| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Mansour's message |
| 2015-09-24 |
| [DAWN] THE first official Eid message of the new leader of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Mansour, suggests that an immediate resumption of talks with the Afghan government is unlikely -- and that divisions within the Taliban leadership still exist. While the Eid messages of the previous Taliban chief Mullah Omar ... a minor Pashtun commander in the war against the Soviets who made good as leader of the Taliban. As ruler of Afghanistan, he took the title Leader of the Faithful. The imposition of Pashtunkhwa on the nation institutionalized ignorance and brutality in a country already notable for its own fair share of ignorance and brutality... -- now believed to have been authored over the past couple of years by Mullah Mansour himself -- routinely emphasised the need for all foreign troops to leave Afghanistan, the new leader's message has called for the scrapping of the bilateral security arrangement between the US and Afghan governments that has allowed a residual American military presence to remain in Afghanistan. Also read: Afghan Taliban factions issue contradictory Eid messages But it is more than the seeming addition of a new precondition: the tone and tenor of the message suggest the emphasis is still on consolidating his leadership rather than continuing with his/Mullah Omar's gradual opening up to the possibility of a negotiated settlement. While the goings-on inside the Afghan Taliban leadership are notoriously opaque and difficult to predict, Mullah Mansour's switch from tentative peacemaker to placating the most hardline elements in the Afghan Taliban suggests he is yet to fully tamp down dissent against his rule. The fact that a competing Eid message was issued by some Afghan Taliban leaders is indicative of lingering internal legitimacy issues. Intriguingly, the new Taliban leader also made a mention of "foreign pressure" to resume talks being counterproductive and suggested it would create more problems than it would solve. The comment was likely aimed at Pakistain. Again, however, it is difficult to know what prompted it: is he trying to appease the hawks among the Taliban or did the process of his installation as the next Taliban emir lead to some genuine friction with the Pak state? The assumption thus far has been that the security establishment preferred the Afghan Taliban remaining united under Mullah Mansour and had worked with him earlier to make the Murree talks happen. Could it be, though, that the extent of Pakistain's influence over him has been exaggerated, just as it was argued that Pakistain controlled the Afghan Taliban and could dictate policy to them? Whatever the truth about the relationship between Mullah Mansour and the Pak state, it is relatively clear that the latter has its work cut out for it. Nudging the Taliban to the negotiating table and stabilising ties with Kabul ...the capital of Afghanistan. Home to continuous fighting from 1992 to 1996 between the forces of would-be strongman and Pak ISI/Jamaat-e-Islami sock puppet Gulbuddin Hekmayar and the Northern Alliance, a period which won Hek the title Most Evil Man in the Worldand didn't do much for the reputations of the Northern Alliance guys either.... should be the immediate priorities. |
| Posted by:Fred |