New Taliban group with new chief formed in SWA

[abdulrafi]

New Taliban group with new chief formed in SWA
Updated at: 1210 PST, Wednesday, July 22, 2009
WANA: Three groups of Taliban in South Waziristan Agency have chosen Ikhlas Khan alias Waziristan Baba as the new Ameer of Abdullah Mehsud group on Wednesday.

Three groups namely Turkistan Bathni, Haji Tehsil Khan Wazir and Ikhals Khan Mehsud formed a new group with name of Abullah Mehsud.

New Ameer Ikhlas Khan alias Waziristan Baba is 42 years old, he joined Abdullah Mehsud three years ago.

Expressing his views after assuming the chieftaincy, Ikhlas Khan alias Waziristan Baba said Bitullah Mehsud is involved in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto; now, nobody will be allowed to do wrongs on the people.

The offices of new group have been set up in SWA areas including Gomal, Umar Adda, Jandola, Pang, and Sheikh Autar and more offices will be opened in other areas.

Ikhlas Khan said they will avenge the killings of innocent people, adding, ‘Those who are playing gory games with our brothers and sisters, are not people’s well-wishers.’

 

[abdulrafi]

 

[Fracker]

lolzz... what a joker!!

btw i think Operation Nijaat is been slowed down.. and also i think there is something going on between waziristani taliban groups and ISI.. Let see

 

[ajpirzada]

i guess army wanna play this new group against baitullah. previously they were raisin zainullah but he was shot dead. now lets see how far can this new guy go.

 

[muse]

You want friendship of the Pashtun/Pakhtun tribesmen?? Defeat them, kick their behind in the most humiliating manner, and they will respect you and be your friends, but after that, be fair with them. Pakistan seems unable or unwilling to do either, which is why this new effort is viewed with much trepidation - Pakistani policy makers consistently misunderstand tribesmen, it both a part of the tribal mentality and cultural norm, that the tribesman needs first to be brought to heel, before he can be redeemed - it is the reason the tribes do not trust and worst still, do not respect, Pakistani policy:



Tread lightly with lashkars
Michael Kugelman


In early June, the Taliban blew up a mosque in Pakistan’s northwest district of Upper Dir, near the Swat Valley. More than 30 people died. In today’s Pakistan, such news is depressingly familiar.

What followed, however, is not.

On their elders’ orders, more than 1,000 tribesmen grabbed their guns and converged on Taliban fighters, killing several of them. In recent weeks, these tribal militias, known as lashkars, have captured and killed additional militants.

This affair has drawn considerable attention in Islamabad and Washington. Both capitals point to the lashkars’ actions as emblematic of the anti-Taliban sentiment surging through a country long reluctant to acknowledge, much less address, its extremist threat.

Pakistan’s military is now admitting past failures to support lashkars, describing them as keys to the army’s success, and encouraging them to rise up in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). With the army preparing for a full-scale assault on the tribal region of South Waziristan, Islamabad may be telegraphing a desire to strengthen its links with lashkars there.

That would be a big mistake. Close associations with FATA lashkars pose grave risks, and Islamabad should tread very lightly in its dealings with them. Washington, which has expressed support for engaging lashkars, should lower its expectations.

In recent years, lashkar efforts to combat militancy in the tribal belt have failed miserably. In South Waziristan, lashkars were formed — with Islamabad’s support — in 2003 and 2007. Yet today the area is a Taliban stronghold, and anti-Taliban militiamen are scarce. Bajaur and Orakzai, the tribal areas with some of the highest numbers of lashkar fighters, have suffered some of Pakistan’s most vicious anti-lashkar violence.

Lashkars’ few successes have mostly occurred in the settled regions of the North-West Frontier Province (such as Upper Dir), where militias have killed militants outright, driven them out, or compelled them to disarm. Lashkars’ rare triumphs in FATA have been restricted to areas such as parts of Bajaur, where the Taliban’s presence was weak to start with.

From a tactical perspective, the lashkars’ struggles have a simple explanation: they are drastically out-numbered and out-armed. So why not assist these undermanned anti-Taliban fighters?

Because more complex factors are at play. FATA’s lashkars share the same Pashtun ethnicity with Taliban forces, and are often hesitant to fight their ethnic kin. Also, Washington’s use of Predator drones in the tribal areas — a deeply unpopular policy in Pakistan that is tacitly supported by Islamabad — makes lashkar members uneasy about partnerships with Pakistan’s government.

Furthermore, lashkars are tribal militias. Fiercely independent, they answer to their elders, never to outside authorities, and depend on their own modest resources. They respond to local, specific grievances, and disband once they have done so. Lashkars are irregular militias, not permanent self-defence forces. They specialise in self-initiated, localised missions, and not in ongoing campaigns directed by central authorities against national threats.

For these reasons, Islamabad should exercise extreme caution. The army has little reason to disrupt the Pashtun tribal hierarchy or the modest gains against extremism — as witnessed in Upper Dir — this system may help produce. Additionally, the continued use of drones suggests that lashkars may abruptly reject any largesse from Pakistan and turn its guns on the army.

Indeed, funnelling arms and pledging support to Pashtun tribesmen in one of the world’s most unstable and militarised regions is a recipe for blowback. Several decades ago, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistani and American guns and money poured into the same tribal areas, spawning some of the very militants sought by Islamabad and Washington today.

Unfortunately, however, Islamabad’s policy options are not always so simple. In recent months, the Taliban has slaughtered scores of elders, undermining Pashtun tribal hierarchies and hastening a breakdown of the tribal order. As a result, besieged tribesmen have appealed to the government for help. In these cases, Islamabad is faced with a conundrum: come to their rescue and face the risks, or say no and watch them fail.

In effect, Islamabad should follow this mantra: do not help the lashkars unless asked, and when asked, help them, but only until the immediate objective is attained. Where tribal hierarchies are intact, let the lashkars do their thing and do not interfere. When they beg for assistance, offer arms and other tactical support. Yet when the original threat has been removed, wish the lashkar well and move on.

Additionally, the government should not promise assistance unless it intends to follow through. On several occasions, tribesmen have formed lashkars after promises of backing from the army — only to suffer great losses after the military reneged. Tribesmen from Bajaur to Swat have been left demoralised (or dead), both their homes and their faith in Islamabad destroyed.

Finally, authorities should never take unilateral actions, whether bullying (pressuring lashkars to fight and threatening reprisals if they fail to do so) or downright misguided (such as the decision by North-West Frontier Province officials in February to distribute 30,000 rifles among villagers).

Concurrently, Islamabad — with Washington’s help — must bring immediate economic relief to the FATA. The region is largely bereft of services, highly food-insecure and desperately poor-per capita income is less than USD1.50 a day. So instead of handing out 30,000 rifles, provide 30,000 sacks of rice. Strengthening livelihoods, not tribal warriors, is what ultimately reduces the Taliban’s appeal.

Michael Kugelman is programme associate with the Asia Programme at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC, where he is responsible for research and publications on South Asia. He can be reached at michael.kugelman@wilsoncenter.org

 

[Watani]

You want friendship of the Pashtun/Pakhtun tribesmen?? Defeat them, kick their behind in the most humiliating manner, and they will respect you and be your friends, but after that, be fair with them.

I failed to understand this particular part of what you said. Please explain.

 

[muse]

Watani


I am referring to the mentality of the tribesmen - that the tribesmen respect only those who not only defeat them but do so handily. As long as the tribesmen percieves the Pakistani state as a pushover, the tribesmen will continue to be problems, however; should Pakistan deliver not just a defeat but an insistence that after the defeat all tribal cultural structures will now be subject to Pakistani law, the tribesmen will begin to become citizens of Pakistan - right now they are just tribesmen, they owe loyalty to no one and to anyone who can afford them.

 

[Spitfighter]

I mean no disrespect muse sir, I find your posts to be very informative and intelligent. But your take on the Pathans is demeaning to say the least, you speak of them as if they are wild animals that need to be tamed. Maybe it is your perception that needs to be readdressed.

 

[Ratus Ratus]

muse:
Should that be more like:
You want friendship of the Pashtun/Pakhtun tribesmen?? Defeat them, kick their behind in the most humiliating manner, after that, be fair and firm with them, and they will respect you and be your friends.

slight rewording.

 

[Zulfiqar]

Well here is some misunderstanding. NWFP/Sarhad is different from FATA. Pushtuns reside in both the places, all of them are loyal to pakistan except for the mehsud tribe as their tribe has been hijacked by TTP. Mehsud tribes think that we are the enemy(we includes other pushtun tribes like orakzai agency e.t.c) and this is why they are fighting but now some elements is mehsud tribes have realized what TTP is and this is why we are all seeing these new groups.

The swat situation is different .Swat was an independent state but it later joined pakistan.There problem was that nizam-e-adl was not implemented and they were fed of regular court systems.TTP hijacked their movement but now nizam-e-adl(not the TTP version) will be implemented by the government.

BTW Muse being a pushtun i find your comments somewhat offensive. We in no way want to be part of greater pushtunistan and we are loyal to the pakistani cause.

Miscreant elements are also present in Sindh(sindhu desh or whatever it was),balauchistan(BLA) and Punjab( lashker-e-jhangvi)

 

[moha199]

Muse i totally understand your point that in trible belt only the strongest is respected and unforunatly the strongest act like this in that part of the world but since we are Pakistani we need not to talk down to them, There is a saying, Some times it's better not to let words out, they might hunt you. We are Pakistani and all pashtuns sindi baloch, muhajer and punjabi. We need to be tough in that part of the world but not as you have said. We need to kill our enemy and hug our friends but at the same time show our power so our friends stay loyal to us

 

[muse]

Gentlemen:

I take the points you have made and we should be clear that it is not being suggested that the "Pashtun" ought to treated in a particular manner, what I outlined was the mentality of the "tribal" as I understand it, and I think I understand it really well.

Ratus's rephrasing is excellent.

Remember we are talking about tribals and lets not make excuses for them or seek to hide them in the larger "pashtun" identity - the tribal is lost in a no-mans land of a kind, where his loyalty is only within his cultural domains.

Lets keep our focus, which is that making deals with these people is extremely problematic, tomorrow we will have new problems and the way to deal it I am suggesting, is give up this deal making business - allow them, if they want to be our enemy, but do make sure to deliver punishment to your enemies,; obedience to Pakistani law, loyalty to the Pakistani nation and state are not favors, these are compulsory.

 

[waraich66]

Watani


I am referring to the mentality of the tribesmen - that the tribesmen respect only those who not only defeat them but do so handily. As long as the tribesmen percieves the Pakistani state as a pushover, the tribesmen will continue to be problems, however; should Pakistan deliver not just a defeat but an insistence that after the defeat all tribal cultural structures will now be subject to Pakistani law, the tribesmen will begin to become citizens of Pakistan - right now they are just tribesmen, they owe loyalty to no one and to anyone who can afford them.

Muse,

Your understanding about tribel culture is wrong, they never join Pakistan with force ,what you suggestted

Last 60 years what Pakistan had given them? they are among the most ignored comunities of Pakistan.

Our miltery and political leadership were never considered this area for development.You can see by your own eyes still majority cancer patients in SKH are from FATA.

First deserve then desire .

 

[waraich66]

Gentlemen:

I take the points you have made and we should be clear that it is not being suggested that the "Pashtun" ought to treated in a particular manner, what I outlined was the mentality of the "tribal" as I understand it, and I think I understand it really well.

Ratus's rephrasing is excellent.

Remember we are talking about tribals and lets not make excuses for them or seek to hide them in the larger "pashtun" identity - the tribal is lost in a no-mans land of a kind, where his loyalty is only within his cultural domains.

Lets keep our focus, which is that making deals with these people is extremely problematic, tomorrow we will have new problems and the way to deal it I am suggesting, is give up this deal making business - allow them, if they want to be our enemy, but do make sure to deliver punishment to your enemies,; obedience to Pakistani law, loyalty to the Pakistani nation and state are not favors, these are compulsory.

What is strongest bond between FATA and Pakistan ?

If it is Islam , then we have to see toward our policies and laws are based on islamic fundamentals or not ?


We need to strengthen the shariah laws in Pakistan , these Pustoon will start loving us again as they loved Pakistan in 1947.

 

[waraich66]

Muse i totally understand your point that in trible belt only the strongest is respected and unforunatly the strongest act like this in that part of the world but since we are Pakistani we need not to talk down to them, There is a saying, Some times it's better not to let words out, they might hunt you. We are Pakistani and all pashtuns sindi baloch, muhajer and punjabi. We need to be tough in that part of the world but not as you have said. We need to kill our enemy and hug our friends but at the same time show our power so our friends stay loyal to us

Pakistan could never impress pushtoon tribes of FATA with force.We muslim are all like brothers.

Strongest bond between Pakistan and FATA tribes is islam, we should develop mutual trust by practicing basic fundamental of islam.

Power and money game will not work in FATA.