Pakistan Losing Fight Against Taliban And Al-Qaeda

ISI's chickens come home to roost.

Pakistan's government is losing its war against emboldened insurgent forces, giving al-Qaeda and the Taliban more territory in which to operate and allowing the groups to plot increasingly ambitious attacks, according to Pakistani and Western security officials.

The depth of the problem has become clear only in recent months, as regional peace deals have collapsed and the government has deferred developing a new strategy to defeat insurgents until Pakistan's leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, can resolve a political crisis that threatens his presidency.

Meanwhile, radical Islamic fighters who were evicted from Afghanistan by the 2001 U.S.-led invasion have intensified a ruthless campaign that has consumed Pakistan's tribal areas and now affects its major cities. Military officials say the insurgents have enhanced their ability to threaten not only Pakistan but the United States and Europe as well.

"They've had a chance to regroup and reorganize," said a Western military official in Pakistan. "They're well equipped. They're clearly getting training from somewhere. And they're using more and more advanced tactics."

Pakistan's military, on the other hand, is considering pulling back from the fight -- at least partially -- in the face of mounting losses, the official said.

"They're not trained for a counterinsurgency. It's not their number one priority. It's not even their number two priority," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "These are the reasons things aren't going their way."

Pakistani military officials concede they are searching for a new strategy now that the old one has gone awry. But with Musharraf struggling to stay in office and expected to soon step down from the military, no decisions are likely until questions over the country's leadership are settled.

"The federal government is busy with its problem of legitimacy. Getting Musharraf elected for another five years -- that is keeping everything on hold," said retired Brig. Gen. Mehmood Shah, who until 2005 was a top security official in the tribal areas.

In recent years, Pakistan has relied on deals with insurgents to keep them from launching offensives. But two such agreements -- in North and South Waziristan -- fell apart this summer when insurgent leaders abruptly announced they were backing out.

The main criticism of the deals, both in Pakistan and in the West, had been that they gave al-Qaeda and the Taliban sanctuary in which to train, plot and launch attacks.

Now, security experts say Pakistan is paying the price for not confronting the problem head-on, with insurgent groups capitalizing on their newfound strength.

Last month, a suicide bomber attacked a bus carrying workers with the nation's hugely influential spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, killing 22 people. Just a week later, a bomber reportedly wearing a military uniform breached one of the most secure army installations in the country, where elite commandos train. The assailant detonated his explosives in the officers' mess during dinnertime, leaving 17 soldiers dead.

The latest blows came Monday, when a suicide bomber killed 15 people, including four policemen, in the northwestern town of Bannu. Late Monday night, more than 20 Frontier Corps troops went missing after their post near Bannu came under attack.

The insurgent strikes represent a humiliating breakdown in security for the world's sixth-largest army. But most embarrassing is the fact that about 250 soldiers remain in Taliban hands more than a month after they were taken hostage.

The soldiers were traveling in a supply convoy through the hostile terrain of South Waziristan on Aug. 30 when their route was blocked by a group of local fighters. Although they were vastly outnumbered, the fighters managed to persuade the soldiers to surrender without firing a shot. Since then, the government has been unable to win the soldiers' freedom because the Taliban is seeking major concessions.

"This kidnapping is a lesson to the government to honor its peace deal with us," said Zulfiqar Mehsud, a spokesman for the Taliban, which blames the government for violating the agreement. Mehsud's group wants to transform Pakistan into a radical Islamic state modeled after Afghanistan before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.

The troops' surrender has called into question the army's commitment to fighting an unpopular war that requires Pakistanis to kill their countrymen. It has also exposed the army to ridicule.

"In Waziristan, people are laughing at the army," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and lawyer. "I really feel pity for these soldiers."

One of those soldiers, Najmul Hasan, 29, recently spent 50 days in Taliban captivity in Waziristan. "The ringleaders would threaten on a daily basis to behead us if the government didn't release their members," Hasan said. He and two others eventually escaped, but other soldiers were, in fact, beheaded. The Taliban videotaped one such incident in which an execution was carried out by a teenage boy.

While Waziristan is believed to be the operational headquarters for the insurgency, militant groups have expanded their reach significantly over the past year. They now have a firm grip not only on the tribal areas that line the Afghan border but on other sections of northwest Pakistan as well.

Residents of this frontier city are beginning to feel besieged, with the surrounding countryside falling under insurgents' sway and assailants occasionally carrying out attacks in Peshawar.

Even hard-line religious leaders are not safe. Last month, one of Peshawar's most prominent clerics, Maulana Hassan Jan, was assassinated as he rode in his car to evening prayers. Although he had been outspoken in his criticism of the United States and was revered among many who want to bring Islamic law to Pakistan, he was not radical enough to satisfy insurgent groups, who are blamed for his killing. He had, for instance, shunned the pro-Taliban clerics at Islamabad's Red Mosque, or Lal Masjid, when they instigated an armed standoff with the government in July.

"Traditional religious and political leaders are losing ground because people consider them very soft against Pervez Musharraf and America," said Qibla Ayaz, dean of the Islamic studies program at Peshawar University. "Among the youth, their influence is weakening."

The United States has pumped about $10 billion into Pakistan since 2001, the vast majority of it for the military. But the aid does not seem to have won the United States many friends here. Nor has it successfully prepared the Pakistani army to battle insurgents.

"The sad thing about it is that a lot of these militants are better off than the Frontier Corps," said the Western official, referring to the Pakistani force that is supposed to be on the front lines fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The militants "have rockets. They have advanced weapons. And the Frontier Corps has sandals and a bolt-action rifle."
In full requires registration -
Not good news, whichever way you look at it. Having Pakistan as an "anti" would make life quite tricky for us. Here's hoping his juggling act with the presidency and passing on his military job will pay off.
Perhaps the USA should do a Sudan on all of these troublesome states. That is to use military means to destroy the central infrastructure and Government thus reducing the State to a tribal land. Apply this from Chechnia to Sudan and apply to Afghanistan (pretty much already done), Pakistan, Iran, Iraq (just bin the occupation) and Syria for starters. Police this area from the sky as was done with the Iraq no fly zones and job done. All other local countries can choose to support this or join the others.
perhaps using the Alexander the great solution, slot them all, slot any that looks at you funny, no Wazirstan tribe = No trouble.

it make slife easier all round, they already have started slotting and beheading the captured Soldiers, in my book they no longer deserve mercy.
western said:
Perhaps the USA should do a Sudan on all of these troublesome states. That is to use military means to destroy the central infrastructure and Government thus reducing the State to a tribal land. Apply this from Chechnia to Sudan and apply to Afghanistan (pretty much already done), Pakistan, Iran, Iraq (just bin the occupation) and Syria for starters. Police this area from the sky as was done with the Iraq no fly zones and job done. All other local countries can choose to support this or join the others.
Failed state = AQ safe haven
Unlike Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq (just not failed) Syria and others who have 'arrangements' with AQ etc and to some extent equip, train and shelter them. Whereas recently the Americans with the support of others went to Sudan and used the big stick approach to reduce the effective reach of AQ in that area. This of course will be needed to be repeated often but it is a low risk strategy. The alternative is to invade a nation state commit to occupation and try to impose a style of government unacceptable to the majority of the population. Result? Failed State.

Face it AQ and there fellow travellers are not going away and can not be beaten. They need to be contained much as the policy in NI; if they are smashing up their own estate leave them to it.
western said:
Face it AQ and there fellow travellers are not going away and can not be beaten. They need to be contained much as the policy in NI; if they are smashing up their own estate leave them to it.
Oh but I disagree, they can indeed be beaten - but only in an act of Total War, which we've not had yet.

As an ideology, you can't wish it out of existence, but you can contain it within boundaries. Quite what it would take to make Pakistan capable of securing communes for de-teethed, and de-armed Taliban... well nothing short of a full constitutional revolution I suspect, and this for the short term at least plays into AQ's hands.

AQ & the Taliban in complete autonomous control over a failed Nuclear State is not a pleasing prospect, just how far things would be allowed to progress down that route before we acted, I'd not like to second guess at this stage.
Here's todays news on the situation:

Couple that with recent propaganda recruitment videos of Taliban militant sermons broadcast publicly from within Pakistan, and you can see quite clearly the thorn in everyone's foot.

Given the above will be an ongoing situation with Taliban crossing the border from their Northern Frontier villages attacking all Afghanistan municipals in small highly brain washed units armed to the teeth with a ready supply of Chinese & Russian black market munitions, should we look forward to the day when we withdraw en masse due to simple exasperation, with these chaps once and for all having asserted their own ideals of dominance in causing the apparent downfall of the Soviet Bloc & NATO?

I'd suggest not, but alternatives to, "bend over and continually take it", are few and they are grim (best left to the hush-hush boys). No doubt they have already been stated to the people who needed to listen, but it seems the tribal leaders have poor memories, two faces, complete lack of control over the black-market-mufti's.

Either that or bucket loads of Willful Ignorance... easy to reinforce when you are giving the masses over completely to submission.
In-Limbo said:
western said:
Face it AQ and there fellow travellers are not going away and can not be beaten. They need to be contained much as the policy in NI; if they are smashing up their own estate leave them to it.
Oh but I disagree, they can indeed be beaten - but only in an act of Total War, which we've not had yet.
Ok I'll go a little 'What have the Roman's ever done for us' then.

Yes than can be beaten if we use methods which over time will probably result in the extermination of a few million people followed by the total subjugation of a considerable amount of the landmass of the Middle East, South and Central Asia coupled with Ethnic Cleansing across much of the Western World.

Trouble is we have not yet the will to do that and until we stop closing our eyes and singing with our fingers in our ears, never will. See you down the Mosque one Friday in twenty years time, because I don't think it will be optional by then.
The civil war in Europe is coming so I wouldn't rule out another round of genocide just yet.
US MarineX,

I can certainly see us having a large dust up with people in the middle east for the foreseeable future but I am not sure about a European Civil War that is inbound - unless France win the World Cup in which case the local wine shop will be getting firebombed.
With all respect I disagree, and more and more people are raising red flags about it. The self-enforced silence is part of the problem. Europe has never solved any problem such as unemployment, benefits deficit and now the immigrant problem except taking the path of least resistance, and one day decades from now it will blow. You already have shown the immigrants what path to take.

Europe's failure to integrate Muslims called a 'recipe for civil war'

Cornell News
By George Lowery

Sept. 26, 2007

Bassam Tibi knows the obstacles a Muslim faces in Germany, where he has lived for 45 years and has been a citizen for two decades. As an internationally acknowledged expert on Islam, Tibi often appeared in the German media to discuss the Gulf War and was introduced as a Syrian holding a German passport.

But when Tibi raised issues about Western Europe's reception of its 20 million Muslim immigrants, he was suddenly declared persona non grata by the German media, who avoid discussing the status of the nation's Muslims for fear of being perceived as targeting them.

"Ethnically, I'm not German, therefore I'm not German," said Tibi, a Cornell A.D. White Professor-at-Large and director of the Center for International Affairs at the University of G?ttingen, in an interview Sept. 18 at the Statler Hotel. "The concept of the person in Germany and France is you are an ethnic person. You never change. The problem is the population in Europe is changing -- 20 percent of the German population is ethnically not German. Within 50 years, non-ethnic Germans will be the majority. If you do not have a solution now, these people will fight against one another, and I don't want that. I want peace."

Tibi believes Muslims fare better in the United States because of the nation's ethnic diversity. "Nobody treats me like an alien [here]," he noted. "I'm an equal, and I want to have this in Europe. Can you imagine someone saying that because you have dark skin you can't be an American?"


Europeans' flight from Europe

By Paul Belien
Washington Times

June 6, 2007

Last year more than 155,000 Germans emigrated from their native country. Since 2004 the number of ethnic Germans who leave each year is greater than the number of immigrants moving in. While the emigrants are highly motivated and well educated, "those coming in are mostly poor, untrained and hardly educated," says Stephanie Wahl of the German Institute for Economics.

In a survey conducted in 2005 among German university students, 52 percent said they would rather leave their native country than remain there. By "voting with their feet," young, educated Germans affirm that Germany has no future to offer them and their children. As one couple who moved to the United States told the newspaper Die Welt: "Here our children have a future in which they will not have to fear unemployment and social decline." There are two main reasons why so-called "ethno-Germans" emigrate. Some complain that the tax rates in Germany are so high that it is no longer worthwhile working for a living there. Others indicate they no longer feel at home in a country whose cultural appearance is changing dramatically.

The situation is similar in other countries in Western Europe. Since 2003, emigration has exceeded immigration to the Netherlands. In 2006, the Dutch saw more than 130,000 compatriots leave. The rise in Dutch emigration peaked after the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. This indicates that the flight from Europe is related to a loss of confidence in the future of nations which have taken in the Trojan horse of Islamism, but which, unlike the Trojans, lack the guts to fight.

Elsewhere in Western Europe immigration currently still surpasses emigration, though emigration figures are rising fast. In Belgium the number of emigrants surged by 15 percent in the past years. In Sweden, 50,000 people packed their bags last year -- a rise of 18 percent compared to the previous year and the highest number of Swedes leaving since 1892. In the United Kingdom, almost 200,000 British citizens move out every year.

Americans who think that the European welfare state is the model to follow would do well to ponder the question why, if Europe is so wonderful, Europeans are fleeing from it. European welfare systems are redistribution mechanisms, taking money from skilled and educated Europeans in order to give it to nonskilled newcomers from the Third World.
In a move which would send shockwaves throughout the Church of England, and result in condemnation and cries of ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ from the highest echelons of the British Government, the Protestant Church in Germany, led by the Lutherans, has bravely issued a 124-page document on the future relationship it wishes to see between Christians and Muslims in Germany.

Cranmer is indebted the Gates of Vienna for this summary:

In short: Europeans must demand Muslims to respect certain values. Schoolteachers wearing head scarves are unfit to teach. Jewish and Christian symbols can be displayed in schools, because they don't conflict with the values in Germany’s constitution. Nuns who teach can wear their order’s dress if they so prefer. Oppression of women, honour killings, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages are unacceptable and cannot be tolerated in a democratic society. No person can claim cultural identity as an excuse for violating human rights.

One section states:

Civil servants must at all times adhere to liberal democratic and constitutional structures and concomitantly to the equality of men and women. If a Muslim applicant for a training activity wants to wear a head cloth at public schools with reference to freedom of religion in the service, this behaviour justifies doubts about her suitability — in view of the meaning of the head cloth in Islam — as a teacher in a national school.

Apparently, the Muslims of Germany are not very happy with this. - Dec 2006


While cry's about the so called death of old Europe, under the guise of so called state sponsored 'Islamophobia suppression' make for good sound bites, and good book sales, none the less Europe is far too ancient indeed to roll over and wink out of existence.

So while the debate to Ban the Qu ran for it's unconstitutional ways still goes on, and while the various countries bleeding their youth leaving an immigrant country not of their birth, what does that leave behind - the so called 'Old Blood'. And in case you've forgotten, that's what we spent millions of lives going over to suppress at the start of the last century.

Europe is an entity which is slow to anger, quick to flare up, and even quicker to blow up to full blown mass extinction events. That the willing victims to this build up of pressure are the wilfully ignorant peasant masses of 'peaceful Muslims' is nothing new for Europe.

There is a basic incompatibility between one of the worlds leading Faiths, and some of the worlds leading Humanist ideals and international laws laid down at the end of the last major European flare up.

Something which unfortunately won't be completely resolved until Islamist ideals can be distilled and placed in perspective and servitude of international law. Christians have done it, Jews have done it, Hindu's have done it, even Buddhists want to do it... what will it take for Islam to go down that route too?

Insert 747 Here?

This does seem a bit Daily Mail'ish to be taken too seriously. On the basis of numbers of non-ethnics in the poulation and future growth in the non-ethnic population then you have a higher chance of things kicking off in the US than in Europe. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of bolloc*s spouted in Europe about how you are not allowed to say or do anything which may upset the poor downtrodden muslims but I am not sure that this will lead to a new Caliphate. Oh well, if you are right and I am wrong then I will buy you a beer - oh maybe not!
>>>While cry's about the so called death of old Europe, under the guise of so called state sponsored 'Islamophobia suppression' make for good sound bites, and good book sales, none the less Europe is far too ancient indeed to roll over and wink out of existence.

I didn't say that Europe would cease to be. That is one option, the craven one. More likely there would be a civil war, did you know that even France's Muslims are getting more and more religious, and the inevitable outcome of any religious war is genocide.

I think that Europeans will be killing people based on religion/ethnic group again, not that I am saying that it's anybody's fault.

If you want Islam to change, when there are billions of dollars funding from Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia every year, then I think you're in a pipe dream.
Oh it'll change all right, mark my words well... just it might not be pretty in getting there.
I don't really think so. Americans do much better at integrating their populations, they are willing to do the tough thing, go overboard often in fact, and besides there is no religious problem, usually the tinderbox.

I understand your concern about Daily Mailish. But Daily Mail doesn't mean it's always wrong, it's just like saying Blair is always right.

Russia and probably France will be majority Muslim by 2050. Some of the Scandinavian countries would be touching 40%, probably Germany as well. Can Europe cope? And if the powers that be in America manage to lever Turkey into EU, then all bets are off by that time.

All this need not be of course. If EU poltiicans were not vote whoring, spineless shameless pieces of leftist shit in the first place.

At the very least, in the best scenario, by 2050 Europe would not be recognisable from what it is today.

I am more than happy to continue to be sent off to various sandpits to do my bit against extremism. My fundamental point is that I disagree that we are facing the same tide of Islam that we last saw in the middle ages with the Moors. I think that most Europeans don't need any particular reason to have a go at each other but I am not convinced that the Wahhabi funding will de facto lead to a new civil war. You are already seeing the (european) reaction to some of this extermist bolloc*s in countries like Germany (post above), Holland (tightening up its views on Islamic extremists, Imams etc) and others which are becoming slightly bored by being told what to do by a vocal minority. If you want to watch out for some ethnic group then keep your eye on the Welsh -tricky buggers.

Similar threads

Latest Threads