Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 08 Aug 2009 04:24

‘IN the interests, then, of peace; in the interests of commerce; in the interests of moral and material improvement, it may be asserted that interference in Afghanistan has now become a duty, and that any moderate outlay or responsibility we incur in restoring order at Kabul will prove in the sequel to be true economy.’

The language, to some extent, betrays the provenance of this piece of advocacy: 21st-century spin doctors would couch their aims in somewhat different terms. Yet the advice offered in 1868 by Sir Henry Rawlinson, a member of the Council of India, serves as a useful reminder of the longevity of the Great Game.

His comments were made in the context of the potential threat posed by a Russian presence in Afghanistan, and it is notable that commerce took precedence over other concerns. It could also be argued, not entirely without merit, that in the late 20th century the Great Game was resumed only when the prospect of a Russian presence arose once more.

However, it’s not that simple. By the late 1970s, Afghanistan was an unlikely zone for the Cold War, in which the Soviet Union and the US were the main protagonists, with Britain reduced to a relatively insignificant ally of the latter. Its basically feudal structure notwithstanding, Afghanistan was considered to be in the Soviet sphere of influence, much as the United States’ Latin American ‘backyard’ was construed to be a politico-economic playing field exclusive to Uncle Sam. But then the Saur Revolution – styled thus, presumably, to evoke the landmark October variant in its neighbourhood – helped to change the rules of the game.

It may have been different had the Saur coup-makers enjoyed widespread popular support. Their influence, however, was restricted largely to the Kabul intelligentsia. Well aware of their compatriots’ confessional tendencies, Nur Mohammed Taraki and his ilk went out of their way to insinuate that their government was neither un-Islamic nor anti-Islamic. But it was a futile effort, damned by the communist tag. It is quite possible that the cold warriors in Washington were even quicker than the bamboozled apparatchiks in Moscow in deciding to exploit the situation.

The US did its level best to create a situation whereby it just might be able to avenge its humiliation in Vietnam. The effort rapidly paid dividends – although it’s well worth noting that the Soviet decision to invade Afghanistan, notwithstanding the absence of bourgeois democracy, was preceded by a spirited debate within the communist hierarchy in which sceptics such as KGB chief Yuri Andropov and rising star Mikhail Gorbachev were overruled by the Brezhnevite majority.

That offers a striking contrast with the virtual absence of discussion that preceded the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, and even Iraq in 2003. The American entanglement in Afghanistan, from the late 1970s, was supposedly surreptitious, although by the early 1980s it had become an open secret as the CIA operation expanded into the largest covert war since Vietnam, with Pakistan reprising with greater gusto than ever before its chosen role as an agent for Uncle Sam – personified in those crucial years by the recklessly delusional Ronald Reagan.

In those days, the US was a prime source of jihadi literature,{terrorist state of america aka founding father of neo jihad} alongside Pakistan under Gen Ziaul Haq and Saudi Arabia. The motley bands of Mujahideen were schooled, inter alia, in slitting the throats of those who dared to teach in coeducational institutions. More or less every sign of progress on the economic or social front was painted as a communist conspiracy. The trend appealed, inevitably, to those who were least inclined to take progressive developments in their stride. They may have been wary of the Americans, but they were more than willing to accept the assistance of perceived infidels in the crusade against Moscow’s godless agents.

This included, crucially, the shoulder-fired Stinger missiles, liberally supplied by the CIA, that effectively knocked Soviet helicopter gunships out of the equation. Once they had achieved their purpose, the US devoted some energy to buying back unused Stingers, often from arms bazaars in Pakistan. The absence of equivalent weaponry has helped to keep the western death toll relatively low in Afghanistan, although last month proved to be the deadliest since 2001, amid the battle for Helmand – in greeting whose purported conclusion, Gordon Brown sounded much like one of his distant predecessors would have in the Victorian era.

His foreign secretary, David Miliband, meanwhile, has once more mooted the idea of negotiations with second-tier Taliban. At least one of his cabinet colleagues has at the same time pointed out that the terrorist threat to Britain emanates more from Pakistan than from Helmand.

As they did under the command of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, American and British troops are today once more involved in offering combat training to Afghans, albeit this time with the intention of tackling the offspring of their previous pupils, the Mujahideen. Gen Stanley McChrystal, the head of American and Nato forces in the country, is reportedly working on a ‘new’ strategy that involves doubling the Anglo-American presence as well as boosting the numbers and capabilities of the official Afghan security forces. And attempts to buy off sections of the resistance – including familiar figures such as the infamous CIA and Zia favourite Gulbuddin Hekmatyar – evidently enjoy Washington’s imprimatur.

Barack Obama, before he became president, was taken aback when he discovered that the Pentagon lacked an exit strategy in Afghanistan. However, none has thus far become apparent during his incumbency either. It is unlikely that the Afghan presidential election scheduled for Aug 20 will produce any dramatic change. The neocolonial adventure embarked upon in the wake of 9/11 is ultimately doomed to failure in the absence of the realisation that the long-term future of Afghanistan must be determined by Afghans, rather than by interlopers, well-intentioned or otherwise, from near or afar.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 20 Aug 2009 12:40

Taliban, A-OK?

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 21 Aug 2009 02:36

Afghanistan: Taliban uses poll to escalate war

The presidential and provincial elections taking place in Afghanistan Thursday, Aug. 20 may be an exercise in democracy, a system of governance which is alien to Afghanistan, but they have also provided Taliban with a stage for demonstrating its disruptive capabilities.

This demonstration peaked Wednesday with a major offensive on central Kabul aimed at proving that after eight years of war, Taliban still controls the capital rather than President Hamid Karzai, who is likely to be re-elected, or the US-led NATO forces. DEBKAfile's military sources expect these attacks to continue after polling is over through the rest of August and early September as the insurgents seek to exploit the military momentum they have gained now.

They will also exploit the weakness the Karzai regime and its US and NATO supporters which was displayed by their imposition of a media blackout on the latest outrage in the capital the day before the vote, for fear of its negative psychological effect on the voters.

Government sources said three or four men seized control of a Kabul bank Wednesday trying thereby to create the impression that an ordinary bank robbery had taken place.

Taliban shot back with a communiqué announcing that 20 fighters clad in bomb vests had mounted an assault on central Kabul and were fighting for its control.

According to our sources, no one believed the official account, while the Taliban's version was flashed by word of mouth, thereby boosting the Taliban's PR campaign at the expense of government credibility.

But by and large, the Afghanistan war will not be determined in the capital, or even by the outcome of the elections and size of turnout, but by the critical contest taking place in the Southern districts of Helmand Province and the city of Kandahar, where US, Canadian and British forces (the only NATO contingents in active combat) are wrestling for control.

US commanders in Kabul and the front lines know that, with all the US army's best efforts, there will be parts of the country where the ballots will not open.

But the fall of Kandahar, the key city of the South and the weakest link in the American-British military deployment, to the Taliban - or even the loss of some of its suburbs - would constitute the coalition's worst defeat in the war - meaning the insurgents had won the battle for Southern Afghanistan.

Since the US-led NATO force has no expectation of outside reinforcements coming in at this point, the new US commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, would have to rush them in from other parts of the country, so depleting the defenses against redoubled Taliban attacks for expanding its holdings in the East and the North, especially in the regions of Konduz and Herat.

This military development would also have dire consequences for the situation in the north-west of the country and the north-east of Pakistan.

Pakistan's military chiefs are watching the battle of Kandahar closely and awaiting its outcome. A Taliban victory there would make it impossible for the Pakistani army to launch its planned general offensive in Waziristan any time soon and even jeopardize its already fragile control of the Swat Valley to the north.

DEBKAfile's military sources note that US forces must cope not only with a militarily ascendant Taliban but the lack of a clear definition from Washington of the conflict's objectives.

The tens of thousands of US officers and troops in the battlefield need to know whether they are fighting for victory and the Taliban's final defeat, or engaging in a tactic to force the insurgents to negotiate the transfer of power and so enable US forces to exit Afghanistan as they are now about to leave Iraq.

Those sources stress that President Barack Obama's indecision between the two options gives Taliban the upper hand politically and militarily. The outcome of Thursday's election is therefore irrelevant to the future of the Afghan war.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 23 Aug 2009 22:50

Al-Qaeda 'very capable' of more attacks: US military chief
WASHINGTON — Al-Qaeda remains "very capable" of attacking the United States, the top US military officer said Sunday as he tried to boost waning US support for the conflict in Afghanistan.

Nearly eight years after the September 11, 2001 attacks that killed some 3,000 people, Al-Qaeda is "still very capable, very focused on it," chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen said on NBC's Meet the Press.

"They also are able to both train and support and finance, and so that capability is still significant," he said.

Mullen added that the US military is "very focused on making sure that it doesn't happen again," referring to the potential for another such attack on US soil.

Meanwhile Al-Qaeda is gaining from the support of Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan, making the US fight against extremism in Afghanistan all the more urgent, Mullen said.
---
Raising the security threat...

sukhdeo · Post by **sukhdeo** » 24 Aug 2009 09:31

Everyday there comes more evidence of how America's apetite for war in Afghanistan is diminshing, as it started diminishing of the Iraq war a few years ago. US seems to be looking at various options such as negotiating a deal with the Taliban or declaring victory and leaving.

It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Americans heart is not in this war anymore. A new Quinipac poll showed for the first time a majority of American now opposing the Afghan war and advocating a pull out of US troops from Afganistan.

Suppose this happens. It is not likely that the Americans will leave only after the Taliban lay down their arms. Therefore, they will leave Afganistan under the guise of some phony agreement with the Taliban to power share and respect human rights, while refraining from facilitating another attack on the US. So, the Americans are out, on some flimsy excuse, leaving the Afghan people pretty much at the mercy of Taliban and their lord and masters, the Pakis across the border.

How would this affect India's situation ? Where does that leave India ?Will Afghanistan go back to the times when the buddhas were being blown up with impunity and in a brazen manner subverting common sense, a sense of decency and the will of the entire international community. If not, what will prevent it from being radicalized under the taliban once again ? How likely is it that southern afganistan in such a scenario will again be home to traning camps of militants fighting the Indian army for liberation of Kashmire.

Is there anything India can do to insulate itself from harm resulting out of a renewed Taliban takeover of Afganistan.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 09 Sep 2009 23:06

Diplomatic Change? Now It's 'Pak-Af' Not 'Af-Pak'
By Mark Memmott

There was mention made this morning on Capitol Hill of a subtle change in something that's very important to diplomats -- language.

During a House Subcommittee on National Security hearing about U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., noted that State Department Inspector General Harold Geisel kept saying "Pak-Af" (short for Pakistan and Afghanistan) instead of the abbreviation that in recent years has been so common -- "Af-Pak."

Flake wondered: Is this some sort of State Department shift in emphasis between the two nations?

At first, Geisel said he just likes the sound of "Pak-Af" better. Then he said that maybe his staff was "pulling a fast one" on him.

A bit later, Geisel came back with what he said is the real reason for the change: "Ambassador Holbrooke ... started using Pak-Af."

That would be Richard Holbrooke, who's latest State Department title is "special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan." (Hmm: Will he have the title changed too>)

Here's how the Flake-Geisel exchange sounded. We've taken two clips and combined them into one. There's a pause at the 56-second mark. Then Geisel's it-was-Holbrooke explanation follows:

amdavadi · Post by **amdavadi** » 09 Sep 2009 23:24

It looks more and more like "Pak-up" or "f*k-up"

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Sep 2009 16:47

X Posted.

:

India’s growing clout in Kabul may impact stability: US Gen

Chidanand Rajghatta , TNN 23 September 2009, 01:33am IST .............................

The mixed signals emanating from Washington is best illustrated by one paragraph, the only one relating to India, in the report by US General Stanley McChrystal about the dire situation in the Af-Pak theatre. It reads: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian. While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India.’’

Dubbed the “McChrystal Unclear’’ report, the observation has left Indian officials scratching their heads. So what exactly does the remark imply? That India should scale down its influence in Afghanistan, even though its activities “largely benefit the Afghan people”? That the Obama administration needs to ask New Delhi to dilute its presence in Afghanistan in order not to “exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India’’ a thinly-disguised euphemism for Pakistani terrorism? ...............................

Times of India

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 23 Sep 2009 17:28

So what does the guy want us to do? He wants us to stop aid to Kabul, and that will somehow magically manage to stop terror emanating from TSP? Will someone give him a big kick in the musharraf please

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 23 Sep 2009 18:21

Probably there had been serious objections (

) on part of Pak regarding Indian involvement from their point of view.

Its unlikely the Gen was giving his personal opinion amid an ongoing war.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Sep 2009 00:00

X-posted by Acharya

-----------------------
Quote:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 5015.story

Twilight of Pax Americana
Since the end of WWII, the world has depended on the United States for stability. But with American military and economic dominance waning, capitalism and global security are threatened.

By Christopher Layne and Benjamin Schwarz
September 29, 2009

The international order that emerged after World War II has rightly been termed the Pax Americana; it's a Washington-led arrangement that has maintained political stability and promoted an open global economic system. Today, however, the Pax Americana is withering, thanks to what the National Intelligence Council in a recent report described as a "global shift in relative wealth and economic power without precedent in modern history" -- a shift that has accelerated enormously as a result of the economic crisis of 2007-2009.

At the heart of this geopolitical sea change is China's robust economic growth. Not because Beijing will necessarily threaten American interests but because a newly powerful China by necessity means a relative decline in American power, the very foundation of the postwar international order. These developments remind us that changes in the global balance of power can be sudden and discontinuous rather than gradual and evolutionary.

The Great Recession isn't the cause of Washington's ebbing relative power. But it has quickened trends that already had been eating away at the edifice of U.S. economic supremacy. Looking ahead, the health of the U.S. economy is threatened by a gathering fiscal storm: exploding federal deficits that could ignite runaway inflation and undermine the dollar. To avoid these perils, the U.S. will face wrenching choices.

The Obama administration and the Federal Reserve have adopted policies that have dramatically increased both the supply of dollars circulating in the U.S. economy and the federal budget deficit, which both the Brookings Institution and the Congressional Budget Office estimate will exceed $1 trillion every year for at least the next decade. In the short run, these policies were no doubt necessary; nevertheless, in the long term, they will almost certainly boomerang. Add that to the persistent U.S. current account deficit, the enormous unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs and the cost of two ongoing wars, and you can see that America's long-term fiscal stability is in jeopardy. As the CBO says: "Even if the recovery occurs as projected and stimulus bill is allowed to expire, the country will face the highest debt/GDP ratio in 50 years and an increasingly unsustainable and urgent fiscal problem." This spells trouble ahead for the dollar.

The financial privileges conferred on the U.S. by the dollar's unchallenged reserve currency status -- its role as the primary form of payment for international trade and financial transactions -- have underpinned the preeminent geopolitical role of the United States in international politics since the end of World War II. But already the shadow of the coming fiscal crisis has prompted its main creditors, China and Japan, to worry that in coming years the dollar will depreciate in value. China has been increasingly vocal in calling for the dollar's replacement by a new reserve currency. And Yukio Hatoyama, Japan's new prime minister, favors Asian economic integration and a single Asian currency as substitutes for eroding U.S. financial and economic power.

Going forward, to defend the dollar, Washington will need to control inflation through some combination of budget cuts, tax increases and interest rate hikes. Given that the last two options would choke off renewed growth, the least unpalatable choice is to reduce federal spending. This will mean radically scaling back defense expenditures, because discretionary nondefense spending accounts for only about 20% of annual federal outlays. This in turn will mean a radical diminution of America's overseas military commitments, transforming both geopolitics and the international economy.

Since 1945, the Pax Americana has made international economic interdependence and globalization possible. Whereas all states benefit absolutely in an open international economy, some states benefit more than others. In the normal course of world politics, the relative distribution of power, not the pursuit of absolute economic gains, is a country's principal concern, and this discourages economic interdependence. In their efforts to ensure a distribution of power in their favor and at the expense of their actual or potential rivals, states pursue autarkic policies -- those designed to maximize national self-sufficiency -- practicing capitalism only within their borders or among countries in a trading bloc.

Thus a truly global economy is extraordinarily difficult to achieve. Historically, the only way to secure international integration and interdependence has been for a dominant power to guarantee the security of other states so that they need not pursue autarkic policies or form trading blocs to improve their relative positions. This suspension of international politics through hegemony has been the fundamental aim of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s. The U.S. has assumed the responsibility for maintaining geopolitical stability in Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf, and for keeping open the lines of communication through which world trade moves. Since the Cold War's end, the U.S. has sought to preserve its hegemony by possessing a margin of military superiority so vast that it can keep any would-be great power pliant and protected.

Financially, the U.S. has been responsible for managing the global economy by acting as the market and lender of last resort. But as President Obama acknowledged at the London G-20 meeting in April, the U.S. is no longer able to play this role, and the world increasingly is looking to China (and India and other emerging market states) to be the locomotives of global recovery.

Going forward, the fiscal crisis will mean that Washington cannot discharge its military functions as a hegemon either, because it can no longer maintain the power edge that has allowed it to keep the ambitions of the emerging great powers in check. The entire fabric of world order that the United States established after 1945 -- the Pax Americana -- rested on the foundation of U.S. military and economic preponderance. Remove the foundation and the structure crumbles. The decline of American power means the end of U.S. dominance in world politics and the beginning of the transition to a new constellation of world powers.

The result will be profound changes in world politics. Emerging powers will seek to establish spheres of influence, control lines of communication, engage in arms races and compete for control over key natural resources. As America's decline results in the retraction of the U.S. military role in key regions, rivalries among emerging powers are bound to heat up. Already, China and India are competing for influence in Central and Southeast Asia, the Middle East and the Indian Ocean. Even today, when the United States is still acting as East Asia's regional pacifier, the smoldering security competition between China and Japan is pushing Japan cautiously to engage in the very kind of "re-nationalization" of its security policy that the U.S. regional presence is supposed to prevent. While still wedded to its alliance with the U.S., in recent years Tokyo has become increasingly anxious that, as a Rand Corp. study put it, eventually it "might face a threat against which the United States would not prove a reliable ally." Consequently, Japan is moving toward dropping Article 9 of its American-imposed Constitution (which imposes severe constraints on Japan's military), building up its forces and quietly pondering the possibility of becoming a nuclear power.

Although the weakening of the Pax Americana will not cause international trade and capital flows to come to a grinding halt, in coming years we can expect states to adopt openly competitive economic policies as they are forced to jockey for power and advantage in an increasingly competitive security and economic environment. The world economy will thereby more closely resemble that of the 1930s than the free-trade system of the post-1945 Pax Americana. The coming end of the Pax Americana heralds a crisis for capitalism.

The coming era of de-globalization will be defined by rising nationalism and mercantilism, geopolitical instability and great power competition. In other words, having enjoyed a long holiday from history under the Pax Americana, international politics will be headed back to the future.

Christopher Layne is a professor of government at Texas A&M and a consultant to the National Intelligence Council. Benjamin Schwarz is literary and national editor of the Atlantic.
---------------------------

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 01 Oct 2009 00:05

No comments in Af-Pak thread. Only news items.

From Nightwatch, 9/30/09....

Comment on the 29 September Washington Post item on Quetta. An article today significantly distorted what the US knows about Baluchistan in Pakistan, about the Quetta Shura and the competence of US intelligence services in general. The Post article made itself a platform for spreading the outright lies by Pakistani spokesman Major General Abbas, without so much as a question.

For years, NW consistently has highlighted the Quetta Shura as a controlling hub for the Pashtun insurrection in Afghanistan. NW has questioned the policy that ignored the Afghan Taliban in favor of targeting al Qaida Arabs in Pakistan’s tribal agencies.

Today, the blame for neglecting the Quetta Shura is placed on intelligence officials apparently asleep at the switch, instead of the senior officials who have directed the search for bin Laden at the direction of the highest officials in the US government.

The US Counter Terror mavens deliberately ignored the Afghan Taliban for at least seven years after 9/11, regardless of the implications of such a focus on US soldiers in combat in Afghanistan. The Taliban got a pass from the US and the Pakistan and is still enjoying it. The drone operators were only following orders. Now the establishment has discovered Quetta.

Nearly every body who follows Afghanistan knows Mullah Omar went back to Momma-in-law’s family near Quetta after he fled for his life from Kandahar in November 2001 … in tears. No one of importance in the US seemed to care. The search was directed against bin Laden and Zawahiri and has always been directed against them, even when UAV attacks risked destabilizing a pro-US government in Islamabad.

For the US Ambassador to Pakistan to lend the weight of her office to assertions that the US knows nothing about Baluchistan shows how poorly informed she is. For example, she is obviously unfamiliar with Tom Johnson’s excellent article on the border areas. Tom is a professor at Naval Postgraduate School and an expert. He has written extensively on the areas that Ambassador Patterson suggests are terra incognita to US agencies.

The Post item attempts to blame intelligence, operators and information services for the near-sightedness and ignorance of policy makers. The intelligence agencies have done their job but the policy leadership has been deaf and uninterested in Afghanistan for 8 years, except on the margins.

The Post also shows the ignorance of its reporters. The Afghan Taliban never made a secret that they were based in Quetta, Baluchistan Province, Pakistan. Asia Times Online has carried dozens of articles on the Quetta Shura. All of Afghan Taliban internet postings originate from Quetta.

In March the US President called Afghanistan a war of necessity, but evidently it has taken until September for some US policy makers to discover that Taliban leader Omar and his advisors are based near Quetta!! To describe this as slow learning would be a kindness. The Post item is embarrassing, when it is not wrong.

animesharma · Post by **animesharma** » 02 Oct 2009 13:27

Pakistan fears India's rise in Afghanistan: US official

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 02 Oct 2009 15:30

Is Gaza Evolving into Another Waziristan?- II

Al Qaeda's Gaza Cells Are Not Short of a Buck (or Two)

The Palestinian Islamist Hamas this week placed its military, police and intelligence forces on top alert following information that the 25-40 al Qaeda-linked Salafi groups operating in the Gaza Strip (the exact number is unknown) were preparing to mount massive terror attacks on Hamas government premises.

There was talk that the Gaza Strip had been set on a slippery slope to becoming a second Waziristan or Mogadishu.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly's counter-terror sources read more than empty metaphors into this analogy.

It rests on a top-secret intelligence report compiled in the first week of August by Hamas minister of the interior Fathi Hamad, whose contents were obtained by DEBKA-Net-Weekly intelligence sources.

The Salafi-jihadi groups of the Gaza Strip operate under an umbrella organization called Jaljalat, the first word of al Qaeda's anthem, which means: “We have been saved” [implicitly by jihad])."

Earlier this month, Jaljalat sent a secret messenger through Sinai to Jordan to offer Khuzeifa Azzam, son of the legendary founder and leader of the global Mujahideen movement, Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, the mantle of Gaza's Salafi leadership.

His father, Azzam Sr. was highly esteemed in jihadi circles above all as Osama bin Laden's mentor, who persuaded him to join the Afghan holy war against the Soviet invaders in the 1980s. In those days, this influential Palestinian Sunni scholar, who preached the concept of defensive jihad, organized the manpower and funding for an international Islamic legion to fight in Afghanistan.

Israel's disengagement gave Salafis first foothold

The Hamas intelligence report states that today, the al Qaeda-linked Salafi groups command some 7,000 fighting men and control about one quarter of the Gaza Strip (139 sq. miles). Under their sway is an overcrowded population of some half a million people, squeezed mainly into the two southern cities of Khan Younis (160,000 inhabitants) and Rafah on the Egyptian border (over 300,000 inhabitants). This is only slightly more than the size of the population spread out across the 4,473 sq. miles of North and South Waziristan.

For comparison, it should be noted that the Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud (believed to have been killed by a US drone) commanded no more than 2,500 fighting men, roughly the same number deployed by Tohir Yuldashev, head of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which is now considered al Qaeda's main operational arm in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

For al Qaeda, therefore, the Gaza force of 7,000 jihad fervent fighters are a major windfall which bin Laden is unlikely to leave unexploited in pursuing his jihad on the West.

The Salafi groups first appeared in Gaza after Israel evacuated the Strip in the summer of 2006. They multiplied like mushrooms after September 2005 when Hamas seized power and evicted the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority.

Their next period of growth occurred after Israel ended its three-week Operation Cast Lead in February 2009 leading Hamas to halt its missile offensive against the Israeli population. Disenchanted by Hamas' tame new policy towards the Jewish state, thousands defected from its military wing, the hard-line Popular Resistance Committees and the various Palestinian Fronts. They gravitated with their guns to the various Salafi-jihadist groups.

Locals, Exiles and Outsiders

Hamas intelligence reports that the Salafi-jihadist armed groups derive their command structure from three sources:

1. Local Palestinians, many of whom held minor command positions with Hamas or other Palestinian organizations in the Gaza Strip's central and northern regions.

2. A mixed bag of some 150 seasoned Egyptian, Syrian, Sudanese, Yemenite and Iraqi Sunni fighters from various al Qaeda war zones. They entered the Gaza Strip through the smuggling tunnels from Sinai.

The report does not reveal how they were able to slip past Hamas' tunnel overseers, who levy tax on every person or commodity passing through.

3. Ex-Hamas members from Syria and Lebanon.

The Hamad report concludes that the burgeoning al Qaeda presence in the southern Gaza Strip is a threat to Hamas' rule. Without strong and expeditious action to stop them, the Salafi-jihadists will spread north and move in on the teeming Palestinian refugee camps of Gaza City. Already, the first comers have been sighted in the Sabra and Zaitun camps.

These al Qaeda affiliates enjoy an income of big bucks from two sources, according to the Hamas report.

The Palestinian Authority diverts US funds to the jihadis

The first, incredibly, is the United States, and the second, none other than Israel.

Source A. Washington transfers money to Ramallah to finance the Palestinian Authority's security and intelligence forces in the West Bank.

However, the head of Palestinian West Bank intelligence, Gen. Majd Faraj, has been given permission by the PA chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, to direct some of these funds to the Salafist-Jihadis who dominate the southern Gaza Strip. The rationale behind this is the hope of dislodging Hamas rule in the southern half of Gaza, effectively carving the enclave into two sections and toppling Hamas rule.

According to Hamas intelligence estimates, $2.5-3 million of American cash has been transferred from Ramallah to the southern Gaza Strip. Most of went on the purchase of weapons and pay for fighters and groups controlled by al Qaeda.

DEBKA-Net-Weekly sources compare this dynamic to the goings-on in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Taliban was recently discovered drawing on contributions from Persian Gulf donors and the US allocations pouring into Afghanistan to build infrastructure and aid the population. This discovery negates the prevailing wisdom in Washington until now that the Taliban subsisted on profits from the flourishing opium trade.

Presidential special envoy Richard Holbrooke commented only this week:

“In the past there was a kind of feeling that the money all came from drugs in Afghanistan. That is simply not true".

Holbrooke has decided to co-opt a Treasury Department official to his staff to pursue the question of Taliban funding. According to the evidence from the manager of an Afghan firm, which has signed lucrative construction contracts with the US, firms like his must factor into their cost estimates of a minimum rake-off of 20 percent for the Taliban.

Source B. Israel was persuaded to transfer roughly $31.5 million to the Gaza Strip each month by the US and Egyptian governments, who argued that without this influx the local banks would collapse.

If only 5 percent of this money percolates to the Salafis, they can count on a steady revenue flow of $1.5 million per month.

arun · Post by **arun** » 04 Oct 2009 17:19

X Posted.

US Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on “Afghanistan’s impact on Pakistan”

Testimony of Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, Milton Bearden and Steve Coll:

Afghanistan’s impact on Pakistan

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 07 Oct 2009 21:41

The broad contours of the Af-Pak policy are evident right now insofar as TSP & India-related developments are concerned, even though the Obama decision on A'stan is still pending. TSP is keeping a close tab on the discussions going on in DC, according to their FM. What they are asking for in return for cooperation with US on Af-Pak, is pretty clear: US involvement in TSP-India affairs. Exactly what aim they wish to acheive is not clear to me, but based on past record it is a fair guess that they want US pressure on India on Kashmir, US pressure on India on not tagging TSP as "terrorist", US pressure on India on taking the terror hits lying down. I do not think that TSP beleives that US pressure will give them Kashmir, but they want US to shackle India & loosen its control on J&K---that is, in their minds, a realistic goal. This is what they are asking for in return for cooperation on the Af-Pak strategy.

It is overall upto India to deny this to TSP+US combo. Thus leaving US as unable to promise anything India-specific. Which would imply that US would have to alter the carrot-stick ratio for TSP to concede on cooperation, or at the very least make it TSP a more expensive c0nd0m. I think India should draw its red-lines & stick with them with utmost fury & intensity---this will keep India out of the US-TSP aggreements on Af-Pak.

All things nowadays are leading to India, in an ironical way. Af-Pak is linked to TSP, whose behaviour is based on how India behaves. It is a leverage, if we truly want to exploit it. It is a liability, if we are unable to.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Oct 2009 06:18

Obama to Invade Pakistan?

This could make things more intereesting.

The US could engage in a defensive holding strategy against Taliban, while taking the fight directly to AlQaeda in Pakistan.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Oct 2009 06:53

Does anybody remember the Inchon Landing, famously planned by General MacArthur?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inchon

Problem: AlQaeda are hiding behind Taliban, in their rear.

Solution: Maintain a basic defensive posture on the frontline against Taliban, but take the offensive against AlQaeda in their rear - ie. in Balochistan.

Could such a plan work?
Perhaps - if the Pakjabis don't come pouring across the Yalu river

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 09 Oct 2009 07:50

Boss, why would they invade Pokistan, when they have made that country so much dependent on them that they can do more with their currency instead of invading. Today, as it stands financially, Pokistan will file for bankruptcy without financial aid from the world. And, the sad part for my dear country, IN, is that world is ready to provide Pokistan everything they want to make sure that Indian subcontinent remain unstable for next 100 years. I hope babus in Delhi are getting a wet dreams that yankees will one day free them Pokis.

Does anybody know how babus are dealing with Af-Pak? These embassy bomings are getting scarier every day. One mistake of our dear freedom fighters, about Pokistan, has mushroomed into a giant creature which is getting bigger and bigger by day.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 09 Oct 2009 10:01

Sanjay M wrote:Obama to Invade Pakistan?

The US could engage in a defensive holding strategy against Taliban, while taking the fight directly to AlQaeda in Pakistan.

First of all, lets get past this BS about Al Queda. There is no difference between Al Queda and Taliban. What Obama wants to do is leave the Taliban scum in Afganistan, unable to take them on, go and bomb a few rocks in the tribal areas, have TSP hand over Al Queda #2, 3, 4, many times over; then declare victory and come home.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Oct 2009 18:23

I like the idea of Obama taking the war directly onto Pak territory. I notice Pak itself is intensely opposed to this idea. I don't think that going into Pak will enable Obama to obtain a quick victory and run. If this has been true for Afghanistan, it will also be true for Pak. Meantime, US will crash head-on into Pakistan's crooked internal politics in its governance of the tribal areas.

Will ISI be forced to betray AlQaeda and give the Americans whom they want, in order to minimize the time the US spends in Pakistan?

I don't think that even ISI can root out AlQaeda. They won't be able to convince Haqqani, etc to stop helping them. The main AlQaeda guys won't be captured.

Meantime, I would like to see the US establish its own direct supply corridor from Gwadar on the Balochistan coastline right upto Quetta. That should seal Pak's fate quite nicely.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 13 Oct 2009 17:04

Obama approves 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan

WASHINGTON — In an unannounced move, President Barack Obama is dispatching an additional 13,000 US troops to Afghanistan beyond the 21,000 he announced publicly in March, The Washington Post reported.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 14 Oct 2009 00:36

^
Pentagon Denies Report of 'Unannounced' Troops in Afghanistan

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 14 Oct 2009 18:42

Al-Qaeda's guerrilla chief lays out strategy

By Syed Saleem Shahzad

ANGORADA, South Waziristan, at the crossroads with Afghanistan - A high-level meeting on October 9 at the presidential palace between Pakistan's civil and military leaders endorsed a military operation against the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaeda in the South Waziristan tribal area - termed by analysts as the mother of all regional conflicts.

At the same time, al-Qaeda is implementing its game plan in the South Asian war theater as a part of its broader campaign against American global hegemony that began with the attacks in the United States of September 11, 2001.

Al-Qaeda's target remains the United States and its allies, such as Europe, Israel and India, and it does not envisage diluting this strategy by embracing Muslim resistances on narrow parameters. In this context, militant activity in Pakistan is seen as a complexity rather than as a part of al-Qaeda's strategy.

Militants have been particularly active over the past few days. Last Thursday, a car loaded with explosives rammed into the compound wall of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, killing at least 17 people. Then on Saturday, militants staged an audacious attack on the the Pakistani military headquarters in Rawalpindi, the twin city of the capital, Islamabad. On Monday, a suicide bomber detonated a bomb in market town in the Swat Valley region, killing 41 people and injuring 45 others.

Pakistan is at critical juncture, with the armed forces gathered in their largest-ever numbers (almost a corps, as many as 60,000 troops) around South Waziristan to flush out the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Taliban (PTT), al-Qaeda and their allies from the Pakistani tribal areas.

In these tense times, Mohammad Ilyas Kashmiri, an al-Qaeda leader who, according to American intelligence is al-Qaeda's head of military operations and whose death they wrongly confirmed in a recent US Predator drone attack in North Waziristan, spoke to Asia Times Online.

He invited this correspondent to a secret hideout in the South Waziristan-Afghanistan border area, where drones regularly fly overhead.

This is Ilyas' first-ever media interaction since he joined al-Qaeda in 2005. He is a veteran commander from the struggle with India over divided Kashmir.

In the past few months, the militants have appeared to be on the back foot. A number of leading figures have been killed in drone attacks in Pakistan, including Osama al-Kini, a Kenyan national and al-Qaeda's external operations chief; Khalid Habib, the commander of the Lashkar al-Zil or the Shadow Army, al-Qaeda's fighting force; Tahir Yuldashev, leader of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan; PTT leader Baitullah Mehsud, and several others.

The Pakistani Taliban have also been given a bloody nose by the military in tribal and urban areas. Negotiations were also underway to strike peace deals with some Taliban commanders in various Afghan provinces.

Then last week at least nine US troops along with several dozen Afghan National Army (ANA) personnel were killed in a raid on an outpost in Nuristan province, besides the abduction of over 30 ANA officers and soldiers by the Taliban.

This attack was complemented by a series of other attacks on North Atlantic Treaty Organization bases across the southeastern provinces of Khost, Paktia and Paktika, forcing top US General Stanley McChrystal to pull out all troops from isolated posts in remote areas in these provinces to relocate them in population centers.

This created immense space for the Taliban to operate freely, meaning that if Pakistan conducted operations in South Waziristan, the militants could easily move across the border to find sanctuary.

The attacks over the past few days have also shown that the militants are still capable of striking important targets almost at will. They also mean a redesign of the war theater in which Pakistan will have to relocate its troops from the eastern front (India) to the western front (Afghanistan), as the Taliban are now the number one enemy.

Washington plans to send at least another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan while India will complement these efforts with its intelligence and military expertise against the common enemy - Muslim militant groups.

The upcoming battle
Ilyas Kashmiri gave his views on what the upcoming battle will look like, what its targets will be, and how it will impact the West in relation to the destabilization of a Muslim state such as Pakistan.

The contact with Asia Times Online began with a call from the militants on October 6, inviting this correspondent to the town of Mir Ali in North Waziristan. No reason was given. The next day, I traveled to Mir Ali, a town that has been heavily attacked by drones over the past year. After over seven hours of continuous traveling, I was received by a group of armed men who transferred me to a house belonging to a local tribesman.

"The commander [Ilyas Kashmiri] is alive. You know that the commander has never spoken to the media before, but since everybody is sure of his death as a result of a drone attack [in September], al-Qaeda's shura [council] decided to make a denial of this news through an interview by him to an independent newspaper, and therefore the shura agreed on you," a person whom I knew as the key person in Ilyas' famous 313 Brigade told me as soon as I reached the safe house. The brigade, a collection of jihadi groups, fought for many years against India in India-administered Kashmir.

"You will have to stay in this room until we inform you of the next plan. You can hear the voices of drones above your head, therefore you will not leave the room. The area is full of Taliban, but also of informers whose information on the presence of strangers in a house could lead to a drone attack," the man said.

The next day, I was transferred to another house at an unknown location, about three hours away. During this time I was accompanied at all times by an armed escort. I was not allowed to speak to them, and they could not communicate with me. This is al-Qaeda's internal world. Finally, in the early morning of October 9, a few armed men arrived in a white car.

"Please leave all your electronic gadgets here. No cell phone, no camera, nothing. We will provide you pen and paper to write the interview," I was instructed. After several hours of a very uncomfortable journey, passing down muddy tracks and through mountain passes, we reached a room where Ilyas was supposed to meet us.

After a couple of hours, suddenly the sound of a powerful vehicle broke the silence. My escort and the men already present in the room rapidly took up positions. They all wore bullet pouches and carried AK-47s.

Ilyas made his entrance. He cut a striking figure, about six feet tall (1.83 meters), wearing a cream-colored turban and white qameez shalwar (traditional shirt and pants), carrying an AK-47 on his shoulder and a wooden stick in one hand, and flanked by commandos of his famous diehard 313 Brigade.

Ilyas now sports a long white beard dyed with reddish henna. At the age of 45 he remains strongly built, although he carries the scars of war - he has lost an eye and an index figure. When we shook hands, his grip was powerful.

The host immediately served lunch, and we sat on the floor to eat.
"So, you have survived a third drone strike ... why is the Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] sniffing around you so much? I asked.

The question was somewhat rhetorical. He is one of the most high-profile al-Qaeda commanders, with a Pakistani bounty of 50 million rupees (US$600,000) on his head. His position is defined differently by various intelligence and media organizations. Some say he is commander-in-chief of al-Qaeda's global operations, while others say he is chief of al-Qaeda's military wing.

If today al-Qaeda is divided into three spheres, Osama bin Laden is undoubtedly the symbol of the movement and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri defines al-Qaeda's ideology and broader strategic vision. Ilyas, with his unmatched guerrilla expertise, turns the strategic vision into reality, provides the resources and gets targets achieved, but he chooses to remain in the background and very low key.

His bases and activities have always remained shrouded in secrecy. However, the arrest of five of his men in Pakistan earlier this year and their subsequent grilling helped lift the veil. Their information resulted in CIA drone strikes against him, the first in May and then again on September 7, when he was pronounced dead by Pakistani intelligence, and finally on September 14, after which the CIA said he was dead and called it a great success in the "war on terror".

"They are right in their pursuit. They know their enemy well. They know what I am really up to," Ilyas proudly replied.

Born in Bimbur (old Mirpur) in the Samhani Valley of Pakistan-administered Kashmir on February 10, 1964, Ilyas passed the first year of a mass communication degree at Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad. He did not continue due to his heavy involvement in jihadi activities.

The Kashmir Freedom Movement was his first exposure in the field of militancy, then the Harkat-ul Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI) and ultimately his legendary 313 Brigade. This grew into the most powerful group in South Asia and its network is strongly knitted in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir, India, Nepal and Bangladesh. According to some CIA dispatches, the footprints of 313 Brigade are now in Europe and capable of the type of attack that saw a handful of militants terrorize the Indian city of Mumbai last November.

Little is documented of Ilyas' life, and what has been reported is often contradictory. However, he is invariably described, certainly by world intelligence agencies, as the most effective, dangerous and successful guerrilla leader in the world.

He left the Kashmir region in 2005 after his second release from detention by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and headed for North Waziristan. He had previously been arrested by Indian forces, but he broke out of jail and escaped. He was then detained by the ISI as the suspected mastermind of an attack on then-president Pervez Musharraf, in 2003, but was cleared and released. The ISI then picked Ilyas up again in 2005 after he refused to close down his operations in Kashmir.

His relocation to the troubled border areas sent a chill down spines in Washington as they realized that with his vast experience, he could turn unsophisticated battle patterns in Afghanistan into audacious modern guerrilla warfare.

Ilyas' track record spoke for itself. In 1994, he launched the al-Hadid operation in the Indian capital, New Delhi, to get some of his jihadi comrades released. His group of 25 people included Sheikh Omar Saeed (the abductor of US reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi in 2002) as his deputy. The group abducted several foreigners, including American, Israeli and British tourists and took them to Ghaziabad near Delhi. They then demanded that the Indian authorities release their colleagues, but instead they attacked the hideout. Sheikh Omar was injured and arrested. (He was later released in a swap for the passengers of a hijacked Indian aircraft). Ilyas escaped unhurt.

On February 25, 2000, the Indian army killed 14 civilians in Lonjot village in Pakistan-administered Kashmir after commandos had crossed the Line of Control (LoC) that separates the two Kashmirs. They returned to the Indian side with abducted Pakistani girls, and threw the severed heads of three of them at Pakistani soldiers.

The very next day, Ilyas conducted a guerilla operation against the Indian army in Nakyal sector after crossing the LoC with 25 fighters of 313 Brigade. They kidnapped an Indian army officer who was later beheaded - his head was paraded in the bazaars of Kotli back in Pakistani territory.

However, the most significant operation of Ilyas was in Aknoor cantonment in Indian-administered Kashmir against the Indian armed forces following the massacre of Muslims in the Indian city of Gujarat in 2002. In cleverly planned attacks involving 313 Brigade divided into two groups, Indian generals, brigadiers and other senior officials were lured to the scene of the first attack. Two generals were injured (the Pakistan army could not injure a single Indian general in three wars) and several brigadiers and colonels were killed. This was one of the most telling setbacks for India in the long-running Kashmiri insurgency.

Despite what some reports claim, Ilyas was never a part of Pakistan's special forces, nor even of the army. Nearly 30 years ago when he joined the Afghan jihad against the Soviets from the platform of the HUJI, he developed expertise in guerrilla warfare and explosives.

Within just months of arriving in the Afghan war theater in 2005, Kashmiri redefined the Taliban-led insurgency based on legendary Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap's three-pronged guerrilla warfare strategy. For the Taliban, the main emphasis was to be placed on cutting NATO's supply lines from all four sides of Afghanistan, and carrying out special operations similar to the Mumbai attack in Afghanistan.

Over the years, Ilyas has deliberately adopted a low key presence in the militants' hierarchy. His attacks are just the opposite, although he never issues statements or claims responsibility for any operation.

His 313 Brigade is believed to be the main catalyst of high-profile operations such as the one in Mumbai and others in Afghanistan, as well as al-Qaeda's operations in Somalia and to some extent in Iraq.

"Do you believe that the upcoming South Waziristan operation will be the 'mother of all operations' in the region, as some analysts say," I asked after we had finished lunch and I was alone with Ilyas and his trusted confidant.

"I don't know how to play with words during an interview," Ilyas responded. "I have always been a field commander and I know the language of battlefields. I will try to answer your questions in the language I am familiar with. (Ilyas spoke mostly in Urdu, mixed with some Punjabi.)

"Saleem! I will draw your attention to the basics of the present war theater and use that to explain the whole strategy of the upcoming battles. Those who planned this battle actually aimed to bring the world's biggest Satan [US] and its allies into this trap and swamp [Afghanistan]. Afghanistan is a unique place in the world where the hunter has all sorts of traps to choose from.

"It might be deserts, rivers, mountains and the urban centers as well. This was the thinking of the planners of this war who were sick and tired of the great Satan's global intrigues and they aim for its demise to make this world a place of peace and justice. However, the great Satan was full of arrogance of its superiority and thought of Afghans as helpless statues who would be hit from all four sides by its war machines, and they would not have the power and capacity to retaliate.

"This was the illusion on which a great alliance of world powers came to Afghanistan, but due to their misplaced conceptions they gradually became trapped in Afghanistan. Today, NATO does not have any significance or relevance. They have lost the war in Afghanistan. Now, when they realized their defeat, they developed an emphasis that this entire battle is being fought from outside of Afghanistan, that is, the two Waziristans. To me, this military thesis is a mirage which has created a complex situation in the region and created reactions and counter-reactions. I would not like to go into the details, to me that was nothing but deviation. As a military commander, the reality is that the trap of Afghanistan is successful and the basic military targets on the ground have been achieved," Ilyas said.

I responded that the relocation of 313 Brigade from Kashmir was itself proof that foreign hands were involved in Afghanistan.

"The entire basis of your argument is wrong, that this war is being fought from outside of Afghanistan. This is just an out-of-context understanding of the whole situation. If you discuss myself and 313 Brigade, I decided to join the Afghan resistance as an individual and I had quite a reason for that. Everybody knows that only a decade ago I was fighting a war of liberation for my homeland Kashmir.

"However, I realized that decades of armed and political struggles could not help to inch forward a resolution of this issue. Nevertheless, East Timor's issue was resolved without losing much time. Why? Because the entire game was in the hands of the great Satan, the USA. Organs like the UN and countries like India and Israel were simply the extension of its resources and that's why there was a failure to resolve the Palestinian issue, the Kashmir issue and the plight of Afghanistan.

"So I and many people all across the world realized that analyzing the situation in any narrow regional political perspective was an incorrect approach. This is a different ball game altogether for which a unified strategy is compulsory. The defeat of American global hegemony is a must if I want the liberation of my homeland Kashmir, and therefore it provided the reasoning for my presence in this war theater.

Ilyas continued, "When I came here I found my step justified; how the world regional powers operate under the umbrella of the great Satan and how they are supportive of its great plans. This can be seen here in Afghanistan." He added that al-Qaeda's regional war strategy, in which they have hit Indian targets, is actually to chop off American strength.

"The RAW [India's Research and Analysis Wing] has detachment command centers in the Afghan provinces of Kunar, Jalalabad, Khost, Argun, Helmand and Kandahar. The cover operations are road construction companies. For instance, the road construction contract from Khost city to the Tanai tribe area is handled by a contractor who is actually a current Indian army colonel. In Gardez, telecommunication companies are the cover for Indian intelligence operations. Mostly, their men operate with Muslim names, but actually the employees are Hindus."

"So should the world expect more Mumbai-like attacks?" I asked.

"That was nothing compared to what has already been planned for the future," Ilyas replied.

"Even against Israel and the USA?" I asked.

"Saleem, I am not a traditional jihadi cleric who is involved in sloganeering. As a military commander, I would say every target has a specific time and reasons, and the responses will be forthcoming accordingly," Ilyas said.

As I noted Kashmiri's answers, I thought of how several years back he was the darling of the Pakistani armed forces, their pride. The highest military officers were proud to meet him at his base in Kashmir, they spent time with him and listened to the legends of his war games. Today, I had a different person in front of me - a man condemned as a terrorist by the Pakistani military establishment and their biggest wish is his death.

"What impressed you to join al-Qaeda?" I asked.

"We were both victims of the same tyrant. Today, the entire Muslim world is sick of Americans and that's why they are agreeing with Sheikh Osama. If all of the Muslim world is asked to elect their leader, their choice would be either [Taliban leader] Mullah Omar or Sheikh Osama," Ilyas said.

"If it is so, why are a section of militants bent on war on Muslim states like Pakistan? Do you think this is correct?"

"Our battle cannot be against Muslims and believers. As I have mentioned earlier, what is happening at the moment in the Muslim world is a complexity due to American power games which have resulted into reactions and counter-reactions. This is a totally different debate and might deviate me from the real topic. The real game is the fight against the great Satan and its adherents," Ilyas said.

"What turned you from the most-beloved friend to the most-hated foe in the eyes of the Pakistani military establishment?" I asked.

"Pakistan is my beloved country and the people who live there are our brothers, sisters and relatives. I cannot even think of going against its interests. It was never the Pakistan army that was against me, but certain elements who branded me as an enemy to cover up their weaknesses and to appease their masters," Ilyas said.

"What is 313 Brigade?" I asked.

"I cannot tell you, except war is all tactics and this is all 313 Brigade is about; reading the enemy's mind and reacting accordingly. The world thought that Prophet Mohammad only left women behind. They forgot there were real men also who did not know what defeat was all about. The world is only familiar with those so-called Muslims who only follow the direction of the air and who don't have their own will. They do not have their own minds or dimensions of their own. The world has yet to see real Muslims. They have so far only seen Osama and Mullah Omar, while there are thousands of others. Wolves only respect a lion's iron slap; lions do not impress with the logic of a sheep," Ilyas said.

As the shadows of darkness emerged, the conversation ended. The next day, a curfew was to be imposed in North Waziristan in preparation for the grand operation in the region, and I had to leave the area. Ilyas also needed to move to a new destination, as he does on a regular basis to hide from the eyes of Predator drones.

Syed Saleem Shahzad is Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau Chief. He can be reached at [email protected]

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 14 Oct 2009 20:28

From Telegraph, Kolkata, oct 14, 2009

Qaida faces funds crisis
London, Oct. 13: The al Qaida is in its worst financial state for many years while the Taliban’s funding is growing, the US treasury has said.

David Cohen, a terrorist financing official, said the al Qaida had made several appeals for funds this year. He said that as well as cash flow problems, the influence of the network — damaged by US efforts to choke funding — was waning. The Taliban, meanwhile, was in better financial shape, bolstered by Afghanistan’s booming trade in drugs.

Cohen said the Qaida leadership had warned that a lack of funds was hurting the group’s recruitment and training efforts. “We assess that al Qaida is in its weakest financial condition in several years and that, as a result, its influence is waning,” Cohen told the BBC from Washington. But he added that as the organisation had multiple donors who were “ready, willing and able to contribute” the situation could be rapidly reversed.

The Taliban were in a better financial position, he said, despite efforts to restrict the movement’s cash supply. The US administration’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, has said that the Taliban get most of their funding from private benefactors in the Gulf.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 16 Oct 2009 20:51

After OIC's Kashmir comments comes brain dead Prince's comments from the Land of Saud.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... pute-za-09

Bakistan is building the mass. OIC+Saud+China

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 18 Oct 2009 18:07

Indians joining British Army to beat Taliban

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 18 Oct 2009 18:44

BBC

Iranian commanders assassinated

Several top commanders in Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards have been killed in a suicide bombing in the volatile south-east of the country.

Iranian interior ministry said 29 people died in the attack, in the Pishin region of Sistan-Baluchistan, and at least 28 were injured.

Shia and Sunni tribal leaders were also killed. A Sunni resistance group, Jandullah, said they carried it out.

Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said "US action" contributed to the attack.

Sistan-Baluchistan is mainly made up of the Baluchi ethnic group, who belong to the Sunni Muslim minority of Shia-ruled Iran.

Jundallah has previously been accused by Iran of terrorist activities in the province.

"Very soon we will catch the perpetrators of this terrorist action and punish them," a statement on the interior ministry's website said, according to AFP news agency.

One report said there were two bombs - one inside the meeting and one aimed at a convoy of guards just arriving.

'Terrorist' attack

The deputy commander of the Guards' ground force, General Noor Ali Shooshtari, and the Guards' chief provincial commander, Rajab Ali Mohammadzadeh, were among at least six officers killed, state news agency reported.

Mr Larijani, speaking at an open session of parliament which was broadcast live on state radio, said: "We express our condolences for their martyrdom.

"The intention of the terrorists was definitely to disrupt security in Sistan-Baluchistan Province."

"We consider the recent terrorist attack to be the result of US action. This is a sign of America's animosity against our country," Mr Larijani said, quoted by AFP.

"Mr Obama has said he will extend his hand towards Iran, but with this terrorist action he has burned his hand," he said, referring to US President Barack Obama.

Earlier reports on Iranian TV quoted what it called "informed sources" as saying that Britain was directly involved.

The Iranian government has previously accused both countries of supporting the militants.

Sistan-Baluchistan province, which borders both Pakistan and Afghanistan, has long been affected by smuggling, drug trafficking, banditry and kidnapping.

Jundallah, also known as the Popular Resistance Movement of Iran, says it is fighting against the political and religious oppression of the country's Sunni minority.

In May, three men were executed for their role in a bombing of a mosque during evening prayers which killed at least 19 people in the south-east city of Zahedan in Sistan-Baluchistan.

The hangings came two days after the attack and the men were in custody on other charges at the time of the bombing.

Revolutionary Guards were among 11 people killed in an attack in 2007 in Zahedan.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 18 Oct 2009 19:02

Its only a matter of time before the US is routed in Afg and implements operation 'cut & run'. Some so called peace deal will be worked out so US can make a diginified withdrawl - but it will be a surrender by another name.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 19 Oct 2009 04:51

NRao wrote:Indians joining British Army to beat Taliban

British Raj all over again, but this time with outsourcing of her war. I'm sure many people like Mr. Mulchandi are lured by possible fast track U.K. residence upon completing services for her Majesty. On a side note.

Iraq and Afg. wars have a higher percentage of outsourcing in it (a trend anticipated to accelerate in the future wars). By outsourcing, I mean not delegating responsibilities to other countries but actually hiring foreign citizens to work for british and yankee troops. Can't remember the name of the nation, but one of the African nations banned its citizens from joining yankee brigades in Iraq. As western countries see strong opposition from its citizens against sending their sons and daughters in harm's way, the outsourcing of soldier's duties are gaining momentum. Question is should GoI allow her citizen to participate?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 19 Oct 2009 06:28

From My blog long long ago...

http://kalchiron.blogspot.com/2009/02/w ... er-15.html

For good or for evil, the moment when NATO decides to leave Afghanistan, the situation would be extremely serious in India. Given the current political and cultural instability of GOI and Hinduism respectively, the primary response of India towards the problem of Pakistan will be that of profound confusion as it is today. I guess, since India and Hindus do not have answer towards solving the problem of Pakistan and Islam respectively in subcontinent, their current reaction is instinctively based upon buying as much time as they can and wishing maximum possible infliction of damage on Pakistan by NATO. I guess, if NATO stays in Pak-Afghan region for 12-15 years more (which most probably they will), they will end up exhausting and squandering most of their wealth and lots of their men in the region.

The direct beneficiaries of this scenario will be China and Islamic world and in weird way, India. I consider this situation similar to one in deccan in late 1600's when 27 year long Deccan conquest of Aurangjeb ended up weakening Mughal empire and strengthening Marathas. Now, who will play the role similar to the one which Marathas played in 1700's is matter of great interest.

India and Islamic federation backed up by China, both might have a fair chance to rise over the ruins of defeated West, just like Marathas rose on the ruins of Mughals. The odds will be in favour of Caliphate, given the laziness of Indians. However, if by then Indian religions find a satisfactory answer for assimilation of muslims in mainstream Indian society ending their alienation, India will rise for sure.

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 19 Oct 2009 08:48

Vikram Sood on the Afpak situation.

http://soodvikram.blogspot.com/

The US is realising, perhaps a bit too late, that Pakistan never intended to be the most suitable boy, who would let his benefactors down repeatedly. In tremendous difficulties in the Punjab, the Pakistan Army is unlikely to be willing to do anything substantial for the Americans, citing dangers from its traditional enemy. It is not that the Pakistan Army fears an assault by the Indian forces but for them to move troops away from its eastern borders would mean that the threat from India is minimal and this would undercut its very own primacy. Then there is China, waiting in the wings for the Americans to get sufficiently unpopular and then move in with its deep pockets. Pakistan would be comfortable with an increasing Chinese profile in Afghanistan but not with an Indian profile.
This is where India comes in. It must stay the course in Afghanistan and concentrate on the various infrastructure projects in the country — roads, dams, bridges, communications, schools, hospitals, power stations and transmission lines. Training of the Afghan Army and police, civil servants, education in various disciplines can be handled by the Indians. This would be far more economical and relevant to local conditions and requirements.

Pakistan will respond in its own way. There will be more bombs and attacks on Indian interests in Afghanistan. Sending troops to Afghanistan is not an option.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 21 Oct 2009 12:14

I have a young "relative's relative" who has fought in Afghanistan in the British Army and is probably back there now.There is no confusion over the need to take out Al Q and the Taliban as was the objective after 9/11,ehich had the backing of the international coimmunity.However,Dubya Bush changed the objectives somewaht,made Iraq the need of the hour,allowed the Taliban to regroup in Pak and Pak to steer the "tiller" in this war.Pak's gameplan has been to win back Afghanistan as its strategic space and later on use the forces of evil to attack India.This is a far cry from the original objectives and reasons for launching the war.The war has now metamorphosed into a virtual civil war within Pak and the US is now pandering to the Pakis and wants to sut a dela with the Taliban so that they can extricate themselves form the region,after installing their puppet Dr.Abdullah Abdullah!

The leader of the BNP,Britain's controversial right wing party,Nick Griffin has some scathing words to say about the Uk's Afghan and Iraq policy,saying that the generals in charge are war criminals,echoing the viewpoint of many around the globe that the leaders and military men of the US and its allies should face war crime trials for their conduct of these two wars.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... rimes.html

BNP: British generals should be hanged for war crimes

Some of Britain’s most respected military commanders have been drawn into an extraordinary public row with the British National Party after the party's leader compared them to Nazi generals hanged for war crimes.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 5:50PM BST 20 Oct 2009

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, accused General Sir Richard Dannatt and General Sir Mike Jackson, two former chiefs of the general staff, of complicity in “illegal” wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the MPs’ expenses scandal.

Mr Griffin’s attack came after the generals added their names to a new campaign against the BNP's attempts to “steal the valour” of the Armed Forces by using wartime images and slogans.

Related Articles
BBC tightens security for Nick Griffin's appearance on Question Time

General David Petraeus says SAS 'spectacular'The party routinely uses images of Spitfires in its campaign material, and has also invoked the memory of Sir Winston Churchill.

In an ITV News interview, Mr Griffin claimed that Sir Winston would backed his party if he were alive today. "His only place would be in the British National Party," he said.

Promising to counter such propaganda, the Nothing British campaign launched on Tuesday with a report warning: “The forces of extremism and racism are hijacking the good name of Britain's military.”

The campaign, organised by Conservative activists, is backed by retired senior service personnel including the generals, who signed an open letter on the issue.

“We call on all those who seek to hijack the good name of Britain's military for their own advantage to cease and desist,” they wrote. “The values of these extremists – many of whom are essentially racist – are fundamentally at odds with the values of the modern British military, such as tolerance and fairness.”

Mr Griffin responded with a lengthy tirade on the BNP’s website, likening the generals to Nazi military chiefs.

He said: “Those Tory generals who today attacked the British National Party should remember that at the Nuremberg Trials, the politicians and generals accused of waging illegal aggressive wars were all charged — and hanged — together.

He added: “Sir Richard and Sir Mike fall squarely into this bracket, and they must not think that they will escape culpability for pursuing the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Mr Griffin singled out Sir Richard, who stepped down as CGS in August and has agreed to become an adviser on defence to the Conservatives.

Mr Griffin said: “Sir Richard said nothing about the fact that low-paid British soldiers have to buy their own kit because the Government has deliberately underfunded the army, despite sending our soldiers to foreign conflicts which have nothing to do with us.”

Sir Mike declined to respond to Mr Griffin’s comments. In an earlier BBC interview, he insisted that the military remains apolitical and his support for the Nothing British campaign was not partisan.

He said: "This is not in any sense party political. It is an issue about the reputation and good name and the tolerance of the British armed forces.”

In a separate interview, Mr Griffin said that his party has widespread support among serving service personnel.

“I'm the one who talks to the families of young squaddies and large numbers of ex-servicemen and they all say that almost everyone at the coalface, fighting in Afghanistan, vote for the British National Party," he said.

Last year, a leaked BNP membership list contained the names of 16 people who were described as servicemen including a Royal Marines Commando.

Among the 68 members listed as former servicemen were one Chelsea Pensioner, three Paras, three Guards and two Royal Marines.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2009 21:40

Please no comments in this thread as its a news reports collection thread....

From Nightwatch, 10/18/09....

Special Note: NightWatch has been studying the unclassified fighting reports in Afghanistan by district for the first two weeks of October. The NightWatch focus, as always, is on the now 400 districts because they are where the government succeeds or fails, much more than in Kabul. That means they are where the Taliban exploit corruption, bad government and the absence of government in order to expand. The fight for Afghanistan is not won in Kabul. That is just the prize that goes to the winner.

The data is incomplete and the findings are tentative. Nevertheless they support the NightWatch thesis that the insurgency as now constituted is self-limiting … to the Pashtun provinces in the south and the Pashtun enclaves in the north. There are no new districts showing the signs of a sustained presence of Taliban or other anti-government fighting cells that are not Pashtun, based on the unclassified research.

This means the Taliban and most anti-government groups remain, as they have for eight years, primarily Pashtun. They are having little to no success breaking out of the Pashtun “nation.” Districts in Konduz Province and other areas of the north, for example, that have anti-government cells appear to be those that have Pashtun communities as the result of coerced transmigration programs in much earlier periods.

These communities were outgrowths of the King’s version of a”lily pad” strategy. The King was a Pashtun and required loyal enclaves all over the country from which his forces could operate to maintain order among Tajiks and Uzbeks, for example. They tended to be hostile to their Uzbek and Tajik neighbors, who reciprocated the feelings, in the best of times.

The significance of these tentative findings is that the anti-foreign appeal of the Taliban and Pashtun nationalists is not resonating among the other tribes. The anti-government movement is limited to about half the districts of Afghanistan at most and shows no capability to move beyond them yet.

The good news is the northern tribes seem to be checking the Pashtuns. The other good news is the anti-government forces cannot win against the NATO/ISAF forces.

The bad news is most of the Pashtuns may be counted as being anti-government and anti-foreign. That means NATO/ISAF cannot militarily defeat the anti-government forces without many more forces and without imposing an occupation regime or martial law in the nine core Pashtun provinces. Control the nine Pashtun provinces and the rest will fall in line.

The larger implications are that the anti-government resistance is not monolithic. That means that one set of tactics does not fit all.

It also means that the Taliban expansion into the north, about which NightWatch warned in 2008, can be reversed, but will require using different tactics from those used in the Pashtun south. The Pashtun enclaves in the north require protection from their non-Pashtun neighbors. The Pashtun clans are far from united in their needs and wants.

Consolidation of the north and control of the center -- meaning Kabul and Jallalabad -- ought to be high priorities. Herat, the western anchor of the centerline, is doing okay, and the Hazaras, who occupy Bamiyan Province and hold the middle of the central line, hate the Sunni Pashtuns. Weaker leaders than Karzai and NATO have held the Herat to Kabul to Jallalabad line and the North, while retaining a strong presence in key southern cities.

The fighting data show the pro-government and NATO forces have more assets and more advantages than the international press report in reducing the violence and in establishing a national unity government. The fighting data by district shows the Kabul command might need several hundred separately crafted solutions to win the loyalty of the people in the 200-plus disaffected districts. In the era of the computer, that is not a particularly daunting task for smart people. That is, in fact, a bounded set.

When neither side can win on the battlefield, politics becomes the battlefield. That will become more apparent to the Taliban leaders as winter approaches. More on this later.

For now, Readers may take away that the security problem is not as dire as some suggest, is manageable, containable and even reversible, but it will take more creative and critical thinking than is evident in public releases.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 22 Oct 2009 10:26

I'm not sure if this has been posted here before, but a longish piece on the 'Taliban' in southern Pakjab, examined through the accidental detonation in a village in July of explosives cached by a jihadi-trained school teacher.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8296485.stm

Worth reading.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 22 Oct 2009 15:22

There is no substitute for troops on the ground - Op Ed in NYT

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 24 Oct 2009 02:07

America, Pakistan and the Taliban - M.K.Bhadrakumar

The Pakistanis use an earthy metaphor when they want to put their American interlocutors on the defensive. They complain Pakistan has been used like condom and discarded time and again in the Cold War era.So they do read BR[/b] By saying so, they urge the Americans to be constant in friendship.

The Afghans would feel the same way today about the Americans. One look at the CNN on Tuesday afternoon was sufficient to take in the painful sight of Afghan President Hamid Karzai lining up with a slight stoop for the photo-op announcing he lost the presidential election and a runoff will be held on November 7. A cultural mishap has taken place, which leaps out of the famous E.M. Forster novel set in Chandrapore. The Americans didn’t even know a Popolzai chief was being made to admit defeat in front of his people.
...
...
No matter who wins the November 7 runoff, he will carry the cross of being an American puppet, and forever will the common Afghan sit on the fence dangling his feet and refusing to rally in the fight against the Taliban and forever will the western powers remain in ground zero with their finely chopped “Afghanisation” strategy. The only feasible way of “Afghanisation” is the fashion in which Mr. Karzai hoped to go about it – via incomprehensible coalitions and cutting Byzantine deals with local commanders, “warlords”, Mujahideen, tribal maliks and mullahs. “Afghanisation” crucially depended on a central Pashtun figure like Mr. Karzai who would incessantly network, keeping one eye and one ear closed, seeing and listening when he wanted.
...
...
All the talk of the Afghan election being fraudulent and the UN-supported electoral watchdog ruled a new round is baloney. When the Afghans heard about the fraudulent election, as the Pakistani author Tariq Ali wrote, “The Hindu Kush mountains must have resounded to the sound of Pashtun laughter”. Make no mistake about it, the runoff too will be largely fraudulent. What else can one expect? After 62 years of democracy, ballot stuffing and impersonation of voters and “booth capturing” happens all the time in India. Mr. Tariq Ali put the finger on the pie: “Nobody in Afghanistan takes elections too seriously and especially not when the country is occupied by the U.S. and its NATO acolytes”.
...
..
Quintessentially, what is unfolding is that in the name of “Afghanisation”, Washington is preparing an exit strategy which will be built around an incremental “Talibanisation” of the Afghan power pyramid. This approach presupposes that any new power structure in Kabul will at best be a mere transitional authority to bridge an interim phase. The man in charge in Kabul — Mr. Karzai II or Abdullah Abdullah — will need to be a Paid Piper who follows the U.S. diktat — and nothing more. The U.S. is expected to kickstart in the very near future a determined effort to co-opt the Taliban.[b/] The foreplay has already begun. Troops are being redeployed, abandoning far-flung or remote and indefensible military outposts and instead concentrating on holding major towns and cities. What is on the cards is that the Taliban cadres will be allowed in to fill the local power structures. The gateway opens when the local elections are held in 2010.
...
...
Therefore, the Obama administration is adopting a revisionist approach towards the Taliban, saying the latter do not pose any threat to the U.S.’s security. To be fair, Mr. Obama has no reason to be on a revenge act in the Hindu Kush, as was the case with his predecessor eight years ago. Bob Woodward has made riveting revelations in his book “Bush At War” precisely on this issue as to whether the Taliban regime in Kabul in September 2001 was to be regarded as America’s enemy. That 8-year old discussion has come full circle. True, the Taliban aren’t necessarily America’s enemies. Nor should they be excluded from their own country’s body polity. So, if the Taliban pose no threat to the U.S. security and if only the Taliban would agree to severe links with the Al-Qaeda, the U.S. would unscramble the omlette.
...
All the same, the U.S. officials have begun arguing, the raison d’etre of continued western troop presence in Afghanistan still remains insofar as Pakistan’s stability has now become the new focal point. But then, no one remembers anymore that it was the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan that in the first instance destabilized Pakistan. Thus, the U.S. sidesteps the core issue – a timeline for ending the occupation of Afghanistan.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 26 Oct 2009 00:32

GWOT status......pathetic.

No wonder Holbrooke's flunkey Barnett Rubin think the great game is no fun anymore.

New battlefield for Kashmiri militants

With more and more Kashmiri militants shifting base to the already trouble-ridden Waziristan to join hands with the Taliban fighters, the anti-US resistance movement has been strengthened

By Amir Mir

Recent conflicting reports about the deaths of two key pro-Kashmir militant leaders in US drone attacks in the Waziristan region have confirmed a dangerous development: the trouble-stricken area has become the new battlefield for the Pakistan-based Kashmiri militants who are increasingly joining forces with anti-US and pro-Taliban jihadi elements.

First such death -- that of Rashid Rauf, a British terror plot suspect belonging to the Jaish-e-Mohammad in North Waziristan in a US predator attack along with two other Most Wanted al-Qaeda comrades (Abu Nasr Al-Misri and Abu Zubair Al-Masri) -- was reported by the international media in November 2008. However, almost four months later, in April 2009, the British authorities sought intelligence cooperation from the Pakistani agencies for the arrest and extradition of Rashid Rauf, saying the previous assessment about his death had now been revised in view of some latest credible intelligence information.

Actually a British national of the Pakistani origin and in charge of al-Qaeda's external operations branch responsible for attacks in Europe, Rashid Rauf happens to be the brother-in-law of one of Maulana Masood Azhar's younger brothers.

The second such death -- that of Ilyas Kashmiri, chief of the Azad Kashmir chapter of the Harkatul Jihadul Islami -- was reported by the international media in another US drone attack in North Waziristan in September 2009. He was reportedly killed along with Nazimuddin Zalalov alias Yahyo, a top al-Qaeda leader belonging to the Islamic Jihad of Uzbekistan. But almost a month later, Ilyas Kashmiri refuted reports of his death in an October 13, 2009 newspaper interview besides vowing retribution against the United States and its proxies.

The Pakistani authorities say the militants belonging to Ilyas Kashmiri's HUJI and Baitullah Mehsud's TTP had jointly carried out some major terror operations in different parts of the country besides sponsoring the multi-pronged suicide attack.

Well-placed intelligence circles believe it was actually the changing government policy on Kashmir that forced many of the Kashmiri militant groups to gradually migrate their fighters to tribal areas of North and South Waziristan on the restive Pak-Afghan border. Information collected by the Pakistani authorities indicates the presence of fighters belonging to at least four Kashmiri militant groups -- Harkatul Jihadul Islami (HUJI), led by Maulana Ilyas Kashmiri; Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), led by Maulana Masood Azhar; Harkatul Mujahideen (HuM), led by Pir Syed Salahuddin and Jamaatul Furqaan (JuF), led by Maulana Abdul Jabbar.

Besides the HUJI and the JeM, the third Pakistan-based Kashmiri militant group having presence in the Waziristan region is the Hizbul Mujahideen (HuM) or the Party of Freedom Fighters, which is considered the mother of ongoing militancy in Jammu and Kashmir.

On September 11, 2008, the Afghanistan-based American forces targeted with a missile an alleged training camp of Al-Badar, a Kashmiri militant group which was being aided by the Hizb-e-Islami. Unmanned Predator aircraft reportedly launched several missiles at a target in the Miramshah area of North Waziristan, killing 12 members of Al-Badar.

Much before that, the international media had reported the arrest of three Hizbul Mujahideen cadres at Tank near South Waziristan on March 28, 2006 carrying explosives and ammunition. Senior Superintendent of Police Dar Ali Khattak told media people that the three were on their way from South Waziristan in a vehicle when they were apprehended at a checkpoint in Tank. However, the then Hizb spokesperson Saleem Hashmi maintained that the allegation that the group cadres were roaming around the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan was an attempt to blacken the name of the Kashmiri fighters.

The fourth Kashmiri militant group having presence in the Waziristan region is Jamaatul Furqan, the splinter group of Jaish-e-Mohammad, led by Maulana Abdul Jabbar. He had been involved in the Kashmir jihad as a Jaish commander who was arrested repeatedly after 9/11 by the Pakistani authorities on terrorism charges but set free each time after brief detention. He, too, has reportedly shifted to Waziristan, becoming part of a militant training camp to fight in Afghanistan.

With more and more Kashmiri militants shifting their base to the already trouble-ridden Waziristan to join hands with the Taliban fighters, the anti-US resistance movement has been gradually strengthened.

Area profile

The tribal areas of Punjab are not easily accessible but are frequently used by Talibans to sneak into the settled areas of South Punjab

By Abrar Nutkani

The 5,500 sq km tribal belt of Punjab is surrounded by the country's four provinces. Originally a part of districts D G Khan and Rajanpur, it has Waziristan to its North-West, Dera Bugti and Zhob to its South-West, and on the South-East, it extends to Kashmor in Sindh. The whole area is mainly inhabited by nine tribes. The side adjacent to NWFP is controlled by Qaisrani, Buzdar and Nutkani tribes, whereas Loond, Khosa, Leghari, Dreshek and Gorchani are on the Balochistan side. The Mazari tribe touches the Sindh province.

Under this tribal belt lies a vast plain which is crossed by River Indus and enters deep into Punjab's settled areas. An old route comprises Adam Khel Pass, Waziristan and Qaisrani, which has for decades been used for drugs and arms trafficking. Now the same route is frequently used by the Talibans to sneak into the settled areas of South Punjab.

The area's local residents often host these unfamiliar people -- ostensibly foreigners from Central Asia. This promises them easy and relatively lucrative income. Also, they are impressed with the foreigners who carry sophisticated weapons -- weapons have always been a symbol of prestige in the area.

For the past many years, this passage has seen the mushroom growth of seminaries. Often big buildings are converted into seminaries belonging to Deobandis. Highly active and eloquent seminary teachers allure naïve and simple minds. They train these simpletons to become fierce mercenaries to serve some ulterior designs. The practice is rapidly amassing a large-sized army.

Apart from the tribal area, other parts of Punjab adjacent to tribal belt are also becoming host to dubious activities. A large number of seminaries promoting Deobandi thought have been established, especially in Tehsil Taunsa. Poor people, who are admitted to these seminaries to acquire religious education, are trained as mercenaries in NWFP. That's how these Talibans are enhancing their influence unobtrusively in the area.

A majority of people belonging to Qaisrani tribe lives in the mountains without any shelter. They drink contaminated water. The underground water reservoirs have crude oil traces which again cannot be used for drinking. There's little food available to them to eat -- in winters, they survive on loaves made from dry berries, and in summers, live on different seasonal fruits.

Perhaps it is due to the inaccessibility of the area that almost half of the local population is not registered. Educational and medical facilities are non-existent. The Punjab government has established check-posts on the borders of Punjab and NWFP, but the officials often hesitate to get them posted there.

After the initiation of the Waziristan operation, the path which was seen as impassable has been serving as a main route for Pathans who have been coming to settle in Tehsil Taunsa and in its suburbs.

The District Police Officer and the District Administration disclaim any underground activities, but it is common knowledge that a lot is brewing there. The local population is visibly alarmed by the unregulated activities of infiltrators which would possibly invite US strikes.

At the same time the anti-US emotions are very high in the area, people are convinced that US is responsible for the turbulent condition in Pakistan. It's therefore much-needed that the government should take immediate steps to launch development projects in the area as it has large reserves of uranium, natural gas and other valuable minerals.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 26 Oct 2009 23:00

Top US general holds talks with Tajikistan president

DUSHANBE — General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, held talks Monday in Tajikistan with President Emomali Rakhmon on military cooperation in the region.
.
.
A US embassy spokeswoman earlier said Petraeus was meeting with Rakhmon and Tajik military officials to discuss "joint cooperation in promoting stability in Afghanistan."

"They are going to be talking about combating drug trafficking, preventing terrorism and... border security," she added.

Tajikistan, which shares a porous 1,340-kilometre (830-mile) border with war-ravaged Afghanistan, agreed a deal with Washington in February for the transit of non-lethal US supplies for troops in Afghanistan.

The spokeswoman said Petraeus would be discussing issues related to the transit deal.

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 27 Oct 2009 21:50

8 US Troops Die: Deadliest Month in Afghan War

Eight American troops were killed in two separate insurgent attacks Tuesday in southern Afghanistan, making October the deadliest month of the war for U.S. forces since the 2001 invasion to oust the Taliban.