics in the “war on terror” - especially non-stop rummaging through Pakistan’s border territories in search of bin Laden and al-Qaeda assets - is conspicuously lacking. Support for Pakistani casualties on behalf of the stabilization of the US-backed regime in Kabul is virtually non-existent, especially given the extensive sympathy for the Pashtun and conservative Islamic character of the Taliban inside Pakistan.
The Pakistani Taliban have exploited this apathy with an urban bombing campaign targeting US interests such as the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad and Pakistan government security organs.
Veteran South Asia and Taliban watcher, and Asia Times Online’s Pakistan Bureau Chief, Syed Saleem Shazad reported on the message that the Taliban sent the Pakistani elites with its latest outrage, a bomb hidden in a basket of sweets that destroyed the headquarters of Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorist Force in the capital of Islamabad:
A letter recovered from the gift basket read, “If Pakistan does not separate itself from the American crusade on Muslims, these sort of attacks shall continue.”
Despite brave chest-beating in the national press about the need to make the war on terror Pakistan’s war, it appears that the Taliban has done a very good job of convincing Pakistani opinion that peace in the heartland and accommodation on the borderlands is preferable to a titanic struggle against intermeshed Pashtun and Islamic conservative interests.
An in-camera session of Pakistan’s parliament meant to rally the political parties behind the pro-US/anti-terror initiatives of the civilian government led by Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party turned into a humiliating demonstration that the government lacked the credibility or authority to lead the nation.
Radical Islamic parties openly questioned the premise of a Pakistani war on terror and demanded that the Taliban be allowed to present their side of the story to parliament.
The powerful democratic party, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz -led by Nawaz Sharif, arguably the most popular political figure in Pakistan, refused to make any constructive contribution to the debate on the government’s behalf - a telling indication that the PPP government is profoundly isolated both from conservative and moderate Pakistani opinion on the issue.
Undoubtedly, Sharif calculates that, as the United States slides toward accommodation with the Afghan Taliban, any calls for all-out war on the Pakistan Taliban will become practically and politically untenable.
On October 17, Saeed Shah reported in The Guardian:
“The majority of the people of Pakistan do not see it as our war. We are fighting for somebody else and we are suffering because of that,” said Tariq Azim, a former minister in the previous government of Pervez Musharraf, whose party now sits in the opposition. “At the moment the only ones toeing the line are the People’s party.”
Members of parliament are particularly angered by recent signals from Washington that it is prepared to talk to the Afghan Taliban, while telling Pakistan that it must fight its Taliban menace. “They [the US] are showing a lot more flexibility on their side of the border,” said Khurram Dastagir, a member of parliament for Sharif’s party. “The US are trying to externalize their failure in Afghanistan by dumping it on us.”
Asif Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, co-chairman of the PPP and president of Pakistan, has staked his political fortunes on splitting with the other democratic parties after the parliamentary election and replacing Pervez Musharraf as America’s client in Pakistan.
However, hamstrung by unpopular policies, confronted by a ruthless and militant insurgency, and dogged by a popular and wily rival, Zardari appears incapable of delivering the counter-terrorism results in the border areas that America is looking for.
And Zardari may have signed his political death warrant by temporarily closing the Torkham border crossing in September into Afghanistan to NATO fuel truck traffic, reportedly as a protest to placate Pakistani military and popular opinion infuriated by the flagrant and repeated US ground and drone incursions in Pakistan.
The Torkham border crossing is at the Khyber Pass and the terminus of the fabled Grand Trunk Road, the immense and ancient artery of travel and trade that crossed British India all the way from Calcutta to the border of Afghanistan.
Torkham is on the only road to Kabul from Pakistan (the only other high volume border crossing, at Chaman, far south in Balochistan, feeds into the Taliban heartland of Kandahar) and serves as the conduit for fully 70% of NATO’s supplies, which travel by ship to Karachi, are trucked up the Indus Valley, climb a long, winding, and perilous route through the frontier territories to Torkham, and then roll down a heavily protected corridor to Kabul.
Closing Torkham is critical matter. I don’t think Musharraf ever did it, because he understood that America’s massive financial subvention to Pakistan wasn’t meant to buy the mobilization of his indifferent army or his equivocal intelligence services - it was to assure a reliable, protected conduit for NATO materiel through Pakistan to Afghanistan.
When, after 9/11, Richard Armitage allegedly threatened to bomb Pakistan back into the Stone Age if it didn’t cooperate in the GWOT and help destroy its clients in Kabul - he was probably thinking about getting Pakistan to facilitate the massive flow of fuel and equipment through Torkham.
No doubt when Zardari closed the border crossing, calculators rattled to life in officers throughout the Pentagon as spooks and logistics officers ran the numbers to decide if the immense cost of airlifting NATO supplies to Afghanistan would be a better deal than pumping $1.2 billion per year in subsidies into the pockets of a feckless and unreliable client like Zardari.
Pakistan is finding itself hopelessly on the wrong side of the regional strategic equation, both in its border regions and across the Durand Line in Afghanistan.
Beyond its traditional intelligence and diplomatic ties to the Taliban, Pakistan’s enthusiasm for the US-led campaign against the Afghan Taliban is also tempered by the awareness that its archenemy India has rushed into Afghanistan under US and UK cover after the invasion to make hay at Pakistan’s expense.
India made the decision to participate in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and has opened four consulates in Mazar e Sharif, Jalalabad, Kandahar, and Herat with the idea of what is known euphemistically as enhancing its strategic depth, a decision that terrifies and infuriates Pakistan. A report on Rupee News construed India’s presence in Afghanistan as 107 “consulates” in which 20 intelligence units are burning their midnight oil to destabilize Pakistan.
In an unhappy piece of symbolism, at almost the same time that Zardari was cutting off Kabul’s lifeline at the Khyber Pass to the west, India’s signature infrastructure project in Afghanistan was completed: 218-km Delaram-Zaranj road connecting Afghanistan’s “Garland Highway”, which loops through all of the country’s major cities, to a customs crossing at the Iranian border and from there down to the Iranian port of Chabahar.
Constructed by a 400-man team of the Indian government’s Border Roads Organization (BRO) - a military department analogous to the US Army Corps of Engineers tasked with construction of strategic infrastructure, the project was funded as a donation by the Indian government and took five years to complete. Despite the protection of India’s Indo-Tibetan Border Police, multiple attacks by the Taliban claimed the lives of at least five Indian BRO staff and 62 Afghan policemen.
The $80 million project carries with it the joint hope of three of Pakistan’s enemies - the Karzai government, India, and Iran - that the road will wean landlocked Afghanistan away from its reliance on Pakistan’s Karachi-to-Khyber conduit, challenge Pakistan’s massive Gwadar port project (built just down the coast from Chabahar with $200 million in Chinese aid) as the gateway to central Asia and the Middle East, and further weaken Pakistan’s position in Afghanistan.
Pakistan regards the entrenched Indian presence in Afghanistan as a threat to its west tolerated by the United States, which has cultivated India, most markedly through a highly concessionary bilateral nuclear agreement, as a large, prospering, and stable counterweight to China’s economic and military clout in Asia.
India has little natural constituency of its own in 99% Muslim Afghanistan and would suffer a swift and brutal erasure of its influence if the pro-Pakistan Taliban were to return to power; but it appears that the United States is prepared to support India’s interests now and presumably in whatever dispensation is negotiated with the Taliban.
When the United States passed on to the Indian government information that Pakistan’s intelligence agency was implicated in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul - and leaked the accusation to the press - Pakistan must have seen the handwriting on the wall.
The fundamentals simply aren’t there for Pakistan to be a sincere or effective participant in US security goals either in west Pakistan or in Afghanistan, and the United States is no longer pretending that it is. More important, however, is the fragility of the Pakistan government, with the US adding to the internal pressures.
In a sign that Asif Zardari’s lack of enthusiasm and effectiveness have become a terminal problem, the key points of a pessimistic upcoming National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was leaked to the press - an assessment prepared to support General Petraeus’s review.
Perhaps General Petraeus wanted his NIE both bleak and leaked in preparation for the upcoming foreign policy/national security tussle for the incoming president’s attention.
In another sign of what is, for Republicans, probably a sign of the approaching apocalypse, the NIE findings were leaked to the liberal-leaning McClatchy News Service’s Jonathan Landay and John Walcott, and not to the Washington Times or even the Washington Post:
A US official who participated in drafting the top secret National Intelligence Estimate said it portrays the situation in Pakistan as “very bad”. Another official called the draft “very bleak”, and said it describes Pakistan as being “on the edge”.
The first official summarized the estimate’s conclusions about the state of Pakistan as: “no money, no energy, no government”.
Translation: in the forthcoming debate about Pakistan in the new presidential term, there will be no happy talk about our plucky partner in the so-called “war on terror”. There will be grim hand wringing about how to keep Pakistan from dragging down US efforts to preserve Operation Enduring Freedom’s fruits of victory.
The choices before Petraeus will presumably be to 1) ignore the facts on the ground and persist in previously unsuccessful attempts to bribe, threaten, or cajole Pakistan’s civilian regime to provide effective support in the border regions; 2) wash his hands of Pakistan and let Islamabad cut loose from the Afghan effort and make its separate peace with the Pakistani Taliban; or 3) roll the dice with a new, more capable, and enthusiastic client insulated from the democratic entanglements of the civilian government - for example, a new round of military rule.
Given the likelihood that a Taliban with safe havens inside Pakistan is unlikely to put the Afghan government and NATO in the “position of strength” that Britain’s General Richards believes is a necessary pre-condition for talks, it is quite possible that the United States will look at the turmoil and division in the Zardari administration, recoil at the possibility that new elections will elevate Nawaz Sharif - a client of Saudi Arabia and strongly committed to decoupling from the US “war on terror” and negotiations with the Taliban - to power, and find itself encouraging a Pakistani general to step forward and to implement the policies that the United States believes necessary.
And, when one considers that Petraeus might find it desirable - as the British ambassador already believes - to have a boss with genuine military heft replace Karzai in Kabul in order to affirm the authority and credibility of the Afghan government, the US may be faced with the ironic choice of eliminating two South Asian democracies in the name of a continued struggle to bring freedom to the region.
If the objective of Petraeus’ struggle turns out to be merely to gain the advantage in a negotiated settlement with the Taliban forces we swore to destroy after 9/11, the irony will be deep - and, to many, bitter.
Posted by revolution in : News, Pakistan, TÄlibÄn, United States of Losers ,
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – U.S. special forces have begun teaching a Pakistani paramilitary unit how to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida, hoping to strengthen a key front-line force as violence surges on both sides of the border with Afghanistan.
The sensitive mission puts rare American boots on the ground in a key theater in the war against extremist groups, but it risks fanning anti-U.S. sentiment among Pakistani Muslims already angry over suspected CIA missile attacks on militants in the same frontier region.
“The American special forces failed in Afghanistan and Iraq,” said Ameerul Azim, an official in the hard-line Islamic party Jamaat-e-Islami. “Those who failed everywhere cannot train our people.”
Despite such complaints, the training program comes as some tribes in the frontier zone are setting up militias to help the Pakistani government combat extremist movements. The new forces have been compared to the Sunni Arab militias in Iraq that helped beat back the insurgency there.
Still, the U.S. training program is reportedly smaller than originally proposed and was delayed, apparently reflecting misgivings in Pakistan’s government about allowing U.S. troops on its territory.
Its start has not been officially announced, but a Pakistani military officer and a U.S. defense official told The Associated Press that two to three dozen trainers arrived earlier this month.
The Pakistani said the Americans had already begun training senior personnel of the paramilitary Frontier Corps at an undisclosed location in Pakistan’s restive northwest, adjacent to Afghanistan. He said the course included classroom and field exercises.
The Pentagon official said the Americans would stay for a few months. He said that it would likely be a one-time effort and that there were no plans to send more trainers.
Both agreed to discuss the program only if granted anonymity, because details had not been made public.
Asked about the program Thursday, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to give any specifics. But he contrasted the mission with much larger U.S. training efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. soldiers are embedded with local units on the battlefield.
“It is a train-the-trainer type of concept,” Whitman said. “They are not actually conducting operations.”
The Frontier Corps is a relic of British rule that was long a poorly armed, untrained police force that the government hopes can be remade into a potent unit capable of confronting Taliban militants.
Its troopers are local men, in contrast to the army, which is dominated by ethnic Punjabis and is viewed as an occupying force by the Pashtun tribes living on both sides of the border. U.S. and Pakistani officials argue that the corps’ local knowledge and cultural sensitivities make it the best tool in a battle where winning hearts and minds is crucial.
The goal is that a strong Frontier Corps can take on most combat duties, allowing a gradual pullback of the army that is hoped will ease tensions in the northwest.
The U.S. has poured some $10 billion into Pakistan since the then-president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, turned against his former Taliban allies in Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Most of the money has gone to the army, including the $70 million earmarked for the Frontier Corps program.
U.S. forces already trained Pakistan’s Special Services Group, a commando unit that crushed militants holding Islamabad’s Red Mosque last year. Washington also has supplied the helicopter gunships that are seeing heavy use in army offensives in several Pakistani border regions.
But with the war dragging in Afghanistan, U.S. lawmakers and commentators have questioned why Pakistan still seems unable to eradicate militant sanctuaries on its side of the border.
“This thought has come pretty late in the day,” Rasul Bakhsh Rais, a professor of political sciences, said of Pakistan’s decision to let the trainers in. “But still I don’t think it is too late, given the fact that this is going to be a very long war.”
With many Pakistanis accusing their army of fighting a proxy war against its own citizens at Washington’s behest, U.S. officials have said Pakistan was reluctant to accept foreign training, but softened its stance in the light of mounting losses.
Musharraf, who was forced out of office earlier this year, announced a plan in 2007 to build up the Frontier Corps so it could confront Taliban fighters.
At the time, its troops had no body armor, few vehicles and an arsenal of only aging rifles. With U.S. help, the corps has received several more battalions, been armed with tanks and artillery and is now heavily involved in fighting in the Bajur and Swat areas.
American officials have said they are also supplying equipment such as helmets, flak vests and night-vision goggles.
“The hope is that the more trainers we train, the more effective they will be in training their forces and the more capable forces will then be able to take the fight to the militants in the tribal areas where they operate,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.
The training program has begun despite strains in Pakistani-U.S. relations.
Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who replaced Musharraf as army chief, and the former leader’s successor as president, Asif Ali Zardari, have maintained close ties with Washington. But they have condemned the recent U.S. missile strikes, the latest of which killed nine people Thursday.
Cooperation has also been chilled by an incident in June when U.S. warplanes killed 11 Frontier Corps troopers at a border post. U.S. officials said the action during a skirmish with militants was justified. Pakistan’s army insists no shots were fired from the post.
U.S. officials suspect some Frontier Corps troops sympathize with the Taliban and ignore militants sneaking though mountain passes into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and NATO troops.
Pakistani officials agree the corps has problems, but analysts say a better trained force is more likely to have the confidence to take on the militants. American officials also hope it will become a better partner for cross-border cooperation.
___
Associated Press writers Lolita Baldor in Washington and Munir Ahmad in Islamabad contributed to this report.
Posted by revolution in : AfghÄnistÄn, News, TÄlibÄn ,
The Mujahideen of Afghanistan responded to the recent Cellphone plan of the UK; the last part is hilarious and really exposes the Kuffaar for who they are:
A radical new plan is being considered by the UK government to counter growing Taliban public awareness campaign against the invaders in Afghanistan. The programme involves using new media like mobile phones and the internet to propagandize the ordinary Afghans to contradict the prevailing Taliban true message. Non-governmental organizations would distribute mobile phones to Afghans so they can make their own video diaries. Anti-Western films already circulate on Afghanistan’s estimated 6 m mobiles. These films are also distributed among the country’s half a million internet users. Whitehall officials say the aim is to deprive the Taliban of its virtual monopoly on educating Afghans about our evil plans using new media. BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner said there is a growing realization in Whitehall and Washington that the US-led coalition has been losing the propaganda war in Afghanistan to the Taliban. The coalition’s reputation was particularly damaged by the recent distribution of mobile phone footage showing the bodies of dozens of Afghan civilians martyred in a US-led raid in August, our correspondent added. They’re willing to give poor Afghans mobile phones while there is still a food shortage over there. This isn’t exactly the way to win the war of “hearts and minds.”
Posted by revolution in : AfghÄnistÄn, News, TÄlibÄn, United States of Losers ,
nytimes
LONDON — As he prepares to take up his post as head of Central Command, Gen. David H. Petraeus said in an interview this week that he expected the fight against the insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan to get worse before it got better.
“Obviously the trends in Afghanistan have been in the wrong direction, and I think everyone is rightly concerned about them,” said General Petraeus, who as the commander of forces in Iraq oversaw the troop “surge” that has been credited with helping to reduce the violence there.
Turning things around in Afghanistan and Pakistan would require taking away militant sanctuaries and strongholds that the insurgents would defend tenaciously, he said. “Certainly in Afghanistan, wresting control of certain areas from the Taliban will be very difficult,” he said.
The same went for Pakistan, he said, where extremism presented a deadly threat, graphically highlighted by the recent Marriott Hotel bombing. “In both places, in certain areas, the going may be tougher before it gets easier,” he said.
General Petraeus was in London and Paris this week as part of several weeks of information gathering before he takes up his job as commander of all American forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan on Oct. 31.
He visited Afghanistan in August and spent a day with the Pakistani chief of army staff, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, on a United States aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea as part of his information gathering, he said.
General Petraeus’s experience in Iraq has allowed him to develop a comprehensive approach to fighting the counterinsurgency. But the general was careful not to take any lessons from Iraq too hastily, and said he would not be directing things in Afghanistan and Pakistan with a “several-thousand-mile screwdriver” from Central Command.
“People often ask, ‘What did you learn from Iraq that might be transferable to Afghanistan?’ ” he said. “The first lesson, the first caution really, is that every situation like this is truly and absolutely unique, and has its own context and specifics and its own texture,” he said.
“Counterinsurgents have to understand that in as nuanced a manner as possible, and then with that kind of understanding try to craft a comprehensive approach to the problems.”
Counterterrorism operations were just one small part of that approach, he said, among other efforts, which could include tribal Awakening Councils, jobs programs, efforts at reconciliation and diplomatic relations with neighboring countries.
For Afghanistan, he spoke of increasing international forces and what he called “thickening” local forces as well, through greater political engagement of tribes and reconciliation with fighters who were not hard-core. There was also the need to engage countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, to help with the Taliban, he said.
The general also stressed the need to work closely with Afghan leaders on all elements of strategy. “There has to be as much unity of effort achieved in the overall international effort in complete conjunction with the national government as this moves forward,” he said.
Yet some of the Iraq experience is already being examined in the Afghan context, he said. In particular the success of the Awakening Councils, and persuading former insurgents to reconcile and work against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, could work in Afghanistan and was already under consideration there, General Petraeus said.
“Certainly many on the ground think that perhaps in certain areas local reconciliation initiatives hold some potential,” he said.
“One of the areas that of course proved very important in Iraq and may, and I underline may, have some relevance in Afghanistan, is the concept of reconciliation,” he added. “That you cannot kill or capture your way out of an insurgency that is as significant in size as was the one in Iraq, nor, I believe, as large as the one that has developed in Afghanistan.”
In Iraq, General Petraeus had a two-star British general and a senior American diplomat working solely on reconciliation, he said. “Its sole mission was to understand various local situations and dynamics, and then in full coordination with the Iraqi government to engage tribal leaders, local governmental leaders, and in some cases insurgents and opposition elements,” he said.
In Afghanistan, efforts by the government of President Hamid Karzai to persuade the Taliban to give up the fight and reconcile with the government have largely failed, diplomats there say.
Even as several thousand Taliban have come over to the government in recent years, the size of the insurgency has swelled at a greater rate since 2006.
“These efforts truly do require a degree of outreach to as many as possible who would be willing to be part of the solution instead of a continuing part of the problem,” he said, “and the more of the former insurgents who can be reconciled, the less that have to be killed or captured.”
On Pakistan, he said he recognized the country’s determination to handle the problem of extremism using its own forces, as well as its opposition to United States military intervention, and said that was to be applauded and helped.
In particular he welcomed the government’s recent public recognition that extremism was now the most severe threat facing the country, because that recognition meant it would be adopted through all government institutions, he said.
“The heartening aspect is there appears to be a willingness on the part of the Pakistani government and military to undertake the kind of operations necessary,” he said.
Posted by revolution in : AfghÄnistÄn, JihÄd, News, TÄlibÄn ,
FRANCE 24 reporters accompanied a group of Taliban fighters on an attack against Afghan troops. The group’s leader has a warning for French troops after last month’s deadly ambush: leave now or face more.
To watch, click here http://flv.france24.com/WB%20EN%20MG%20REPORTERS%20120908.flv
Posted by revolution in : JihÄd, Pakistan, TÄlibÄn ,
al-jazeera
The Taliban said it was behind the attack and said it was targeting Gilani because he was responsible for offensives against their fighters in the country’s northwest.
“We will continue such attacks on government officials and installations,” Muslim Khan, a spokesman for the group, said.
The prime minister’s office said multiple sniper shots had been fired at the prime minister’s car and television pictures showed two bullet marks a couple of inches apart on the cracked bullet-proof window.
Some reports suggested Gilani’s son, Moosa, and Qamar Zaman Kaira, the federal minister for Kashmir and Northern affairs, were in the motorcade at the time, travelling to the airport to pick up the prime minister.
Officials said a formal investigation into the incident had been launched.
In the past, suspected al-Qaeda fighters have launched attacks on Pervez Musharraf - who stepped down as Pakistan’s president last month - attacks the former president only narrowly survived.
‘Security lapse’
Kamal Hyder, Al Jazeera’s correspondent, who was at the scene of the assasination attempt, said questions would be asked about the lack of security.
“The question is how the sniper was able to conceal himself and how he was able to make his escape,” he said.
“Reports suggest the sniper perched himself on a hilltop on the Islamabad highway from where he would have had a considerable vantage point on the convoy.”
Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s federal information minister, denied the incident occurred owing to lapse in security.
Mike Hanna, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Islamabad, said the prime minister was returning from a meeting in Lahore yesterday and was due to travel to his residence after arriving at Islamabad’s airport.
“This was a highly-skilled sniping attempt, given the vehicles were moving at high speed,” he said.
Gilani’s Pakistan People’s Party leader, Asif Ali Zardari, is standing for president in elections scheduled for September 6.
The Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibilty for an assasination attempt on Yousuf Gilani, Pakistan’s prime minister.
Shots were fired at the pime minister’s motorcade on Wednesday near Islamabad’s international airport, but officials and police said Gilani was not in the car at the time.
Posted by revolution in : AfghÄnistÄn, Funnies, JihÄd, News, TÄlibÄn ,
The following are some excerpts from the Telegraph:
By Nick Meo in Peshawar, Pakistan
Last Updated: 1:26AM BST 31 Aug 2008
Using age-old guerrilla tactics, they hijack or destroy the ponderous lorries creeping up the narrow road and sell the contents in local bazaars to finance new raids.
A prominent, independent tribesman from the Khyber region, who cannot be named for his own safety, told The Sunday Telegraph that the Pakistani army was close to losing control of the pass.
“You see vehicles destroyed by rockets on the side of the road,” he said. “The wreckage isn’t there for long, the army soon removes it to make it look as if they are still in control of the road. But they are on the verge of losing it.”
The number of attacks on supply convoys is a military secret, but the tribesman claimed they were occurring almost daily. Earlier this year 42 oil tankers were destroyed in one attack.
[...]
About 70 per cent of the fuel, clothes and food needed by Nato’s mission is transported in civilian Pakistani trucks through the Khyber Pass, a vulnerable point in a long route to Kabul which begins in the Pakistani port of Karachi.
The route is too risky to transport weapons and munitions, and most British supplies travel on the southern route from Quetta to Helmand.
There were hopes that Russia would ease Nato’s difficulties by granting access through its territory later this year, but that is now in doubt after the war in Georgia.
“If Nato lost control of the pass, there is no doubt that other routes would be found,” said Matthew Clements, the Eurasia analyst for Jane’s Country Risk. “But they are more difficult and expensive. It would interfere with the smooth running of the operation.”
[...]
The lorries’ cargoes are then sold in Peshawar’s thieves’ bazaars, where looted US Army and Marines Corps uniforms and equipment are openly displayed for sale.
Before being shooed away by an angry stallholder, The Sunday Telegraph saw a uniform with the surname “Franklin” emblazoned on the right breast and a book called “On Killing” with a photo of a soldier in Iraq on the cover.
Maps, entrenching tools, US military rations packs and even US medals turn up in stalls set up in a labyrinthine warren where the road heads out of Peshawar city and into a tribal area. US Army helmets are popular with motorcyclists and cricketers.
[...]
The Taliban’s tactics are similar to those used by Mujahideen guerrillas in the 1980s who crippled the Soviet Army by attacking supply convoys.
[...]
The Pakistan Army meanwhile is suffering from low morale and high desertion rates, especially because after years of being indoctrinated to fight Hindu Indian soldiers they are now being sent against fellow Muslims in a bloody war that looks unwinnable to many Pakistanis.
Posted by revolution in : AfghÄnistÄn, Al-Somood, DÄr al-MurabitÄ«n, JihÄd, Knowledge, TÄlibÄn ,
The massive Taliban jailbreak has always been a question of the US military; just how did they do it? It was an operation that was so complex and great that it appeared to be something out of a Hollywood action film.
Here is a translation from the Taliban’s Monthly Al-Somood Magazine done by Dar al-Murabiteen; we have done some slight editing for ease of reading.
On Friday evening, exactly at 9:30 of 6/13/2008, 3 groups of Mujahideen moved under the leadership of the defiant Sheikh Maulvi Nazar Muhammad Faiaaz, may Allah preserve him, to execute the plan of conquering the Central Kandahar prison, which lies in the Western area of the city of Kandahar in the area of Sarboza.
Reasons and motives for the operation
The heroic Mujahideen moved to perform the plan of this attack after around 400 arrested Mujahideen went on a hunger strike for 2 weeks due to the maltreatment they received from the jailers, in the Central Kandahar prison.
The puppet Karzai government had earlier sent, on 5/13/2008, a special committee to investigate and solve the problem of the detainees who had stitched their mouths as an apparent way of showing their hunger strike due to the maltreatment they received from the jailers.
The members of the committee told the officials in the Karzai government concerning the state of the detainees in the Kandahar prison and their pitiful condition. However they failed to do anything to address the complaints of the transgressed detainees and no decision that would benefit the detainees and would solve their problem was made. The Mujahideen, however, who were watching the situation of their detained brothers with utmost seriousness and were looking for a way of releasing their brothers from the hands of the transgressors started preparing for the operation of the conquest of the Kandahar prison and Allah the Almighty willed to bless this successful military planning and the detained Mujahideen with sincerity and escape from the hands of the transgressors.
Carrying out the operation
After the heroic Mujahideen decided to perform the operation on the Central building of the prison, they distributed the tasks on 3 attacking units, each one consisting of around 30 Mujahideen.
And every unit started carrying out its job as follows:
Group 1- It succeeded in blocking the way that led to the Central prisons from the base of the city in the area of Dand.
Group 2- It succeeded in closing the road to the prison from the area of Herat to the area of Baghi Bil.
And after the two groups succeeded in closing down the ways that led to the prison, the third group started raiding the prison by blowing a tank filled with explosive materials at the door leading to the prison that led to the complete destruction of the fore section of the prison. This was followed by a successful attack on the four towers that were being used by the guards of the prison. The Mujahideen succeeded, by the grace of Allah, to finish them off within 15 minutes. The group was entrusted with the releasing of the prisoners, breaking the doors and then breaking into the prisons.
The Mujahideen were able to, by the grace and bounty of Allah, to release all the detained Mujahideen who numbered around 450 and then they started releasing the remaining prisoners who were detained by the Karzai administration under the accusation of belonging to the Mujahideen, numbering around 650, who had spent several years in the prison without anyone knowing their fate.
Brother ‘Abdullah, one of the participants in the operation says that when he entered the prisons and broke the doors and was able to release all the detainees present in them, he entered into a special section inside the prison and found a number of detainees whose age exceeded 60. He asked them to leave the prison but they refused to go because of their incapability of moving and walking due to their paralysis and old age.
And after removing the prisoners from the prison, the Mujahideen divided all the detainees into a number of groups and every section’s responsibility was given to one of the Mujahideen appointed by Sheikh Maulvi Nazar Muhammad Faiaaz, may Allah preserve him, so that the prisoners reach a safe area. Therefore they took all the detainees first to Nakhoni and Zila Khan that lies within the control of the Mujahideen in the district of Panjwai and then they put them in the vehicles of the Mujahideen and delivered them to safe areas. The total number of detainees was around 1100 from the Mujahideen and others.
Reaction of the foreign and puppet forces
After listening to a frightful explosion that shook the city of Kandahar, the foreign forces present in the Kandahar airport and other areas in the city came towards the Kandahar prison but the ambushes of the Mujahideen were successful in combating the movements of these forces.
The Mujahideen used new techniques against the enemies whereof they placed balloons filled with gases on the way towards the prison. When the police and the foreign forces saw these balloons they retreated fearing that these balloons would blow up on them.
The strange thing about the matter is that the balloons placed on the road were simple balloons empty of even natural gas.
The foreign forces declared this as a very successful operation, whereof Brank Manoha, the official spokesman of the foreign forces, said in this regard – ‘We have to admit this: these people have done a very accurate job in this context.’
And the defense minister of Canada stated clearing that extra Canadian forces have spread throughout the city to prevent such operations to occur again, while the foreign forces and other world media sources mentioned the operation of the conquest of the Kandahar prison as a complex successful operation performed almost in the pattern of the Hollywood films.
The puppet Karzai administration fired many of the prominent military and administrative personalities in the city of Kandahar due to this operation, and at their head Sayed Agha Thaqib, the Chief of the Kandahar police, the Chief of the national and regional security, and the Chief of the Criminal section of the Western region.
The Karzai administration not only fired these people from their jobs but instead, gave them up to the General prosecutor’s office to carry out more investigations for the ‘Security lapse’, as they described it.
The harvest of the operation
The heroic Mujahideen harvested through performing this successful operation all the employees inside the prison, numbering around 35, between guards and employees. They were also able to, by the grace of Allah, rescue 450 detained Mujahideen, some of who where amongst the prominent military leadership positions at the level of Kandahar and the neighboring provinces that were leading strong military activities inside Kandahar city and around it, in preparing and planning martyrdom and ambush operations on the bases of foreign and puppet forces.
The effect of the operation on the psychology of the enemies
The performance of this operation had a heavy negative effect on the psychic of the enemy forces both foreign and interior, and their spirits were completely crushed after the Mujahideen were able to perform an operation in such an accurate technical manner that did not result in any casualty in the ranks of the Mujahideen. On the contrary, it had a positive effect on the Mujahideen and it raised their spirits due to the successful rescue of their brothers from the hands of the transgressors and they started performing comprehensive operations on the foreign and interior forces in different parts of Afghanistan especially on the convoys of the foreign forces that passed by the main roads from Kabul to the city of Heart.
The number of attacks that the Mujahideen performed on the convoys of the foreign forces on a single day was more than 25 (attacks) that resulted in the destruction and torching of 100’s of military vehicles and torching a large number of aid vehicles along with the death of 10’s of the foreign forces and their puppet helpers.
We will specify here the mention of torching and destruction of a convoy of aid vehicles that the Mujahideen performed in the Maidan Wardek province at a distance of 45km from the capital Kabul, burning more than 35 vehicles loaded with American aids and the death of many soldiers that accompanied it.
The wave of offensive operations on the bases and convoys of the foreign forces have also increased in Ghazni, Paktika, Paktia and Farrah resulting in the destruction of several foreign forces and their counterparts. This led to the admittance of the enemy of a large number of casualties, both human and material in the month of July in which the Kandahar operation took place.
And as per the report of CNN, the month of July marked the greatest loss of soldiers to the foreign forces since the beginning of the crusade wars in Afghanistan in 2001, the matter that makes the harvest of this month at 47 deaths from amongst the foreign forces alone. From amongst the dead this month were 21 American soldiers, 15 British soldiers, 5 Canadian soldiers and one from Poland, Romania and Majar and 3 others from other Kafir races of the West.
The Major General Jeffrey Shalomar, a high official in the American army, has warned about the increase and frequency of the attacks that target the foreign forces in Afghanistan.
Jeffrey also added that the current state witnesses the peak of attacks against the foreign forces, something that testifies to the toppling of the security condition in Afghanistan when compared to the recession of the average of attacks in Iraq.
The main pointer to the widening and rise in the military operations against the invaders is the interest and approach of the Afghani people on the pits of fighting and the toppling of the spirits of the occupiers in Afghanistan.
Summary
Performing the operations of the conquest of the Kandahar prison, and the operation of the Mujahideen on the celebration ceremony in Kabul, and the operation of the Serena Hotel at a few meters from the democratic Presidential castle in the Afghani capital and the death and injury of 100’s of occupation forces and the downing of several helicopters in a single month are considered a back-breaker for the skeleton of the Crusade alliance, concerning the planning of which the Mujahideen had formerly warned the oppressive forces in Afghanistan.
And the series of these blessed operations will continue until the oppressive Kafir forces are forced to run from the land of the Muslim Afghanistan.
And Afghanistan remains a pure Islamic State that bows only to the rule of Allah the Almighty, by the will of Allah.
(…on that day shall the believers rejoice) Surah ar-Room, Verse 4
Special Report
Translated by Dar Al Murabiteen publications
Taken from
Al-Somood, Monthly Islamic magazine
Published by
Media Section of Taliban Islamic Movement
3rd Year, 25th Edition
Rajab 1429, July 2008
Posted by revolution in : AfghÄnistÄn, JihÄd, News, TÄlibÄn ,
The following has been reported by the New York Times:
By CARLOTTA GALL and SANGAR RAHIMI
Published: August 19, 2008
BAMIYAN, Afghanistan — Taliban insurgents mounted their most serious attacks in six years of fighting in Afghanistan over the last two days, including a coordinated assault by at least 10 suicide bombers against one of the largest American military bases in the country, and another by about 100 insurgents who killed 10 elite French paratroopers.
The attack on the French, in a district near Kabul, added to the sense of siege around the capital and was the deadliest single loss for foreign troops in a ground battle since the United States-led invasion chased the Taliban from power in 2001.
Taken together, the attacks were part of a sharp escalation in fighting as insurgents have seized a window of opportunity to press their campaign this summer — taking advantage of a wavering NATO commitment, an outgoing American administration, a flailing Afghan government and a Pakistani government in deep disarray that has given the militants freer rein across the border.
As a result, this year is on pace to be the deadliest in the Afghan war so far, as the insurgent attacks show rising zeal and sophistication. The insurgents are employing not only a growing number of suicide and roadside bombs, but are also waging increasingly well-organized and complex operations using multiple attackers with different types of weapons, NATO officials say.
NATO and American military officials place blame for much of the increased insurgent activity on the greater freedom of movement the militants have in Pakistan’s tribal areas on the Afghan border. The turmoil in the Pakistani government, with the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf on Monday, has added to the sense of a vacuum of authority there.
But at least as important, the officials say, is the fact that Pakistan’s military has agreed to a series of peace deals with the militants under which it stopped large-scale operations in the tribal areas in February, allowing the insurgents greater freedom to train, recruit and carry out attacks into Afghanistan.
More foreign fighters are entering Afghanistan this summer than in previous years, NATO officials say, an indication that Al Qaeda and allied groups have been able to gather more foreigners in their tribal redoubts.
The push by the insurgents has taken a rising toll. Before the attack on Monday, 173 foreign soldiers had been killed in Afghanistan this year, including 99 Americans. In all of 2007, 232 foreign troops were killed, the highest number since the war began in 2001.
The attack with multiple suicide bombers, which struck Camp Salerno in the eastern province of Khost, wounded three American soldiers and six members of the Afghan Special Forces, Afghan officials said. It was one of the most complex attacks yet in Afghanistan, and included a backup fighting force that tried to breach defenses to the airport at the base.
The assault followed a suicide car bombing at the outer entrance to the same base on Monday morning, which killed 12 Afghan workers lining up to enter the base, and another attempted bombing that was thwarted later.
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahed, reached by telephone at an unknown location, said the attack was carried out by 15 suicide bombers, each equipped with machine guns and explosives vests, and backed by 30 more militants.
He also claimed that some of the bombers had breached the walls of the base and had killed a number of American soldiers and destroyed equipment and helicopters. This last claim was denied by Gen. Zaher Azimi of the Afghan military.
The insurgents began attacking with rockets and mortars at 11 p.m. Monday, and a group of militants began to move toward the airport side of the base, the Afghan military said. An Afghan commando unit encircled them, killing 13 militants, including 10 who were wearing suicide vests, General Azimi said.
A fierce battle raged through much of the night, until 7 a.m. Tuesday, said Arsala Jamal, the governor of Khost. American helicopter strikes against the militants, who were moving through a cornfield around the base, also struck a house in a village, killing two children and wounding two women and two men, the provincial police chief, Abdul Qayum Baqizoy, said.
The attack on the French also began late Monday and continued into Tuesday, after they were ambushed by an unusually large insurgent force while on a joint reconnaissance mission with the Afghan Army in the district of Sarobi, 30 miles east of Kabul, according to a NATO statement.
The French soldiers, part of an elite paratrooper unit, had only recently taken over from American forces in the area as part of the expanded French deployment in Afghanistan under President Nicolas Sarkozy.
In addition to the 10 French soldiers killed, 21 were wounded, the NATO statement said. It was the deadliest attack on French troops since a 1983 assault in Beirut killed 58 French paratroopers serving in a United Nations force.
The latest casualties bring to 24 the number of French troops killed in Afghanistan since they were first sent there in 2002.
The Taliban have seemingly made it part of their strategy to attack newly arriving forces, as well as those of NATO countries whose commitment to the war has appeared to waver, in an effort to influence public opinion in Europe. NATO countries have been under increasing pressure from the United States to increase their troop commitments to Afghanistan, which many have been hesitant to do.
The Taliban’s surge in attacks also comes at a delicate moment in American political life, as the departing Bush administration will have to hand over control of the war to a new president, whose administration will need time to get up to speed.
But Mr. Sarkozy, who has been a strong supporter of the United States, made it clear that the French would be undeterred.
“In its struggle against terrorism, France has just been hard hit,” Mr. Sarkozy said in a statement. He arrived in Kabul on Wednesday, according to Reuters, a trip he made to reassure French troops that “France is at their side.”
But Mr. Sarkozy said France would not be deterred from its Afghan mission, where 3,000 troops are serving in a NATO force of more than 40,000 soldiers from nearly 40 nations.
“My determination is intact,” he said. “France is committed to pursuing the struggle against terrorism, for democracy and for freedom. This is a just cause; it is an honor for France and for its army to defend it.”
The Sarobi District has been the scene of a growing number of insurgent attacks in recent months, most thought to be instigated by fighters loyal to the renegade mujahedeen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who is allied with the Taliban but not formally part of the movement.
Mr. Hekmatyar, who NATO officials say is based in Pakistan, has increased his militant activity in northeast Afghanistan and around Kabul, while the Taliban, foreign fighters and Al Qaeda have accelerated their attacks in the east, southeast and south.
The increase in insurgent activity northeast of Kabul is part of an attempt by the insurgents to encircle the capital and put pressure on the Afghan government and the foreign forces, some NATO and Afghan officials say.
Insurgent activity has also increased sharply in recent months in Logar and Wardak Provinces, south of the capital, sometimes making the main roads impassable.
The deployment of elite French troops to the area was intended to reinforce the Afghan Army and help keep the insurgent threat to the capital at bay. General Azimi, the Afghan military spokesman, said two companies of Afghan Army soldiers were sent in at dawn to assist the French.
In all, about 27 Taliban were believed to have been killed in the clash in the Sarobi District, around Uzbin, he said. Thirteen insurgents were later found dead on the battlefield, including a Pakistani fighter, he said.
Carlotta Gall reported from Bamiyan, and Sangar Rahimi from Kabul, Afghanistan. Steven Erlanger contributed reporting from Paris.
