| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Pakistan offensive against Taliban 'failing to target' most dangerous insurgents |
| 2009-09-21 |
| Pakistan's offensive against the Taliban has failed to target the insurgent networks posing the greatest danger to Nato forces in Afghanistan, according to America's Ambassador in Islamabad. Anne Patterson told The Daily Telegraph of Washington's frustration with the "different priorities" of Pakistan's government and how the failure to agree common targets was hampering the struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar, who created the Taliban movement in the 1990s and led its regime in Kabul between 1996 and 2001, is believed to be based in the Pakistani city of Quetta, where he directs the Afghan insurgency through a group of leaders known as the "Quetta Shura". His most effectively ally is a jihadist network run by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a veteran extremist, and his son Sirajuddin, based in Pakistan's Tribal Area of North Waziristan. But Pakistan's military offensive has not targeted any of these groups, concentrating instead on the Swat valley in the north-west. Mullah Omar and his allies focus their efforts on Afghanistan and are careful not to make trouble inside Pakistan. This appears to secure their safety. Ms Patterson said that America and Islamabad agreed on tackling al-Qaeda's core leadership and the Pakistani Taliban. But Pakistan was "certainly reluctant to take action" against leaders of the Afghan insurgency based on its soil. "Where we differ, of course, is the treatment of the groups who are attacking our troops in Afghanistan. And that comes down to Haqqani and Gul Bahadur and Nazir, to a lesser extent Hekmatyar, and yes of course there are differences there," said Ms. Patterson. "We have a very candid dialogue about this with some frequency." Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir are Pakistani Taliban commanders who fight only in Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is a veteran Afghan warlord based close to the Pakistani border. Ms Patterson acknowledged the constraints on Pakistan's ability to take action. "In my view, the Pakistanis don't have the capacity to go after some of these groups. Some they do, let me stress, but Sirajuddin Haqqani holds territory, huge swathes of territory, in North Waziristan where he's been implanted for years." The Ambassador added: "My own view is that the Haqqani group is the biggest threat [in Afghanistan]. The Quetta Shura, yes, is sort of a command and control. They move in and out of Afghanistan. But the Haqqani group has ... shown the ability to reach all the way to Kabul with these huge attacks, which not only kill loads of people but are also politically destabilising." The Haqqani network is blamed for a series of bombings inside the Afghan capital, notably an attack on the Indian Embassy last year. Both Hekmatyar and Haqqani once had close ties to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency, while Islamabad saw Mullah Omar's regime in Afghanistan as a key ally until the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Western officials believe that Pakistan still views these figures as "assets", amounting to an insurance policy if the American-led coalition leaves Afghanistan and the Taliban sweeps back to power. They think this explains President Asif Ali Zardari's reluctance to move against their networks, while confining his offensive to groups which pose a direct threat to Pakistan. "What happens if America leaves [Afghanistan]? What would Pakistan's situation be the day after?" asked Hasan Askari Rizvi, a local commentator. "If we pick a fight with every group in the tribal area and Afghanistan, after the Americans leave, everybody would pounce on Pakistan." |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 the pakistanis, though, can logically assert that it makes sense to go after swat and nearby areas first. What does it profit us to kill mullah omar and save afghanistan if Islamabad falls? Makes more sense to save the pakistani state FIRST. Now will they follow up? I dont know, but I dont see who we can tell them to go after wazirstan and quetta when they arent finished clearing in swat. Meanwhile I agree, a US withdrawl from Afghan would dramatically cut our leverage in Pakistan. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-21 22:24 |
| #3 A solid point, Anonymoose. When even the privates end up dead, it suddenly isn't so cool to be a henchman any more. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-09-21 18:03 |
| #2 There's another good reason to go after the rank and file. Since the US is going after the leaders, the end result is an army of privates, which still offers a risk. So you hit the privates as well, to discourage them from becoming replacements for the leaders. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2009-09-21 14:39 |
| #1 Logical on the part of Pakistan. 1. The Taliban discussed don't attack the Paks. 2. If BHO retreats from Afghanistan the Paks don't have the strength to address them so why Pi## them off. Reflects the uncertainty Obama generates for our "friends". |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-09-21 12:42 |