INDIC
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 18,512
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Can you explain how.
Afghan endgame: US withdraws military equipment via Pakistan
- Thread starter Devil Soul
- Start date
Can you explain how.
haviZsultan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,045
- Reaction score
- 36
- Country
- Location
He is like a teddy bear on this forum. I bet @CENTCOM wants to hug him as his son... in the 1980's their money reached these people, people like Zarvan. Now they are talking back to USA. Epic failure! No wonder Clemenceau said what he said about the Americans.
@Zarvan is a child of 1980's and he was supported by the same Americans once. Now americans hunt down liberals for some reason but not Hakimullah Maseed. Centcom why do you not get that man? The TTP commander in chief?
He fears India is supporting them. A valid theory if this proves true:Bisecting Tehreek E Taliban Pakistan
At least someone is. I heard the contracters are shoving money into mouths of Taliban to operate and do any work at all, is it true @CENTCOM or Ali Khan. How many times have you been called a terrorist-just for the record in case you really exist.
Last edited by a moderator:
BATMAN
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 29,895
- Reaction score
- -28
- Country
- Location
And transit through Kingdom of Asif Ali Zardari is free.
Allah save Pakistan from Zardari tribe.
INDIC
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 18,512
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Until Afghanistan won't fell to Taliban, there is no bad news for India or any other country. its a good sign now Afghan forces are taking up security of Afghanistan and giving tough fight to Taliban.
Last edited by a moderator:
haviZsultan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,045
- Reaction score
- 36
- Country
- Location
We want the same thing here. At least most of us anyway.
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Sir liberals are facing defeat once again and Islam and Muslims are winning USA is running away and he confirmed in his state of union address but slaves of west are now finding a way to survive but they will run away really very soon
Last edited by a moderator:
haviZsultan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2007
- Messages
- 9,045
- Reaction score
- 36
- Country
- Location
Zarvan and Centcom both act like bots on a forum, they pop up to say exactly the same thing. Do you admit US supported you mullahs in the 1980's? You were with them then? You didn't protest against sovereignty, American dollars etc etc as long as they were going right in the mouth of the so called mujahideen. One faction was Haqqani who launched how many 50,000 rockets onto Kabul?
Does @CENTCOM remember his president with a terrorist
You created these people and left us to clear the mess and take the blame while at the same time messing up the lives of anyone who dares to raise as much as a voice-how convenient.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zarvan
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 54,470
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
US supported some things but not all support came from USA first of all secondly I have said many times even that should not have been taken but fighting against Russians was compulsory and Muslims have to do it just like fighting against USA is compulsory and most help in Jihad against Russia came from UAE and Saudi Arabia and weapons were bought from ChinaZarvan and Centcom both act like bots on a forum, they pop up to say exactly the same thing. Do you admit US supported you mullahs in the 1980's? You were with them then? You didn't protest against sovereignty, American dollars etc etc as long as they were going right in the mouth of the so called mujahideen. One faction was Haqqani who launched how many 50,000 rockets onto Kabul?
Does @CENTCOM remember his president with a terrorist
You created these people and left us to clear the mess and take the blame while at the same time messing up the lives of anyone who dares to raise as much as a voice-how convenient.
Last edited by a moderator:
gangsta_rap
BANNED
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2010
- Messages
- 4,971
- Reaction score
- -38
- Country
- Location
dang bro, you already have those CENTCOM spooks talking back at you,they could be monitoring you for all we know,you sure saying stuff like that is a good idea??
ugh...CENTCOM..having an account like that registered around here gives me the creeps.
Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
Obama says 34,000 US troops to leave Afghanistan
AFP
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama announced on Tuesday that 34,000 troops would be pulled out of Afghanistan in the next year, and vowed that by the end of 2014 the US war in the country would be over.
“After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home,” Obama said in his State of the Union address, winning applause and a standing ovation from lawmakers.
The long-awaited move effectively halves the size of the current 66,000-strong US force in Afghanistan, ahead of a final withdrawal of most foreign combat troops by the end of 2014.
“We can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan, and achieve our objective of defeating the core of Al Qaeda,” Obama said in praising the sacrifices made since the 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled its Taliban rulers.
“Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.”
There were no immediate details of how quickly the drawdown would take place. But a senior Pentagon official told AFP earlier that it would be tied to the fighting season in Afghanistan, which runs into the fall.
“The commanders will have discretion on pace and focus will be (on) keeping as many forces in play until after the fighting season,” the official said, adding that outgoing US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta supports the plan.
A senior US official said Obama had telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai, British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to inform them of his decision.
Debate is also taking place within the administration on the size of a residual force — to train Afghan soldiers and to conduct counterterrorism missions — that will remain behind after the formal withdrawal.
The administration was “negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates,” Obama said.
Last month, US officials suggested it was theoretically possible that Washington would leave no troops in the country, though some observers saw that move as a negotiating tactic with Karzai in town.
The senior official said that Washington remained committed to a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan, and reiterated that talks on a bilateral security agreement were still taking place.
Afghanistan has committed to taking full responsibility for its own security after US forces leave, and the White House said Afghan security forces now count 352,000 troops, thanks to a broad Nato training effort.
Nato says it will no longer lead combat operations in the next two years, but will provide support to Afghan soldiers.
AFP
WASHINGTON: President Barack Obama announced on Tuesday that 34,000 troops would be pulled out of Afghanistan in the next year, and vowed that by the end of 2014 the US war in the country would be over.
“After a decade of grinding war, our brave men and women in uniform are coming home,” Obama said in his State of the Union address, winning applause and a standing ovation from lawmakers.
The long-awaited move effectively halves the size of the current 66,000-strong US force in Afghanistan, ahead of a final withdrawal of most foreign combat troops by the end of 2014.
“We can say with confidence that America will complete its mission in Afghanistan, and achieve our objective of defeating the core of Al Qaeda,” Obama said in praising the sacrifices made since the 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled its Taliban rulers.
“Tonight, I can announce that over the next year, another 34,000 American troops will come home from Afghanistan. This drawdown will continue. And by the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over.”
There were no immediate details of how quickly the drawdown would take place. But a senior Pentagon official told AFP earlier that it would be tied to the fighting season in Afghanistan, which runs into the fall.
“The commanders will have discretion on pace and focus will be (on) keeping as many forces in play until after the fighting season,” the official said, adding that outgoing US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta supports the plan.
A senior US official said Obama had telephoned Afghan President Hamid Karzai, British Prime Minister David Cameron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel to inform them of his decision.
Debate is also taking place within the administration on the size of a residual force — to train Afghan soldiers and to conduct counterterrorism missions — that will remain behind after the formal withdrawal.
The administration was “negotiating an agreement with the Afghan government that focuses on two missions: training and equipping Afghan forces so that the country does not again slip into chaos, and counterterrorism efforts that allow us to pursue the remnants of al Qaeda and their affiliates,” Obama said.
Last month, US officials suggested it was theoretically possible that Washington would leave no troops in the country, though some observers saw that move as a negotiating tactic with Karzai in town.
The senior official said that Washington remained committed to a long-term strategic partnership with Afghanistan, and reiterated that talks on a bilateral security agreement were still taking place.
Afghanistan has committed to taking full responsibility for its own security after US forces leave, and the White House said Afghan security forces now count 352,000 troops, thanks to a broad Nato training effort.
Nato says it will no longer lead combat operations in the next two years, but will provide support to Afghan soldiers.
Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
Afghanistan peace talks: 'The ball is now in the Taliban court'
"By the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over," declared President Obama to thunderous applause during his State of the Union address this week.
This was a speech about ending an unpopular war and bringing US troops home, not about winning a peace, or even trying to negotiate one.
"We are still hopeful we might enter talks but we didn't want to raise expectations," a senior US official told me. "The ball is now in the Taliban court."
The Taliban suspended unprecedented talks last March with an angry statement describing the US as "shaky, erratic, and vague".
They accused Washington of making unacceptable demands during a series of meetings, meant to be secret, to work on "confidence-building measures".
For the Taliban, it was about freeing five prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
For the US, it was the release of Bowe Bergdahl, their only soldier in Taliban captivity. There was also a demand for public Taliban commitments including an end to al-Qaeda links, and an agreement to talk to the Afghan government.
"The channel is still there, and we hope to pick it up again," said another US official with knowledge of previous talks.
US Congressional opposition to a prisoner release, and Taliban refusal to accept conditions or talk to what they say is a "puppet" government in Kabul, remain major hurdles.
For both sides, it's still about talking and fighting in the run-up to the US-led Nato troop pullout in 2014. And the main emphasis, for the Taliban and the Pentagon, is still on the war.
"There hasn't been a Northern Ireland moment," said one diplomat, alluding to a process where two sides accepted military means could not achieve their goals. "It is more like Colombia when the government and the rebels have started talking but keep fighting."
Trouble-shooter
A crucial element enabling what both Western and Afghan officials call "cautious optimism" is a more engaged Pakistan. Afghanistan's neighbour has long been accused of not doing enough to rein in Afghan Taliban operating from its soil.
"I think it has finally sunk in that Pakistan's own security could be threatened by greater links between Afghan and Pakistani Taliban once most of our troops leave," said one US official.
In recent months, Pakistan has started responding to long-standing Afghan demands for the release of Taliban prisoners. But the process has not been coordinated with Kabul and prisoners have just dispersed. Some have returned to the battlefield.
The new US Secretary of State John Kerry has still not appointed a successor to Ambassador Marc Grossman who stepped down as Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan at the end of last year. During nearly two years in the job, he became the most senior US official to talk to Afghan Taliban.
Senator Kerry has also not indicated publicly how much priority he will place on this region. But the well-travelled senator has long been the US trouble-shooter of choice in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
He was the point man on major crises ranging from the arrest of a CIA agent in Pakistan in 2011 to the explosive row over controversial Afghan presidential elections in 2009.
US diplomats say, that as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry kept in regular touch with the special US State Department office focusing on "AfPak".
A few years ago, he emphasised his agreement "with the fundamental premise that there is no military solution in Afghanistan". At the time, he spoke of "serious efforts" under way to achieve a negotiated end.
Secret meetings
The most serious efforts came at the end of 2011 and early 2012 in a series of secret high-level meetings involving Ambassador Grossman and Tayeb Agha, an aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar who has been in hiding for many years. US officials say he proved he had authority to negotiate.
The process, also involving German envoys, came close to a deal on opening an office for talks in the Gulf state of Qatar. But, at the 11th hour, at a summit in December 2011 in Bonn, President Hamid Karzai called off the plan, suspicious a deal was being done to undermine his government.
An office, or "address" in Qatar is still regarded as an important next step in formalizing a channel of talks.
The Afghan leader remains hesitant about the Qatar plan even though he publicly agreed to it during a meeting with President Obama in January and at a recent tripartite summit in the UK involving Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
Britain, on the request of Kabul and Islamabad, is now more engaged in trying to galvanise a process of negotiations while Western troops are still on the ground.
The UK summit statement optimistically spoke of a peace deal in six months.
No-one expects it could happen so soon. "At least we, and the Pakistanis, now have a deadline to focus on," said one Afghan official involved in the recent UK talks.
As is often the case in Afghanistan, there are no formal talks, but a lot of informal talking, including in Doha and Dubai. Conferences, such as the Chantilly meeting organised by a French think-tank last December, also gathered Afghans from all sides.
But US engagement on a political track still remains critical. As one senior US official put it, "after all, we are a combatant in this war".
"By the end of next year, our war in Afghanistan will be over," declared President Obama to thunderous applause during his State of the Union address this week.
This was a speech about ending an unpopular war and bringing US troops home, not about winning a peace, or even trying to negotiate one.
"We are still hopeful we might enter talks but we didn't want to raise expectations," a senior US official told me. "The ball is now in the Taliban court."
The Taliban suspended unprecedented talks last March with an angry statement describing the US as "shaky, erratic, and vague".
They accused Washington of making unacceptable demands during a series of meetings, meant to be secret, to work on "confidence-building measures".
For the Taliban, it was about freeing five prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
For the US, it was the release of Bowe Bergdahl, their only soldier in Taliban captivity. There was also a demand for public Taliban commitments including an end to al-Qaeda links, and an agreement to talk to the Afghan government.
"The channel is still there, and we hope to pick it up again," said another US official with knowledge of previous talks.
US Congressional opposition to a prisoner release, and Taliban refusal to accept conditions or talk to what they say is a "puppet" government in Kabul, remain major hurdles.
For both sides, it's still about talking and fighting in the run-up to the US-led Nato troop pullout in 2014. And the main emphasis, for the Taliban and the Pentagon, is still on the war.
"There hasn't been a Northern Ireland moment," said one diplomat, alluding to a process where two sides accepted military means could not achieve their goals. "It is more like Colombia when the government and the rebels have started talking but keep fighting."
Trouble-shooter
A crucial element enabling what both Western and Afghan officials call "cautious optimism" is a more engaged Pakistan. Afghanistan's neighbour has long been accused of not doing enough to rein in Afghan Taliban operating from its soil.
"I think it has finally sunk in that Pakistan's own security could be threatened by greater links between Afghan and Pakistani Taliban once most of our troops leave," said one US official.
In recent months, Pakistan has started responding to long-standing Afghan demands for the release of Taliban prisoners. But the process has not been coordinated with Kabul and prisoners have just dispersed. Some have returned to the battlefield.
The new US Secretary of State John Kerry has still not appointed a successor to Ambassador Marc Grossman who stepped down as Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan at the end of last year. During nearly two years in the job, he became the most senior US official to talk to Afghan Taliban.
Senator Kerry has also not indicated publicly how much priority he will place on this region. But the well-travelled senator has long been the US trouble-shooter of choice in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
He was the point man on major crises ranging from the arrest of a CIA agent in Pakistan in 2011 to the explosive row over controversial Afghan presidential elections in 2009.
US diplomats say, that as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry kept in regular touch with the special US State Department office focusing on "AfPak".
A few years ago, he emphasised his agreement "with the fundamental premise that there is no military solution in Afghanistan". At the time, he spoke of "serious efforts" under way to achieve a negotiated end.
Secret meetings
The most serious efforts came at the end of 2011 and early 2012 in a series of secret high-level meetings involving Ambassador Grossman and Tayeb Agha, an aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar who has been in hiding for many years. US officials say he proved he had authority to negotiate.
The process, also involving German envoys, came close to a deal on opening an office for talks in the Gulf state of Qatar. But, at the 11th hour, at a summit in December 2011 in Bonn, President Hamid Karzai called off the plan, suspicious a deal was being done to undermine his government.
An office, or "address" in Qatar is still regarded as an important next step in formalizing a channel of talks.
The Afghan leader remains hesitant about the Qatar plan even though he publicly agreed to it during a meeting with President Obama in January and at a recent tripartite summit in the UK involving Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.
Britain, on the request of Kabul and Islamabad, is now more engaged in trying to galvanise a process of negotiations while Western troops are still on the ground.
The UK summit statement optimistically spoke of a peace deal in six months.
No-one expects it could happen so soon. "At least we, and the Pakistanis, now have a deadline to focus on," said one Afghan official involved in the recent UK talks.
As is often the case in Afghanistan, there are no formal talks, but a lot of informal talking, including in Doha and Dubai. Conferences, such as the Chantilly meeting organised by a French think-tank last December, also gathered Afghans from all sides.
But US engagement on a political track still remains critical. As one senior US official put it, "after all, we are a combatant in this war".
Abu Zolfiqar
Rest in Peace
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 22,555
- Reaction score
- 22
- Country
- Location
Devil Soul
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Messages
- 22,931
- Reaction score
- 45
- Country
- Location
Post-2014 Afghanistan: Pakistans nightmare?
From the Newspaper | Madiha Sattar |
End of the Afghan war: possibilities and pitfalls II: Post-2014 Afghanistan: Pakistans nightmare?
KARACHI: They are Pakistanis, Afghans, Arabs, Germans, Turks, Libyans, Sudanese, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Uighurs. They operate from Bajaur in the north to the Waziristans in the south. And the areas they target range from Pakistan and its neighbourhood, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and China, to the Middle East, Europe and the United States.
In the event that civil war breaks out next door or the Afghan Taliban capture significant power after the Western withdrawal, will Afghanistan become a new safe haven for this motley crew of Fata-based militant groups?
2014 and the Western withdrawal will not mean Pakistans problems are over, [/B]says Rahimullah Yusufzai, an expert on Fata and Afghan militancy.[B] If the Taliban cannot capture Kabul, which is highly likely, they will be operating from the border areas. So they may still need to come to Pakistan for shelter, funds and medical treatment, and the Pakistani Taliban will find safe havens in Afghanistan.
That is precisely the fear driving the apparent shift in Pakistans mindset from banking on the Afghan Taliban for strategic depth in Afghanistan to realising that a broad-based coalition government there is more likely to be in Pakistans best interest. But some within the security establishment worry that even a power-sharing system, with the east and south controlled by the Taliban and Uzbek and other ethnic groups controlling the north, could end up providing sanctuaries and operational bases to Pakistan-based militants.
A model already exists for how these groups might operate from Afghanistan. According to Pakistani intelligence estimates, 223 attacks have been carried out from across the border since June 2010, including 14 major ones in which up to 200 militants were involved.
About 150 security personnel have lost their lives. The attacks are believed to originate in Kunar and Nuristan from 18 to 20 camps run by Pakistani militants Maulana Fazlullah of Swat and Abdul Wali (aka Omar Khalid) of Mohmand.
The obvious implication is that if Fata-based militants are not tackled quickly, they could become an even bigger nightmare for Pakistan as the 2014 deadline approaches.
But conversations with security officials reveal how complex the tribal areas militant network is. That in itself poses a problem, considering Pakistans historical tendency to try to separate friends from foes.
A prime example is the late Tahir Yuldashevs Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, with several hundred Uzbeks operating out of North Waziristan, currently led byAbdul Fattah Ahmadi, aka Usman Ghazi. The fierce fighting force is available for hire by Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and could well find refuge in northern Afghanistan.
But what of smaller groups less obviously linked to militancy within Pakistan? Pakistani security officials estimate that the Islamic Jamaat Uzbekistan, a breakaway faction, has a force of several dozen Central Asians in the tribal areas, led by one Hameedullah Kyrgyzstani. There is the East Turkistan Islamic Movement of Uighurs aiming to create an Islamic state in Chinas Uighur region, and a group called the Turkish Jamaat consisting mainly of militants from eastern Turkey who have sought refuge in North Waziristan and want support for an Islamic movement in their home country.
The Abdullah Azzam Brigade, currently led by Abdullah Majid, has a handful of men in North Waziristan plotting operations in the Middle East. While none of these might seem focused on Pakistan, foreign groups have supported Pakistan-oriented militants often enough to set a worrying precedent.
Then there are the groups under the TTP umbrella and their multiple goals. The most powerful TTP commander, Hakeemullah Mehsud, mainly attacks Pakistan, but has collaborated with the Afghan Taliban against American troops; the followers of Maulvi Nazir, who was killed in a drone strike last month because he concentrated on Afghanistan, still operate from South Waziristan; and the Hafiz Gulbahadur group in North Waziristan also focuses on Afghanistan but sometimes attacks Pakistani troops.
All have supported the Afghan Taliban in one way or another, and there is no reason to think the favour will not be repaid. And once Fata is no longer needed as a safe haven, even the delicate truces that Pakistan has maintained with militants such as Maulvi Nazir and Hafiz Gulbahadur will become worthless.
But the Pakistani Taliban web is much wider than these groups. Ten outfits formerly supported by the state for fighting in Kashmir or other purposes are now linked to the TTP, with the deadliest commander being Asmatullah Muawiya of the Punjabi Taliban, who security officials believe was involved in the 2008 Islamabad Marriott bombing and attacks on the army and ISI.
These and other groups, such as Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, may have their own agendas, but according to Pakistani intelligence, carry out attacks with material and physical support from the TTP. The 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, executed by an LJ-linked group with militants and material provided by the TTP, is a case in point. In the event of the Afghan Taliban controlling parts of Afghanistan, there is little doubt these militants would find a new operational base if they wanted one.
If the war escalates next door, Pakistan could lose the tribal war, says Zahid Hussain, author of Frontline Pakistan: the Struggle with Militant Islam.
The ideological lines between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are very thin; they share world views and their agendas for the region.
These groups appear to be more of a worry to Pakistan than Al Qaeda, which under Ayman al-Zawahiri who Pakistani intelligence believes could be in Fata or in Afghanistans border region appears more focused on Iraq and Syria. But even he is believed to have a force of a few hundred men working within Pakistan, led by his son-in-law and deputy, Safiyan al-Maghrabi, and a dozen or so top commanders, including men in charge of training, screening, media, internal communications, finance, IEDs, security and international affairs.
Despite the series of military operations in Fata, security officials admit that besides Orakzai, all the agencies remain unstable to varying degrees. The TTPs main bases are in North Waziristan, but it has maintained a presence in most other agencies, including Kurram with its sectarian conflicts and Bajaur and Mohmand with their cross-border strikes.
But who will tackle the problem, and when and how they will do so, all remain troublingly open questions.
Neither the military nor the civilians want to take ownership of a North Waziristan operation. Elections could be a few weeks away, which would leave a caretaker government overseeing military action and lack of ownership from the next administration.
And there is still no consensus across the civilian and military leaderships about whether to talk to Pakistani militants and how to combine that with military action.
There is now an understanding that Taliban control in Afghanistan is not good for Pakistan, says Mr Hussain. But the problem is that it is not being translated into a coherent strategy or a national narrative against militancy.
Through the first week of January, according to military estimates, over 49,200 Pakistanis had become victims of militant violence (contrary to popular perception, this number includes those injured, not just killed). Of those, about 3,600 army and Frontier Corps personnel have lost their lives. How high could this death toll go if militant groups arent reconciled or defeated before Western troops leave Afghanistan?
From the Newspaper | Madiha Sattar |
End of the Afghan war: possibilities and pitfalls II: Post-2014 Afghanistan: Pakistans nightmare?
KARACHI: They are Pakistanis, Afghans, Arabs, Germans, Turks, Libyans, Sudanese, Uzbeks, Kyrgyz and Uighurs. They operate from Bajaur in the north to the Waziristans in the south. And the areas they target range from Pakistan and its neighbourhood, including Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and China, to the Middle East, Europe and the United States.
In the event that civil war breaks out next door or the Afghan Taliban capture significant power after the Western withdrawal, will Afghanistan become a new safe haven for this motley crew of Fata-based militant groups?
2014 and the Western withdrawal will not mean Pakistans problems are over, [/B]says Rahimullah Yusufzai, an expert on Fata and Afghan militancy.[B] If the Taliban cannot capture Kabul, which is highly likely, they will be operating from the border areas. So they may still need to come to Pakistan for shelter, funds and medical treatment, and the Pakistani Taliban will find safe havens in Afghanistan.
That is precisely the fear driving the apparent shift in Pakistans mindset from banking on the Afghan Taliban for strategic depth in Afghanistan to realising that a broad-based coalition government there is more likely to be in Pakistans best interest. But some within the security establishment worry that even a power-sharing system, with the east and south controlled by the Taliban and Uzbek and other ethnic groups controlling the north, could end up providing sanctuaries and operational bases to Pakistan-based militants.
A model already exists for how these groups might operate from Afghanistan. According to Pakistani intelligence estimates, 223 attacks have been carried out from across the border since June 2010, including 14 major ones in which up to 200 militants were involved.
About 150 security personnel have lost their lives. The attacks are believed to originate in Kunar and Nuristan from 18 to 20 camps run by Pakistani militants Maulana Fazlullah of Swat and Abdul Wali (aka Omar Khalid) of Mohmand.
The obvious implication is that if Fata-based militants are not tackled quickly, they could become an even bigger nightmare for Pakistan as the 2014 deadline approaches.
But conversations with security officials reveal how complex the tribal areas militant network is. That in itself poses a problem, considering Pakistans historical tendency to try to separate friends from foes.
A prime example is the late Tahir Yuldashevs Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, with several hundred Uzbeks operating out of North Waziristan, currently led byAbdul Fattah Ahmadi, aka Usman Ghazi. The fierce fighting force is available for hire by Al Qaeda, the Afghan Taliban and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and could well find refuge in northern Afghanistan.
But what of smaller groups less obviously linked to militancy within Pakistan? Pakistani security officials estimate that the Islamic Jamaat Uzbekistan, a breakaway faction, has a force of several dozen Central Asians in the tribal areas, led by one Hameedullah Kyrgyzstani. There is the East Turkistan Islamic Movement of Uighurs aiming to create an Islamic state in Chinas Uighur region, and a group called the Turkish Jamaat consisting mainly of militants from eastern Turkey who have sought refuge in North Waziristan and want support for an Islamic movement in their home country.
The Abdullah Azzam Brigade, currently led by Abdullah Majid, has a handful of men in North Waziristan plotting operations in the Middle East. While none of these might seem focused on Pakistan, foreign groups have supported Pakistan-oriented militants often enough to set a worrying precedent.
Then there are the groups under the TTP umbrella and their multiple goals. The most powerful TTP commander, Hakeemullah Mehsud, mainly attacks Pakistan, but has collaborated with the Afghan Taliban against American troops; the followers of Maulvi Nazir, who was killed in a drone strike last month because he concentrated on Afghanistan, still operate from South Waziristan; and the Hafiz Gulbahadur group in North Waziristan also focuses on Afghanistan but sometimes attacks Pakistani troops.
All have supported the Afghan Taliban in one way or another, and there is no reason to think the favour will not be repaid. And once Fata is no longer needed as a safe haven, even the delicate truces that Pakistan has maintained with militants such as Maulvi Nazir and Hafiz Gulbahadur will become worthless.
But the Pakistani Taliban web is much wider than these groups. Ten outfits formerly supported by the state for fighting in Kashmir or other purposes are now linked to the TTP, with the deadliest commander being Asmatullah Muawiya of the Punjabi Taliban, who security officials believe was involved in the 2008 Islamabad Marriott bombing and attacks on the army and ISI.
These and other groups, such as Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, may have their own agendas, but according to Pakistani intelligence, carry out attacks with material and physical support from the TTP. The 2009 attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, executed by an LJ-linked group with militants and material provided by the TTP, is a case in point. In the event of the Afghan Taliban controlling parts of Afghanistan, there is little doubt these militants would find a new operational base if they wanted one.
If the war escalates next door, Pakistan could lose the tribal war, says Zahid Hussain, author of Frontline Pakistan: the Struggle with Militant Islam.
The ideological lines between the Afghan and Pakistani Taliban are very thin; they share world views and their agendas for the region.
These groups appear to be more of a worry to Pakistan than Al Qaeda, which under Ayman al-Zawahiri who Pakistani intelligence believes could be in Fata or in Afghanistans border region appears more focused on Iraq and Syria. But even he is believed to have a force of a few hundred men working within Pakistan, led by his son-in-law and deputy, Safiyan al-Maghrabi, and a dozen or so top commanders, including men in charge of training, screening, media, internal communications, finance, IEDs, security and international affairs.
Despite the series of military operations in Fata, security officials admit that besides Orakzai, all the agencies remain unstable to varying degrees. The TTPs main bases are in North Waziristan, but it has maintained a presence in most other agencies, including Kurram with its sectarian conflicts and Bajaur and Mohmand with their cross-border strikes.
But who will tackle the problem, and when and how they will do so, all remain troublingly open questions.
Neither the military nor the civilians want to take ownership of a North Waziristan operation. Elections could be a few weeks away, which would leave a caretaker government overseeing military action and lack of ownership from the next administration.
And there is still no consensus across the civilian and military leaderships about whether to talk to Pakistani militants and how to combine that with military action.
There is now an understanding that Taliban control in Afghanistan is not good for Pakistan, says Mr Hussain. But the problem is that it is not being translated into a coherent strategy or a national narrative against militancy.
Through the first week of January, according to military estimates, over 49,200 Pakistanis had become victims of militant violence (contrary to popular perception, this number includes those injured, not just killed). Of those, about 3,600 army and Frontier Corps personnel have lost their lives. How high could this death toll go if militant groups arent reconciled or defeated before Western troops leave Afghanistan?
Similar threads
