Tag Archive | "Haqqani network"

2009 Five Presidents, President George W. Bush...

US recommends G-20 membership for Paksitan

2009 Five Presidents, President George W. Bush...
Image by Beverly & Pack via Flickr

WASHINGTON: The United States should seek Pakistan’s membership or at least observer status in major international forums, such as the Group of Twenty, a US task force recommended on Friday.

The panel – led by Richard Armitage and Samuel Berger, top aides to former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton – notes that Pakistan’s presence in such groups would enable it “to connect with new power structures and familiarise it with emerging norms”.

In a report released on Friday, the task force, which enjoys support of the administration, endorses the Obama administration’s effort to cultivate cooperation with Pakistan as the best way to “secure vital US interests in the short, medium, and long run”.

It recommends that this approach should include significant investments in Pakistan’s own stability, particularly after this summer’s floods.

Washington (CNN) — The United States should consider drastically cutting the number of troops in Afghanistan unless the current strategy starts to show signs of progress, a new report says.

The 98-page independent task force report, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, also says the United States should invest in a long-term partnership with Pakistan, but only if Pakistan takes action against all terrorist organizations.

The report encompasses analysis and recommendations on U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan from a 25-member bipartisan task force composed of high-profile military and national security experts. It was chaired by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and former National Security Adviser Samuel “Sandy” Berger.

The group “conditionally” endorses the current U.S. policy in Afghanistan, including plans for a conditions-based military drawdown in July 2011, but warns that America “cannot afford to continue down this costly path” without the potential for lasting progress.

At a news conference Friday discussing the report, Armitage, who served as deputy secretary of state under President George W. Bush, was critical of his former boss.

“After acknowledging that President Obama got a bad lie from the Bush administration regarding Afghanistan, we do salute his attempt at the surge to rectify the situation,” Armitage said.

But Armitage emphasized that Obama needs to have a “very deep, clear-eyed review of the situation,” and that if “real progress is not deemed to have been made, a majority of us suggest that we change the mission to a much different mission, one of counterterror and continued training of the Afghan National Security Forces.”

Regarding Pakistan, Armitage said the government there needs to do a better job pursuing and disabling Pakistan-based terror groups such as the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, in the same way that it worries about the Pakistani Taliban.

“If we can’t be successful in either jaw-boning, pressuring, or ‘sticks-and-carroting’ them into this (fighting the Haqqani Network and Lashkar-e-Tayyiba), then in the long run we are dealing with a very dangerous situation,” he warned.

The independent report, titled “U.S. Strategy for Pakistan and Afghanistan,” precedes the Obama administration’s planned review of U.S. policy in Afghanistan, due in December.

The task force panel asks whether the “cloudy picture and high costs” should push the United States to “downsize its ambitions and reduce its military presence in Afghanistan.”

“After nine years of U.S. war in the region, time and patience are understandably short,” the report reads, acknowledging America’s huge budget deficits and sluggish economic recovery.

The task force recommendations for Afghanistan include, among others, shifting a greater burden of that country’s security to Afghan forces, and encouraging political reform, national reconciliation, and regional diplomacy.

Regarding Pakistan, the panel recommends that the United States maintain existing levels of economic and technical assistance for reconstruction efforts after that country’s devastating summer floods, and expanding training and equipment for police, paramilitaries, and the Pakistani army. CNN. Draw down U.S. troops if Afghanistan progress lags, panel recommends
By Laurie Ure, CNN
November 12, 2010 5:06 p.m. EST

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

Taliban in Herat.

Insight Kabul: No peace without Pakistan

Taliban in Herat.

Taliban in Herat. Wikipedia

While the US steps up military pressure over the Taliban in Kandahar and in Pakistan, the informal, occasional talks with the group have been taken a step further. Journalist Iason Athanasiadis was in Afghanistan trying to make sense of these negotiations, which are the crucial element of the US-led reconciliation strategy. Several obstacles remain to the success of this process, including the indecipherability of the Taliban puzzle.

HERAT: Mullah Kareem is an unlikely member of the Taliban. Stridently un-ideological, he shrugged off his Kalashnikov and abandoned jihad against the infidels as soon as he heard that an American budget for reconciliation was in play. His weapons surrendered and an amnesty received, he became one of approximately 2,000 Taliban to head back to the tree-lined boulevards of Afghanistan’s least-shattered city since the reconciliation project began in 2005. In Zirkuh, the mountainous region that his band of 30 men had made a no-go zone for several years, he left behind him his first wife in order to take a more sophisticated second one in Herat. A new life beckoned.

Well, not quite. After six months back in civilian life, Mullah Kareem has seen little of the promised aid materialize. He was not given a house in central Herat, the only location he felt was safe enough to escape the wrath of former comrades outraged by his betrayal. A high-paying civil service job he claims was pledged to him similarly didn’t come about; and nor did a monthly pension. All he got was a one-off $2,000 payment for severing ties with the Taliban. Without his weapons and now hated by his former colleagues, Mullah Kareem was left high and dry, left to wonder through central Herat by day with former colleagues and ruminate on his few options. “We can’t do anything now,” he complained. “They put their hand on the Qur’an and lied to us.”

The reconciliation strategy

So what happened to the American funds? Back in January 2010, the Obama administration unveiled part of its reconciliation strategy, which involved separating hardcore ideological fighters from what Defense Secretary Robert Gates referred to at the time as “foot soldiers [who] fight for the Taliban for money or because their families have been intimidated.” The Pentagon strategy envisioned a reintegration stage where fighters would be disarmed and returned to society, and reconciliation where Taliban and Afghan government leaders would mend their differences and find a way of coexisting.

The pace of reconciliation has increased recently. President Hamid Karzai admitted last month on CNN that he had been talking “for quite some time” with Taliban leaders. He had already formed a 60-member official peace council comprised of former power brokers that was instantly denounced by the rebels. In October, a series of exploratory talks were held in downtown Kabul’s top-security Serena Hotel that the East-West Institute, a Brussels-based think-tank, and the government of Abu Dhabi organized. Similar talks were held in 2009 when Saudi Arabia hosted Ramadan fast-breaking meals with Taliban representatives.

Insiders in the talks spoke to The Majalla about their intense frustration with Pakistan’s  role and revealed that the current formula for negotiations has been dubbed “push and pull” as a method of defusing Islamabad’s influence. The Taliban are offered a mix of incentives and penalties intended to convince them to shrug off Pakistani backing and come off the battlefields. According to the game plan, bad cop NATO will inflict military defeats on the Taliban, pushing them in the direction of the government’s good cop incentives to join the political process. More Special Ops missions inside Pakistani territory in recent months have aimed at forcing Pakistan’s hand and convince it to deny sanctuary to Taliban fighters.

Top US commander in Afghanistan, General Petraeus, stated in October that safe passage had been granted to senior Taliban to head to Kabul for talks, something confirmed by Afghan government officials who facilitated the movements of Taliban from war-wracked Helmand Province to Kabul.

But the Taliban have repeatedly refused to negotiate with anyone other than the Americans, who, despite blessing these talks, are not participating. Taliban leaders take a dim view of the Karzai government, which they consider illegitimate. But they will also not speak to the Americans unless a clear timetable for withdrawal is announced. The Karzai government, for its part, demands that the Taliban surrender their weapons and accept the constitution as a precondition for talks, something that it is unlikely to do as news spreads of the post-surrender experience of commanders such as Mullah Kareem.

Looking for answers to how the government could have been so negligent in setting a good example for future Taliban looking to return to the fold, I headed to Herat’s Reconciliation Commission, a standalone white villa wrapped by high walls and metal bars and surrounded by armed guards. Inside it sat Mohammad Sharif Mojadidi, the commission’s director and a relative of Afghanistan’s first post-Soviet president.

“We support negotiations with the Taliban so we can have peace,” Mojadidi said. “And if this means giving them some ministries or posts in the government, then so be it.” Mojadidi occasionally comes across as more sympathetic towards the Taliban than the government he represents. But he has received numerous threats against his life and has been told to step down from his post. Often, his frustration with the Karzai government and his meager 50,000 Afghani monthly budget (about $1,000) spills over.

“We have nothing to offer them (Taliban), and very weak resources,” he said, explaining why he is incapable of making promises to people such as Mullah Kareem. “Aside from food, clothes, transportation to Kabul and covering their stay in our office there, we can’t offer anything else such as land or salaries.”

Part of the reintegration involves NGOs schooling former Taliban fighters in a trade. But there is little sign of interest on the part of high-ranking Taliban to give up their challenge to the status quo. “The Taliban are obsessed with the revival of the Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan,” said Syed Saleem Shahzad, author of Al-Qaeda: Ideology, Strategy and Tactics. “Accepting its revival negates the UN sanctions in the late 90s and the dislodging of the Taliban in 2001, amounting to a complete Western defeat in Afghanistan.”

The Quetta Shura and the Haqqani network are two of the most rejectionist Pakistan-based insurgent groups, but there is little sign they are involved in current talks. One of the only Taliban interlocutors whose identity was made public is Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former Taliban envoy who was incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for four years after the fall of the Taliban and became the only one of the movement’s officials to write a memoir.

“They’re not the real thing, but they have the ability to convey the message,” Davood Moradian, chief of strategic studies at the Afghan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said of the Taliban representatives. “The Taliban need to be convinced that they will not prevail and they will not win.”

The Taliban puzzle

Under virtual house arrest and heavily monitored by Afghan state security, it is unlikely that Zaeef can still communicate with top Taliban leaders. A further question is whether central leadership even exists for such a fragmented and regional movement.

“The Taliban is a very frustrating entity to speak with because they have no structure,” said a NATO official speaking on the condition of anonymity. “To compound this, many Talibs are afraid of breaking cover because they might end up on a targeting list.”

“There is a division between the new generation of the Taliban and the previous generation,” said Soheil Sanjar, the publisher of the Kabul-based Hasht-e Sobh daily newspaper. “Some of the previous leaders, like Zaeef and Motavakel are willing to make peace but the new generation is more rejectionist.” “The problem is that nobody knows exactly who these people are,” he added.

The new generation of Taliban is well connected to the Haqqani network and has direct contact with Al-Qaeda foot soldiers in Pakistan’s Waziristan tribal belt. They often act independently of the Quetta Shura. As new leadership layers have accrued, Mullah Omar’s role has receded into that of a respected traditional leader who carries no clout on daily operational matters. Although he still has some influence over the previous leadership and commanders in Kandahar and Helmand, his authority in the East has waned.

“The Taliban will be more powerful after 10 years of political exile but military success has left them with an army of neo-Taliban in the Pakistani tribal areas, which will help them suppress any armed opposition in Afghanistan,” said Shahzad, the Pakistani analyst.

Failure to come to a negotiated settlement with the Taliban could open the door for a partitioning of Afghanistan as proposed by former US ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill. According to the plan, NATO would accept that defeating the insurgency was a lost cause and retreat behind a steel wall in a Tajik-majority remainder state. South of the new border, a new “Pashtunistan” centered around Kandahar would emerge.

“If you have the partition of Afghanistan, then you open the door to partitioning Iran, Pakistan, some Central Asian countries and perhaps even China, as the Baloch, Uzbeks, Tajiks and ethnic Turks demand independence,” said Sanjar, the publisher. “It would conjure up the very potent specter of Islamic terrorism mixed with nationalism, and threaten the very weak post-Soviet countries of Central Asia with collapse.”

Back in the long weeds and tall pine trees of Herat’s central park, Mullah Kareem stands up to bid me goodbye. His future is uncertain he says, and he feels trapped: monitored by government spies and hated by his former comrades, he is both unable to return to the Taliban fold and lacks the credibility or connections to land a government job in his only specialization, security. He has also realized to what extent American money permeates his country.

“This war is built around foreign money,” he said. “I gave up because I heard there was an American budget. And I was a Talib because I received money from local commanders who got it from Pakistani intelligence, so they too could receive money from the Americans to continue fighting the threat.”

Afghan officials hope that a negotiated settlement with the Taliban can be achieved soon after the Persian New Year on 21 March. “If the Pakistani establishment makes a concerted and sincere effort to complete the talks, this process could be completed in three to six months’ time,” said Moradian, the Afghan foreign ministry official. “The Afghan conflict won’t be over, but we’ll see huge breakthroughs in integrating the Taliban into the government by accepting the Afghan constitution and severing ties to international terrorism.”

For Mullah Kareem, the local picture is that he was the victim of his ethnicity. Buoyed up to power under the Taliban because of his Pashtun heritage, he was punished by the new Tajik conquerors once the Taliban were overthrown.

“These people are not animals,” said Mojadidi, the director of Herat’s Reconciliation Commission about the Taliban. “If you give them the capacity to live their lives and make a living, then they’ll come back into the city and into the fold.”

Iason Athanasiadis – Journalist based in Istanbul. He covers Turkey, the Middle East and Central Asia. Since 1999, he has lived in Cairo, Damascus, Doha, Sana’a and Tehran. Mr. Athanasiadis worked as an electoral observer during September’s Afghan parliamentary elections. By Iason Athanasiadis Published: Friday 29 October 2010 Updated: Friday 29 October 2010

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commande...

Blunt truth: Campaign to cripple Taliban has failed

U.S. Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commande...

Image via Wikipedia

An intense military campaign aimed at crippling the Taliban has so far failed to inflict more than fleeting setbacks on the insurgency or put meaningful pressure on its leaders to seek peace, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials citing the latest assessments of the war in Afghanistan.

Escalated airstrikes and special operations raids have disrupted Taliban movements and damaged local cells. But officials said that insurgents have been adept at absorbing the blows and that they appear confident that they can outlast an American troop buildup set to subside beginning next July.

“The insurgency seems to be maintaining its resilience,” said a senior Defense Department official involved in assessments of the war. Taliban elements have consistently shown an ability to “reestablish and rejuvenate,” often within days of routed by U.S. forces, the official said, adding that if there is a sign that momentum has shifted, “I don’t see it.”

One of the military objectives in targeting mid-level commanders is to compel the Taliban to pursue peace talks with the Afghan government, a nascent effort that NATO officials have helped to facilitate.

The blunt intelligence assessments are consistent across the main spy agencies responsible for analyzing the conflict, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and come at a critical juncture. Officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The Obama administration’s plan to conduct a strategic review of the war in December has touched off maneuvering between U.S. military leaders seeking support for extending the American troop buildup and skeptics looking for arguments to wind down the nation’s role.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, has touted the success of recent operations and indicated that the military thinks it will be able to show meaningful progress by the December review. He said last week that progress is occurring “more rapidly than was anticipated” but acknowledged that major obstacles remain.

U.S. intelligence officials present a similar, but inverted, view – noting tactical successes but warning that well into a major escalation of the conflict, there is little indication that the direction of the war has changed.

Among the troubling findings is that Taliban commanders who are captured or killed are often replaced in a matter of days. Insurgent groups that have ceded territory in Kandahar and elsewhere seem content to melt away temporarily, leaving behind operatives to carry out assassinations or to intimidate villagers while waiting for an opportunity to return.

U.S. officials said Taliban operatives have adopted a refrain that reflects their focus on President Obama’s intent to start withdrawing troops in the middle of next year. Attributing the words to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, officials said, operatives tell one another, “The end is near.”

Obama’s decision to order an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan divided some of his senior advisers. While no major change in strategy is expected in December, critics could use the latest assessments to argue that the continued investment of American resources and lives is misguided, particularly when the main impediment to progress that analysts cite is beyond American control.

U.S. officials said the two main branches of the insurgency – the Taliban and the Haqqani network – have been able to withstand the American military onslaught largely because they have access to safe havens in Pakistan.

A crackdown by Pakistan’s military on those sanctuaries probably would have a greater impact on the war than any option available to Petraeus, officials said. But given the Pakistani government’s long-standing connections to the Haqqani network and the Taliban, a move by Islamabad against those groups is considered unlikely, at least by the administration’s timetable.

The United States has sought to compensate by ramping up Forces raids and military air patrols on the Afghan side of the border, and by sharply increasing the number of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan.

Over the past two months, the spy service has nearly doubled the pace of its drone campaign, killing dozens of militants in territory controlled by the Haqqani network and thought to be a haven for al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden.

Omar and other leaders of the Afghan Taliban are thought to be based primarily in Quetta, a sprawling Pakistani city that the Islamabad government does not allow CIA drones to patrol.

The joint CIA-military efforts have scrambled insurgent networks, causing senior operatives to move more frequently and become more preoccupied with security. Still, U.S. officials said the impact on the Taliban’s highest ranks has been limited.

“For senior leadership, not much has changed,” the defense official said. “At most we are seeing lines of support disrupted, but it’s temporary. They’re still setting strategic guidance” for operations against coalition forces in Afghanistan.

That guidance has shifted in recent weeks, officials said. The arrival of thousands of additional U.S. and coalition troops in the Taliban’s stronghold around Kandahar has prompted insurgents to back away and embrace smaller-scale strikes.

“The enemy’s tactics have shifted – to include intimidation and assassination,” a U.S. intelligence official said.

The defense official said that as many as 100 Afghan government representatives in and around Kandahar are being targeted for assassination by the Taliban, according to U.S. military intelligence estimates.

U.S. officials stressed that the recent assessments are a snapshot of the nine-year-old war and that Petraeus’s offensive has been underway for only a few months.

During that period, U.S. military officials said, the tempo of American operations has increased four- or fivefold. Last month, officials disclosed that 235 insurgent leaders had been captured or killed in the preceding 90 days. At the same time, Air Force statistics showed that U.S. warplanes and drones had dropped or fired 700 weapons on Afghan targets in September, compared with 257 in the same month the previous year.

U.S. officials said they have seen isolated indications of slumping morale among some Taliban units, including a reluctance among some mid-level commanders to replace superiors who were captured or killed, apparently out of fear that they might meet the same fate.

But those examples have been offset by other instances in which Taliban succession is almost seamless. In northwestern Bagdhis province, for example, U.S. special operations forces thought they had delivered devastating blows to Taliban guerrillas, killing the group’s local leader, Mullah Ismail, as well as his apparent heir, only to watch yet another “shadow governor” take the job.

The Taliban has dispatched lieutenants to engage in discussions with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. But U.S. intelligence officials said the Taliban envoys seem to be participating mainly out of curiosity, convinced that they are in a position to prevail.

“If there are elements that wish to reconcile . . . that ought to be obviously explored,” CIA Director Leon E. Panetta recently told reporters. “But I still have not seen anything that indicates that at this point a serious effort is being made to reconcile.” U.S. military campaign to topple resilient Taliban hasn’t succeeded
By Greg Miller. Washington Post Staff Writer. Tuesday, October 26, 2010; 10:47 PM

Posted in Current AffairsComments (0)

CIA map showing the areas where the main Mujah...

Haqqanis: Khalil, and Ibrahim mediating in Kurram

CIA map showing the areas where the main Mujah...
Image via Wikipedia

ISLAMABAD: The three-year fragile and ineffective efforts for peace between warring sectarian tribes in Kurram Agency have received an unexpected boost in the shape of the controversial Haqqani network which is now trying to play peace broker.

This has been confirmed by more than one source from among the key players involved in the peace process.

The entry of the Haqqanis in the Kurram peace talks, which date back to 2007, has surprised many. After all, the network is usually mentioned in terms of its war theatre in Afghanistan and its base in North Waziristan. The US has been pressurising the government for months to dislodge the Haqqanis from North Waziristan.

Khalil and Ibrahim, sons of the network’s founder Jalaluddin Haqqani, have reportedly been meeting tribal elders from the Kurram in Peshawar and Islamabad to end the hostilities between the local tribes and bring peace to the area which has witnessed some of the worst clashes in its history over the past three years.

The last round of talks was held in Islamabad on Oct 10. “They first turned up at a meeting held in Peshawar in the first week of September,” a tribal elder told Dawn.

This account is corroborated by another elder who adds that the two brothers were also present at the second meeting in the provincial capital on Sept 16 and then at a subsequent one in Islamabad.

It is expected that elders and mediators will put their heads together in the next few days yet again to ensure sustainable peace in the area.

Although the ongoing spate of violence dates back to 2007 and the peace efforts to 2008, the Haqqanis have been in contact with the rival tribes since early last year.

In the early phase, Haqqani’s senior ‘commanders’ negotiated with all the groups in Kurram on his behalf. But the talks remained inconclusive.

Now he has nominated his two younger sons which shows how important the region has become for the group.

However, the people of the violence-wracked Kurram are apprehensive of the aims of the mediators.

Not only are they wary of those involved in fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but also because they think that the involvement of the Haqqanis may not be possible without the tacit approval of the military which is reported to enjoy links with this group of Afghan militants.

Such suspicions gain credence against the backdrop of reports that members of the Haqqani clan visited Peshawar and Islamabad for the talks.

Some reports suggest that the Haqqanis have sought full authority and ‘machlaka’ (bond) from rival factions before unveiling a new peace agreement. The proposed deal will be binding on all parties.

However some groups are reluctant to give full authority and machlaka to the ‘mediators’.

Instead, they are stressing that the Murree/Islamabad agreement signed by all tribes be implemented.The government had brokered the agreement in Murree that was signed on Oct 16, 2008.

Under the agreement, the rival tribes deposited Rs20 million to the local authorities as guarantee that they would refrain from fighting in the future.

But the five-point agreement which covers all major issues could not be implemented.

Tribesmen blame a lack of interest on the part of the state organs for this.

According to some reports, the tribesmen have sought the release of the people kidnapped during an attack on a convoy on the Thall-Parachinar road in July.

The Haqqanis’ interest is not linked to the welfare of the residents of Kurram but to the tribal agency’s strategic position. The most important among all the agencies in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, Kurram borders Afghanistan’s Khost province in the south, Paktia in the southwest and Nangarhar in the north, while Kabul is 90 kilometres west of Parachinar.

In fact, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, all the major groups of ‘Mujahideen’ had bases in the area.

The Haqqani group is active in Paktia, Paktika, Khost, Ghazni and Wardak, which is close to Kabul. And especially as Waziristan has become vulnerable for the network in the wake of frequent US drone attacks, the Haqqanis are desperate to find safe locations outside the agency. Kurram would prove ideal for them and this is why they are trying to reconcile with the tribes in its lower and upper parts.

They are not the first to find Kurram’s proximity to Afghanistan attractive. In fact, Taliban first came there in 2006 when they moved to Orakzai Agency and some parts of Kurram from Waziristan after signing peace deals with the government.

Baitullah Mehsud, the late chief of the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan had deputed Hakimullah Mehsud to oversee Kurram, Khyber and Orakzai.

Another reason the Taliban shifted activities to Orakzai and Kurram was that North and South Waziristan were being closely watched by the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan and they were facing difficulties crossing the border from there.

However, the militant groups’ move to Kurram was opposed locally. The residents of the upper parts of Kurram opposed the movement of armed men through the agency. Eventually the agency plunged into bloody clashes in April 2007, leaving over 3,000 people dead, according to unofficial estimates, while hundreds of families were displaced.

Property worth millions of rupees was destroyed in clashes and the people suffered immensely because of prolonged closure of the Thall-Parachinar road.

Unfortunately, scrappy media coverage of the clashes gave them a sectarian colour and the involvement of the Taliban was ignored, although the government did acknowledge on some occasions the involvement of a third party.

For a number of reasons, the Taliban since then have not been able to enforce their writ in Kurram. And this is why they have been forced to negotiate peace, a process which the Haqqanis have joined. Meanwhile, the residents of Kurram remain sceptical about the new initiative.

Posted in Current Affairs, Pak CAComments (0)


Categories

Archives