Afghan Taliban splinter group names Mullah Rasool as leader

[RabzonKhan]

Good news, let these barbarians kill each other.



Afghan Taliban splinter group names Mullah Rasool as leader

By Tahir Khan
November 6, 2015

ISLAMABAD: Afghan Taliban leaders, who have refused to accept Mullah Akhtar Mansoor as the movement’s new chief, have formally announced Mullah Mohammad Rasool as head of their splinter group, its senior leader Abdul Manan Niazi said.

Niazi, who has been appointed as political adviser in the splinter group, ‘High Council of Afghanistan Islamic Emirate’, told The Express Tribunefrom Afghanistan on Wednesday that the group leaders met in Farah province and elected new leaders.


A senior Taliban leader, who has not accepted Akhtar Mansoor’s leadership, says some leaders are now making efforts to ensure that both sides should desist from infighting.

Mansoor Dadullah is the most prominent leader among the rebels, who has been appointed as the military deputy in the group, according to a video released to the media by the dissident group. Dadullah, the brother of a senior Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah Akhund, had refused to pledge allegiance to Akhtar Mansoor.

The dissident chief speaking in Pashto claimed that differences surfaced as Mullah Mansoor was not ending contacts with the foreigners. “Our colleagues had been advising Mansoor to sever ties with the Americans, give importance to former Mujahideen and do not give positions to incompetent people,” Rasool told his supporters.


“He (Mansoor) did not accept our demands but removed competent persons, killed and detained some people,” he claimed. He said that Mansoor ‘got himself elected in a meeting of his own people’ after the death of Mullah Omar.

“When Mullah Omar’s death was formally confirmed, Mullah Akhtar Mansoor and his three, four or five people, sat and held election. He is not our leader,” the dissident leader claimed.

A Taliban leader, requesting not to be identified, alleged that the dissidents have contacts with the Afghan government and the Afghan officials facilitated their meeting in Farah province.

 

[That Guy]

Good news? If anything, this is just going to extend the war. A united taliban were much easier to deal and negotiate with, now the region has to deal with another group.

The NSD and Afghan government made a terrible mistake by announcing the death of mullah Omar. Peace talks almost ended the war, but the Afghan leaders have proven time and again that they do not want peace.

 

[Sine Nomine]

The NSD and Afghan government

Are you kidding,scums picked up from night clubs of Eastern Europe after US attack on Afghanistan want peace,no way they only want $ from west and for that they want ISAF to stay in Afghanistan.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Good news? If anything, this is just going to extend the war. A united taliban were much easier to deal and negotiate with, now the region has to deal with another group.

Yes I stand by what I said, it’s good news, you know why, because more splinter groups and internal rivalry will weaken them and then it will be easier to defeat them.

TTP is a good example, internal rivalry and splinter groups weakened them and then it was easier for us to defeat them.

The NSD and Afghan government made a terrible mistake by announcing the death of mullah Omar. Peace talks almost ended the war, but the Afghan leaders have proven time and again that they do not want peace.

“Peace talks almost ended the war” really, am I missing something here?

It’s the other way around, the Afghan government is desperate for peace, remember, how they have been begging Pakistan to bring Taliban to the negotiation table.

I do not believe the war will end through negotiations, to end the war, the Taliban have to be defeated.

Now some people may think my views are extreme and unrealistic, my views are based on facts, remember, Pakistan did not regain its territory through negotiation, we defeated the TTP and other terrorists on the battlefield.

Afghanistan’s number one enemy is corruption and if they can bring corruption under control, defeating the Taliban will not to be that difficult.

 

[Pandora]

Good news? If anything, this is just going to extend the war. A united taliban were much easier to deal and negotiate with, now the region has to deal with another group.

The NSD and Afghan government made a terrible mistake by announcing the death of mullah Omar. Peace talks almost ended the war, but the Afghan leaders have proven time and again that they do not want peace.

That is thw whole point as they dont want war to end. If Taliban ever come to political land scape then likes of Abdullah and Ghani wont have enough space to breathe. What do you think will happen to foreign sponsored intelligence agency after Taliban decide to move in as they will most definitely demand dismantling of any pro american/foreigner infrastructure.

 

[rubyjackass]

Good news? If anything, this is just going to extend the war. A united taliban were much easier to deal and negotiate with, now the region has to deal with another group.

The NSD and Afghan government made a terrible mistake by announcing the death of mullah Omar. Peace talks almost ended the war, but the Afghan leaders have proven time and again that they do not want peace.

Afghans can now negotiate with one group and dump the others. There will be competition between Taliban groups to behave well.

 

[That Guy]

Afghans can now negotiate with one group and dump the others. There will be competition between Taliban groups to behave well.

Except they won't behave well.

The Afghans may negotiate with one, but the other will continue fighting. The NDS has guaranteed that the insurgency lasts far longer than it should have.

 

[Indika]

Thats a standard strategy of divide & rule. Will see taliban strength weaken over period of time due to internal rivalry. Afghan govt will deal with sane group and stubborn ones will be left to rot.

 

[That Guy]

Yes I stand by what I said, it’s good news, you know why, because more splinter groups and internal rivalry will weaken them and then it will be easier to defeat them.

TTP is a good example, internal rivalry and splinter groups weakened them and then it was easier for us to defeat them.

That is the opposite of what would happen. The more groups there are, the higher the level of violence. One group is easier to control and deal with, a thousand smaller groups are harder to defeat. Look at any nation facing multiple insurgencies. You can stand by your statement all you want, but it is simply wrong.

“Peace talks almost ended the war” really, am I missing something here?

The second round of talks were to be about a ceasefire, leading into a political settlement for the later talks.

It’s the other way around, the Afghan government is desperate for peace, remember, how they have been begging Pakistan to bring Taliban to the negotiation table.

They've never begged Pakistan to bring the taliban to the negotiating table, they've begged Pakistan to hand over taliban leaders residing in Pakistan. There is a clear difference here. It's the US that's been pushing for a political settlement, which the Afghans have reluctantly accepted.

I do not believe the war will end through negotiations, to end the war, the Taliban have to be defeated.

The history of Afghanistan suggests otherwise. The taliban couldn't be defeated by over 50+ nations, including a Super power and former superpowers. it's been 14 years, what makes you think the taliban can be defeated so easily now?

This is an accepted fact, the war can only end through negotiations. The US is pushing for this, the Chinese are pushing for this, the Russians are pushing for this, Iran is pushing for this, Pakistan is pushing for this, and it seems that the only nation NOT pushing for this is India.

Now some people may think my views are extreme and unrealistic, my views are based on facts, remember, Pakistan did not regain its territory through negotiation, we defeated the TTP and other terrorists on the battlefield.

The TTP and the Afghan taliban are different in nature and doctrine, despite bother being extremist. The Afghan taliban's goals are strictly related to Afghanistan alone, they have no desire to expand beyond Afghanistan's borders. The TTP's goals are international, as they plan on removing the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and eventually threatening to attack Afghanistan's northern neighbors. Their plan is to establish a global Caliphate.

You're also forgetting the capability of both the ANA and Pakistan. The ANA is simply ill-equipped to deal with the insurgency, and suffers heavily from both defections and desertions. The ANA is having a hard time sustaining it's numbers, and is not motivated at all to defend it's own country. It's dominated by the Northern tribes, in particular the Tajik. There are reports that say the reason behind the abandonment of Kunduz to the taliban was entirely due to tribal politics. The Tajik soldiers (that numbered ten thousand) simply didn't want to defend a Pashtun city, so they left, which ended up letting a few hundred taliban militants over run the city. Adding to this, the ANA simply doesn't have the equipment, or the expertise to deal with the insurgency for the long term.

Pakistan, on the other hand, has the will, the expertise, and the power to deal with the TTP.

PA (unlike the ANA) has a high level of nationalism instilled within each personnel. PA does NOT suffer from desertion, and does NOT suffer from defection. Every year, more and more men and women join the military, increasing it's numbers. PA also doesn't care about ethnicity, and welcomes everyone; in fact, it's recent drive of trying to get more and more minorities to join the military has made the PA even more resistant to sectarian divide.

PA has the high tech systems to search and destroy militant sanctuaries, which the ANA don't have. It has even inducted UCAVs to combat militants hiding in harsh terrain.

The ONLY reason why the TTP hasn't been wiped out is because of militant sanctuaries in Afghanistan. The TTP has very little support in Pakistan, which is why it has had to rely heavily on foreign fighters. Meanwhile, the only reason why the Afghan taliban hasn't been wiped out is because it has a lot of support from Afghan tribes that draws it's numbers from, mainly Pashtun. It is an organization that relies heavily on locals, which means it's numbers tend to be a vast majority of Afghan at all times.

The TTP control less than 1% of the territory in Pakistan (soon to be 0%), the Afghan taliban are said to control 20-50% of the Rural Afghanistan, with some presence over at least 70-80% of Afghan territory.

Frankly, your comparison doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Afghanistan’s number one enemy is corruption and if they can bring corruption under control, defeating the Taliban will not to be that difficult.

You make it sound easy. Anyway, corruption isn't Afghanistan's number one enemy, it's warlords. Many of the Afghan leaders are former tribal warlords, which has lead to certain tribes getting preferential treatment. Look at Abdul Rashid Dostum, many say he's the real power in Afghanistan, calling him a king maker. He's accused of arming Uzbek militias, by smuggling weapons and drugs, and hiding large cashes of weapons and ammunition. Many even accusing him of trying to turn parts of the ANA into his own personal army, by sending his own forces to join the ANA.

Anyway, the truth is that Afghanistan's tribal politics pretty much forces negotiations. The Afghan taliban cannot be beat, as long as Afghanistan itself isn't united, even if the Afghan taliban itself weaks and divides into different factions. There is a reason why the Afghan taliban emphasis so much about unity among it's own various militant leaders and groups. I suspect that this divide is going to be temporary precisely because the Afghan taliban understand unity is important, at least more than the current political leaders of Afghanistan.

 

[rubyjackass]

Except they won't behave well.

The Afghans may negotiate with one, but the other will continue fighting. The NDS has guaranteed that the insurgency lasts far longer than it should have.

Well you missed the important part. There will be fratricide among these yahoos. The splinter which negotiates with government and settles will face more wrath than the government itself from the other group. And government will obviously negotiate with the better group as a way of rewarding good behaviour.

 

[That Guy]

Well you missed the important part. There will be fratricide among these yahoos. The splinter which negotiates with government and settles will face more wrath than the government itself from the other group. And government will obviously negotiate with the better group as a way of rewarding good behaviour.

Or none of that could happen. These are mere speculations of what may happen. What likely will happen is that violence will get worse, it will be a three way war, with civilians getting caught up in the middle, and weakening the government. The last time something like this happened, the Afghan gov and army collapsed, leading to warlords taking over.

 

[rubyjackass]

Or none of that could happen. These are mere speculations of what may happen. What likely will happen is that violence will get worse, it will be a three way war, with civilians getting caught up in the middle, and weakening the government. The last time something like this happened, the Afghan gov and army collapsed, leading to warlords taking over.

When was the last time this happened, that you are talking about?

The Afghan army can obviously defeat a divided enemy more easily. Today there is a viable Afghan state with nationalism transcending ethnic divisions. Not like the old years.

 

[That Guy]

When was the last time this happened, that you are talking about?

The Afghan army can obviously defeat a divided enemy more easily. Today there is a viable Afghan state with nationalism transcending ethnic divisions. Not like the old years.

The history of every insurgency ever. You may end up signing a peace deal with one group, but the other is still fighting and killing civilians and soldiers alike. From Columbia to the Philippines, multiple insurgencies have made it worse for the government.

Nationalism is NOT even that high, don't be so naive as to believe this. The very fact that the ANA is suffering from MAJOR desertion rates is evidence enough of this much, at least.

A divided insurgency is NOT like a divided national army. An insurgency is far more viral and trives on spreading, splitting it apart will only make matters worse, because you will have no idea whom to negotiate with first, or what the consequences will be.

The fact that violence has actually INCREASED since the divide, is enough to prove that the division of the insurgency was the worst thing that could have happened to the Afghan government.

 

[rubyjackass]

The history of every insurgency ever. You may end up signing a peace deal with one group, but the other is still fighting and killing civilians and soldiers alike. From Columbia to the Philippines, multiple insurgencies have made it worse for the government.

Nationalism is NOT even that high, don't be so naive as to believe this. The very fact that the ANA is suffering from MAJOR desertion rates is evidence enough of this much, at least.

A divided insurgency is NOT like a divided national army. An insurgency is far more viral and trives on spreading, splitting it apart will only make matters worse, because you will have no idea whom to negotiate with first, or what the consequences will be.

The fact that violence has actually INCREASED since the divide, is enough to prove that the division of the insurgency was the worst thing that could have happened to the Afghan government.

I disagree. If we are to accept that people will die anyway in insurgency, more number of actors which are hostile to each other is a good thing for government. Desertion rates is not affected by the number of factions. Negotiations with a split enemy is easier. You get to pick which one to talk to. Divide and conquer the problem.

Peace deals themselves have caused fractures in insurgencies like the Irish one. Negotiating with a single force has an overrated element of convenience. In any case, people who don't like negotiations will break away and keep at their business. Better splinter before negotiations so that government is in a better position.

See what I am talking about:
‘Leader of breakaway Taliban faction killed’ - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

 

[pkuser2k12]

‘Leader of breakaway Taliban faction killed’

12-11-2015

Dawn News

‘Leader of breakaway Taliban faction killed’ - Newspaper - DAWN.COM