Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

Pakistan’s “truce with the Taliban is an abject surrender, and al Qaeda has an untouchable base of operations in Western Pakistan which will only expand if not checked

NWFP-Waziristan.gifThe news of the Pakistani government signing a truce agreement with the Taliban in North Waziristan is far worse than being reported. We raised the alarm early morning on September 4, and newly uncovered information on the terms of the agreement indicate Pakistan has been roundly defeated by the Taliban in North Waziristan. The “truce” is in fact a surrender. According to an anonymous intelligence source, the terms of the truce includes:

– The Pakistani Army is abandoning its garrisons in North and South Waziristan.

– The Pakistani Military will not operate in North Waziristan, nor will it monitor actions the region.

– Pakistan will turn over weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani Army operations.

– The Taliban and al Qaeda have set up a Mujahideen Shura (or council) to administer the agency.

– The truce refers to the region as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.”

– An unknown quantity of money was transferred from Pakistani government coffers to the Taliban. The Pakistani government has essentially paid a tribute or ransom to end the fighting.

– “Foreigners” (a euphemism for al Qaeda and other foreign jihadis) are allowed to remain in the region.

– Over 130 mid-level al Qaeda commanders and foot soldiers were released from Pakistani custody.

– The Taliban is required to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not stipulate refraining from violence in Afghanistan.

Al Rayah – the flag of al Qaeda. Click image to view.

The truce meeting was essentially an event designed to humiliate the Pakistani government and military. Government negotiators were searched for weapons by Taliban fighters prior to entering the meeting. Heavily armed Taliban were posted as guards around the ceremony. The al Rayah – al Qaeda’s black flag – was hung over the scoreboard at the soccer stadium where the ceremony was held. After the Pakistani delegation left, al Qaeda’s black flag was run up the flagpole of military checkpoints and the Taliban began looting the leftover small arms. The Taliban also held a ‘parade’ in the streets of Miranshah. They openly view the ‘truce’ as a victory, and the facts support this view.


Tahir Yuldashev

While this is not reported in the media, the “Taliban commanders” in attendance include none other than Jalaluddin Haqqani, military commander of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Tahir Yuldashev, the commander of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The New York Times does place Haqqani and Yuldashev in the Waziristan region. Both men are deeply in bed with al Qaeda, and it is useless at this point in time to make distinctions between al Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan , the Taliban and Pakistan jihadi groups like Lashkar-Toiba. Syed Saleem Shahzad indicates other known Taliban commanders were present at the meeting; “At the gathering, mujahideen leader Maulana Sadiq Noor and a representative of Gul Badar (chief of the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan), as well as other members of the mujahideen shura (council), were seated on a stage while the leaders of the JUI-F [the political party of Pakistani opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman and only party in North and South Waziristan, which was not always the case] delivered the speeches.” Note that while unstated, Haqqani and Yuldashev also sit on the Mujahideen Shura.

To add insult to the defeat of the Waziristan truce, Pakistan has openly admitted that it would let Osama bin Laden remain a free man if committed to living a peaceful existance in the region. “If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden ‘would not be taken into custody,’ Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, ‘as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen,” reports ABC News’ The Blotter. An independent intelligence source confirms Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan Khan’s position is an accurate reflection of Pakistani policy. [Note: Pakistan has since retracted its statements on bin Laden and immunity, but the Blotter transcript oftheinterview refutes this.]

The Pakistani government has ceded a region the size of New Jersey, with a population of about 800,000 to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not the end of the Taliban’s expansion, however. An intelligence source indicates similar negotiations between the Taliban and the Pakistani government are being held in the agencies of Khyber, Tank, Dera Ishmal Khan and Bajaur. The jihadi dreams of al Qaeda’s safe havens in western Pakistan have become a reality. And the gains made by the Coalition in Afghanistan have now officially been wiped away with the peace agreement in the newly established Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of The Long War Journal.


  • MilBlogs says:

    What is Going on in Pakistan?

    Are the Pakistanis playing PsyOps, or something worse? Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a “peaceful life,” Pakistani officials tell ABC News. The surprising announcement comes as Pakista…

  • Dean's World says:

    Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

    Very bad happenings in Pakistan lately. Bill Roggio has a report.

    One possible bright spot here: if Pakistan has really completely abandoned th…

  • hamidreza says:

    Indeed mindboggling. What else is there to say? This is going to come back to haunt Musharraf and Afghanistan.

  • Nice post, Bill.
    Understanding this is definitely not a good scenario developing in real time, do you think that, with the fact that Pakistan has identified the area as basically a separate entity from itself, this will perhaps give our forces more freedom to extend our operations to this region?
    Nothing in the agreement says that Pakistan will come to the rescue of the new “state” nor try to protect its borders with Afghanistan if attacked by our forces. I am just wondering if we have been given a freer hand via this development.

  • Michael says:

    Shawn, my exact thoughts. If it is indeed an autonomous zone flying Taliban flags you would think so. Then again, this is Pakistan, terrororist and third world countries.
    The Lebanese government allowed Hezbollah to arm up for 6 years. Lebanon stood by and watched as the radicals carved out vast areas in cities and land in the south. There were no-go areas where the lebanese army was not allowed to step foot.
    This is essentially another state within a state.
    Musharraf is either playing leathal games with America or he is fighting for his life. I can’t figure out which it is.
    Based upon Bill’s sobering reports. I appears the ISI and Pakistan military itself is not trustworthy to Musharraf and he is very weakened.

  • Jonathan says:

    Comments deleted by site own

  • Bill Roggio says:

    Jonathan, everyone else,
    Don’t make this a political debate. I won’t hesitate to shut down the comments. My coverage isn’t about domestic politics and I have no interest in watching the comments section degenerate. I’m trying explain what is happening. Let’s leave the finger pointing and childish political wars elsewhere.

  • We live in interesting times…

    WTF, over? This seems to be flying under the radar – Bill Roggio reporting on Talibanistan, otherwise known as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.” Anybody got a view of this that explains it in other than noxious terms? Not questioning…

  • DaveK says:

    This pretty well confirms that Musharraf’s days are numbered. This seems to be a stop-gap measure to keep his own military from deposing him (but will only be effective in the short term, as all appeasement is).
    When Parvez is finally replaced by the hard-line Islamists, things will get most interesting (not in a good way). The Indi-Pak confrontation will go back on the front burner, and all bets will be off about what weapons might be employed.
    The only good news about things falling apart in Pakistan might be that the military will be too busy with Kashmir and other debacles that incursions into Waziristan by Afghan/Coalition forces might well be ignored.
    Just my $.02

  • phil says:

    One of the key components of our campaign against Islamist Jihadis is Foreign Internal Defense, where we train the military and police forces of other countries to be able to effectively fight insurgencies, terrorists, organized crime etc. But this situation in Pakistan poses a tremendous challenge to our efforts (with the added twist of it’s nuclear status), since this is exactly the situation that FID is intended to prevent. Pakistan has ceded sovereignty of this region to the Taliban/alQaeda, therefore it is no longer part of Pakistan and thus a legitimate target of Coalition forces in Afghanistan. This should no longer be a safe haven for the Taliban.

  • WarrenL says:


    I Emailed you about a year or so ago thanking you for your Iraq information.

    Thanks for coming back and starting this blog up again. I like you at this site compared to the CB site.

    As a Canadian I am proud of how our troops are doing in theatre but upset to read your chilling assessment.

    Since Pakistan has signed this so-called truce do you think this will somehow give the green light to the Canadians and Americans to go into this area of Pakistan?

    In my mind, America just can’t sit by and not do anything.

  • Ben says:

    When presented with opportunity, will we act? Does a state of war really exist between America and al-Qaeda, Taliban, terrorist, opposition? If we are at war, then why don’t we behave like it? America, it took a third of the colonist to found; how many Americans will it take to save our beloved country? Never forget those that have gone before us, for our footing today is but for their blood-shed yesterday!
    Thank you

  • Leeotis says:

    Captain Ed over at Captain’s Quarters has a different take on this. Here is the URL for his piece on it:
    Let’s all hope that Ed is right…

  • The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan?

    The government of Pakistan has apparently entered into a peace accord with pro-Taliban forces in the tribal areas along the Afghan border:
    KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 5 — The government of Pakistan signed a peace accord Tuesday with pro-Taliban for…

  • DaveK says:

    Another thought, and this is just wild conjecture…
    Perhaps the deal with the new Waziristan does not include any serious promises that Pakistani military will rush in to defend them if forces cross the border in hot pursuit from the Afghan side. In other words, “You can have your little Emirate, but don’t count on us to bail you out of misadventure.”
    We can only wait and see how this all plays out.
    Another $.02

  • Bill Roggio says:

    Musharraf would not survive any US incursions into Talibanistan. The territory has not ceded in a classical sense, the Pakistani government just decided to let the Taliban run it.
    I can only say that the “we’re setting them up for hot pursuit” sentiment is wishful thinking. It is never wise to cede territory to a terrorist entity and allow them the opportunity to establish total control of a region. The truce / surrender was negotiated from a position of weakness, not strength. I think many on the right-of-center are deluding themselves with this fatuous argument.

  • m.takhallus says:

    I’m not getting that Pakistan has formally surrendered sovereignty over this region. As long as they maintain a fig leaf of sovereignty it’s going to be very difficult to impossible for us to send visible military elements in there — small strike teams, maybe.
    Correct me if I’m missing something here but have we not just spent 4 plus years going from a situation where Al Qaeda had a safe haven in Afghanistan presided over by a weak, almost friendless, and therefore vulnerable Taliban, to a position where Al Qaeda has a safe haven in a Pakistan that for various reasons we can’t really touch? Is that not a net minus?

  • The New Terrorist Safe Haven in Pakistan

    News of Pakistan’s reported “peace deal” with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in North Waziristan, on the Afghan-Pakistani border, is getting stranger by the minute.
    Yesterday, ABC News reported that Pakistan agreed to cease military oper…

  • Welcome to Talibanistan

    The black flag of surrender Milblogger Bill Roggio warned about Pakistan’s deal-making with the Taliban. Now, Bill reports on the establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan and has details of the “truce” (that is, surrender) meeting: The news…

  • Hail Talibanistan!

    Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin for pointing out this post at The Fourth Rail:
    The Pakistani government has ceded a region the size of New Jersey, with a population of about 800,000 to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Wa

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    Tak, “net minus” is a colossal understatement. Here’s a short description of what happened: OBL has moved much closer (in both geographic terms and political terms) to where the real nukes are.

  • Pakistan Denies Bin Laden Gets a Pass

    Wow! All kinds of reaction on the peace agreement between Pakistan and the Taliban this morning. Raw Story quotes ABC news as reporting that Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan, press secretary to the president of Pakistan, as stating Osama bin Laden …

  • Pakistan Says Bin Laden Won’t “Get A Pass”

    Contrary to a report on ABC News’ blog The Blotter, Pakistan has said today that it would indeed arrest bin Laden if he was found: Pakistan said Wednesday it will capture Osama bin Laden if it finds him in the…

  • daveS says:

    Certainly opens up a new ability for cross border pursuits and other SF operations…

  • PC Free Zone says:

    Bin Laden Gets a Pass from Pakistan

    I had done this post about this and now I see others have also been posting about it. I am adding in the video on this as well

  • DJ Elliott says:

    At best the situation is ugly.
    Time for “black” OPS to commence in Pakistan’s tribal areas…

  • Wild Thing says:

    GREAT post about this. Thank you so much!!

  • Pakistan Taliban Truce Redux

    Riehl World View

    Bill Roggio is pessimistic about Pakistan’s deal with the taliban. I realize Bill is on the ground there but I don’t accept his analysis. Not th…

  • Daily Pundit says:


    Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan (The Fourth Rail) Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of WaziristanAs an addendum to Lastango’s post below, Bill Roggio says that in effect, the Taliban and Osama b…

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    “Certainly opens up a new ability for cross border pursuits and other SF operations…”

    Five years ago we decided that catching OBL that way was too tough to do, something we could never accomplish without lots of local help:

    DeLong said, “There were so many tunnels up there, that we knew that no matter how many people we put up there, we could put millions, you wouldn’t find all the tunnel entrances and openings.” (The Soviet Union, in its decade-long war against Afghanistan in the 1980s, shattered its army by throwing masses of troops into the Afghan mountains trying to trap the mujahideen. They failed, and retreated with tens of thousands of dead. Fortunately, Franks and DeLong studied the lessons of that war.)

  • MackDad says:

    This is absolutely heartbreaking! To think of all of the lives that have been lost battling UBL, and now our only ally in the region has pledged to give him a safe haven. I am forced to conclude that there is some dark conspiracy behind this. Perhaps we are trying to keep UBL alive in order to stoke fear and preserve support for the war against terrorism?

  • A Surrender Or Not

    Now this is very very bad news:
    Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a “peaceful life,” Pakistani officials tell ABC News.
    The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani ar…

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    mack: “our only ally in the region”

    It’s true that we have only one real ally in the region, but it’s not Pakistan.

    “perhaps we are trying to keep UBL alive”

    We did a lot to bring him to power, which suggests that your speculation is perhaps not unfounded.

  • Right Wing Nutter says:

    The ideology of the people in the Taliban and al Qaeda seems to lead them into overreaching. Before October 2001 Afghanistan was the black hole that had eaten all foreign armies from Alexander to the USSR. Mountainous and landlocked hundreds of miles inland, it was impervious to the U.S. military. Remember that this was the conventional wisdom at the time. Now the convential wisdom is that the Taliban & al Qaeda have an impervious sanctuary. Don’t count on it.

    I suspect that what we’ll see is an increasing degree of “hot pursuit” attacks. Taliban/al Qaeda running back home from attacks into Afghanistan are going to start getting blown up a few hundred feet over the border. Then a few hundred yards. Then a few miles. Troops and pilots may not cross the border, at least in the beginning, but rounds and missles will.

    As Bill noted, the Paks have been humiliated. Don’t forget that this is a culture based on “face” or group and individual “honor.” The Taliban is not very popular with large segments of influential people in the Pakistani government just now, the civil service and Army in particular. I wouldn’t count on Islamabad squawking too loudly about such hardware incursions.

    In any case it’s a pretty safe bet that there are some very quiet one on one discussions going on between our people and various folks in the Pakistani government on just how much we can get away with. Just don’t expect to hear much about it when armed groups and convoys of SUVs start vaporizing in the Waziristans.

    Tactical note: When the Paki army was conducting operations against the Taliban there was always the chance that intel of their plans would somehow find its way to Waziristan. This won’t happen with Coalition forces.


    Based on the record of the past five years I think it would be a mistake to presume that this administration would not do whatever it took to keep Pak nukes from falling into terrorist hands. WHATEVER it took.

  • m.takhallus says:

    Right Wing:
    I think that’s fantasy.
    The Pakistanis are beaten by the Taliban so they surrender in hopes we’ll come along and magically vaporize convoys of Al Qaeda within Pakistani territory? The Pakistanis, with boots on the ground, can’t find the Taliban or the foreign fighters but we will? From the air? Without local help? In a political situation that will require at very least that we be very discreet? A situation where ground spotters would be in an almost impossible situation?
    Any by the way, based on the past five years I don’t think this adminsitration would do “whatever it took,” I think they’d do half of whatever it took.


    I must admit it brought me up a little short this morning after reading Ed Morrissey’s take on the agreement made between the Pakistani government and tribal leaders in North Waziristan that essentially gives the Taliban a free hand in the provi…

  • Old War Dogs says:

    Bill’s Bites

    The webmaster’s blog-within-a-blog. Continuously updated and bumped, newest items at the top. 11:56 Pakistan Says Bin Laden Won’t Get A PassGreg Tinti Contrary to a report on ABC News’ blog The Blotter, Pakistan has said today that it would indeed

  • Afghanistan, Talibanistan ,Waziristan and Kill Ratios

    There is good news and bad news in Afghanistan.  As you know, there are ongoing operations in Afghanistan, and the coalition forces are becoming very good at killing Taliban fighters.  Operation Medusa, as of September 3, 2006, had netted 200 Taliba…

  • GK says:

    Here is what I don’t get :
    Iran and Iraq fought a stalemate for 8 years. Thus, Iran’s military was no stronger than Iraq’s (despite Iraq getting US and Arab aid).
    Yet we are told Iran is very strong.
    Pakistan’s population is twice as much as Iran. It’s military is much stronger than Iran’s. Yet they can’t even purge separatists from their own territory.
    Yet we are told Iran is very strong.
    Something just doesn’t add up. Comments?

  • RIck Moran says:

    I wonder if this deal came about as a result of the unrest recently over the death of the old Baluchi warlord Bugti who was killed by Pakistani forces a couple of weeks ago.
    I understand that the rebellion in Baluchistan has intensified recently. Is it possible that Musharraf felt more threatened by the reaction to Bugti’s death than what was going on in Waziristan?

  • Misc Commentary For Sept 6, 2006

    — As you may have heard, Pakistan is pulling their military out of the tribal areas that are sheltering the…

  • GK says:

    Again, is this really because Pakistan’s military has been defeated? Or is it because they tacitly approve of the Taliban’s ideology?
    I find it hard to believe that Pakistan’s military is that weak, particularly in their own territory.

  • GINA COBB says:

    Our Work is Not Yet Done in Afghanistan and Pakistan

    Is there new promise in the hunt to bring Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban to justice (Will Pakistani-Afghan Pact Spell the Taliban’s End?), or are things taking a turn for the worse? (The news of the Pakistani government signing a truce agreement with …

  • exhelodrvr says:

    I think the biggest impact this will have is that it significantly raises the importance of India as an ally.

  • Pakistan Surrenders?

    USAMA BIN LADEN need not fear capture by Pakistani forces, ABC News reports. If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden “would not be taken into custody,” Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, “as long…

  • Hyscience says:

    Pakistan Cedes North Waziristan To Taliban (Update)

    In other words, our supposed ally in the WOT just surrendered to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, or it’s part of a strategy, or it’s both, or maybe its just a hudna in the eyes of both sides.

  • Pakistan Gives Territory To Taliban

    It is being reported now that Pakistan has signed a ‘truce’ with the Taliban in Waziristan. Reported by ‘The Fourth Rail’

  • liberalhawk says:

    The general khan statement,if you read the transcript closely (ive looked at it on BBC) says that Osama Bin Laden in particular would NOT be allowed to remain, but then he segues into a discussion of other Taliban, which ABC misses with the use of pronouns and vague referands. I think ABC was wrong on that, and accept the generals denial. Why would we assert one thing to ABC, and then deny it a few hours later? Did he think ABC wouldnt repeat it? Did he not understand the impact it would have? OBL tried to kill Musharaff twice, it just does not stand to reason that Perv would give him an invite to stay there.
    I note that most of your info above if from an unnamed intel source. If its your personal source I of course understand that you wont name him, but if its a media quote could you give us a pointer?
    And if the terms arent public, what assurance does AQ have that the Pakis will stick to them? Must one think its only our enemies that have the concept of “hudna” and not our muslim allies?

  • DJ Elliott says:

    Yet we are told Iran is very strong.
    Something just doesn’t add up. Comments?
    Posted by GK | September 6, 2006 1:22 PM
    – Iran has 3x the population base.
    – 4x the land area.
    – And a military that has been seriously rebuilding since the cease-fire of 1988 but,
    – The important factor is that Iran has a geographic position to guarantee the Straits of Hormuz are closed for 1-3 months (unless we hit with total surprise). When you transit the SoH you see Iran on one side and Oman on the other (visual range). 2/3rds of the worlds oil supply transits that strait and the pipelines do not support diverting to other routes. Lot of mines and missiles stationed at Bander Abbas.
    If we move on Iran the first targets will be:
    – Navy and Rev Guard Navy.
    – Air Force and Air Defense
    – Then the Nuke sites.
    While this is happening the IRG and Army will be invading Iraq (US pupet to the Iranian Gov).
    – Iraq stalemated the Iranians with 60+ Divisions in the field in 1988.
    – Only 42 of those fought US in ’91.
    – Only 23 existed in ’03 of which we only fought ELEMENTS of six Divisions. Most of the Iraqi army did not fight US, they voted with their feet (and it was not for Saddam).
    They did fight the Iranians to a stalemate in ’79-88. It is questionable if they could now.
    The south of Iraq is already inflitrated with Iranian surrogates (Mahdi/Badr).
    Then there is the mutual defense treaty with Syria.
    If we were smart, we would hit first with no warning. That would deny the Iranians the mobilization and mining time for SoH.
    Unfortunatly, our system of government does not keep secrets so that will not happen…

  • Pakistan Surrenders to the Taliban?

    Bill Roggio’s coverage points to some very alarming details, not mentioned by the mainstream media.
    The “truce”

  • Pakistan Surrenders to Taliban

    Bill Roggio has analysis on the truce.
    To add insult to the defeat of the Waziristan truce, Pakistan has openly admitted that it would let Osama bin Laden remain a free man if committed to living a peaceful existance in the region. “If he is in Pakis…

  • GK says:

    DJ Elliot,
    Still, I find it hard to believe Iran is so tough, when Pakistan, with twice the population and more modern equipment, has a military so weak that they lost to the Taliban (despite having US/Canadian help) within Pakistani territory itself.
    The two seem contradictory.
    If they are not, then maybe our strategy should be to invade a small piece of Iran (like Kurdistan region), hole up in the mountains with Kurdish support, and keep draining the Iranian govt. resources. They have no chance of purging us there if Pakistan cannot purge the Taliban from Waziristan.
    Something has to add up. Everything can’t possibly be unfavorable to us if they seem contradictory to each other.

  • A new state to sponser Terrorism

    Look at this: Pakistan is signing a peace treaty with the Taliban along the Afghanistan border. Conflicting statements have been released as to whether or not they still are going to pursue Al-Qaeda figures such as Bin Laden inside that region. But loo…

  • CSy says:

    Comments deleted, see the posted comments policy.

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    right: “Now the convential wisdom is that the Taliban & al Qaeda have an impervious sanctuary”

    It’s not just the “conventional wisdom.” It’s exactly what Franks et al told us when we asked them why they let OBL get away five years ago.

    “whatever it took to keep Pak nukes from falling into terrorist hands”

    As Bill said: “Musharraf would not survive any US incursions into Talibanistan.” If and when Musharraf is finally separated from his head, whatever follows him will not be friendly to us. In other words, we’ll suddenly be in the regime-change business again, except this time we’ll be taking on a country roughly six times bigger than Iraq, by population. And a country with nukes that are real, not imaginary. True, Halliburton profits will explode (even more than they already have), but so will lots of other valuable US assets.

    Three years after invading Iraq, we still haven’t secured the road between Baghdad and the airport, as far as I know. This does not bode well for our ability to use force to control events inside Pakistan, once Musharraf returns to Allah.

    By the way, all our friends and enemies are quite familiar with all these very obvious facts, and this leads to them behaving exactly the way they’re behaving.

  • Parrot’s Beak 2006

    One of the great mistakes of Vietnam was the toleration of enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia. One of the most prominent was in the “Parrot’s Beak” region which jutted into Vietnam’s eastern border. Now we are facing the same situation on…

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    gk: “is this really because Pakistan’s military has been defeated? Or is it because they tacitly approve of the Taliban’s ideology?”

    In my opinion: both.

    To a great extent, here’s how things work in that part of the world: everyone wants to go with the winner (i.e., whoever possesses power). Musharraf once thought that was us. Now he knows better, and he wants to cut his losses before someone cuts his jugular.

    “I find it hard to believe [that] Pakistan … has a military so weak that they lost to the Taliban”

    OBL is extremely popular in Pakistan. In my opinion, it’s very likely that the military was not terribly motivated.

    By the way, many people find it hard to believe that the US has a military so weak that we can’t deal with a few “pockets of dead-enders.” Or that we couldn’t grab OBL five years ago.


    lib: “OBL tried to kill Musharaff twice, it just does not stand to reason that Perv would give him an invite to stay there”

    It’s not that Perv likes OBL, and loves the idea of giving “him an invite to stay there.” It’s that OBL invited himself, and is holding all the cards, given that he is extremely popular in Pakistan, especially in that region.

    “Osama Bin Laden in particular would NOT be allowed to remain”

    Of course you’ll hear them say “if we catch him we’ll hold him.” What do you expect them to say? They’re on our payroll. (Although it’s possible that Sultan had a moment of unscripted candor, which ended when someone rapped his knuckles with a ruler.)

    Here’s what they’re really saying, if you read between the lines: “we can’t catch him, and we’ve given up trying. Not that we were ever trying that hard, to begin with.”

  • Bill Roggio says:

    I’ve riden on “Route Irish,” the road from BIAP to Baghdad, its pretty well secured.
    Let’s save the Halliburton stuff for another site and keep to the isue at hand, OK?

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    bill: “its pretty well secured.”

    I wasn’t sure, so that’s why I said “as far as I know.” Thanks for the information.

    “keep to the isue at hand”

    Fair enough. It’s a fine line, and I appreciate that you’re trying to be clear about where you draw it.

  • Jeremy says:

    Listen to the actual interview Ross never once mentions bin Laden what he says is “He” which could mean anything from Taliban fighter to Foreign fighter. He was not directly asked aobut Bin Laden merely about foreign fighters.It is an important distinction.

  • DJ Elliott says:

    “Still, I find it hard to believe Iran is so tough, when Pakistan, with twice the population and more modern equipment, has a military so weak that they lost to the Taliban (despite having US/Canadian help) within Pakistani territory itself.
    The two seem contradictory.”
    – Majority of the Pakistani Army faces the Indian Army (Second largest population in World). Afghan and the tribal areas have never been Pakistan’s primary threat. The tribal areas and Afghanistan are third on PK’s list of priorities after India and internal security. Less than 10% of the PK Army was ever sent there…
    – Then there is the factor that PK Intelligence founded Taliban and still tends to favor them…

  • Bill Roggio says:

    Jeremy, that was a clip of the second have of the conversation, here is the prior question:
    Q. ABC News: If bin Laden or Zawahiri were there, they could stay?
    A. Gen. Sultan: No one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities.

    Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn’t be taken into custody? He would stay there?

    A. Gen. Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    jeremy: “listen to the actual interview Ross never once mentions bin Laden … He was not directly asked aobut Bin Laden merely about foreign fighters”

    We’re not in a position to listen to (or read a transcript of) the entire “actual interview.” We hear only a portion. Therefore you are not in a position to claim that “Ross never once mentions bin Laden” in the interview. You are only in a position to claim that “Ross never once mentions bin Laden” in the very short clip that was presented.

    Likewise, you are not in a position to claim that “he was not directly asked aobut Bin Laden.” You are only in a position to claim that “he was not directly asked aobut Bin Laden” in the very short clip that was presented.

    However, the way the clip is introduced clearly suggests that Sultan, in context, was talking about OBL. So either you’re wrong, or Ross is pulling a fast one. However, the clip doesn’t settle this, one way or another. This would be settled if and when ABC releases a more complete recording of the conversation.

    Anyway, while Sultan’s comment is a headline-grabber, there’s still plenty to worry about even if his comment is totally discounted.

    By the way, even if one accepts your interpretation, it is hardly comforting to hear that Pakistan will not lift a finger to arrest “foreign fighters,” unless they’re caught fighting.

    A video version of the story is here. I guess this was on ABC News last night. The clip duration is 3:01. The portion regarding Sultan’s statement can be found at 1:30.

  • freddy says:

    Independent states need money. Is Waziristan an opium-growing region ?

  • Pakistan drops out of war on terror

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    Oops, sorry. Our host was already there, with a much better answer. Anyway, enjoy the video.

  • DJ Elliott says:

    Approximatly six weeks of offensive weather left in Afghanistan/PK tribal areas. This means that that Taliban/AQ will have till next spring to rebuild again without interferance.

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    “Is Waziristan an opium-growing region ?”

    It doesn’t need to be. Money is portable.

    The opium situation is not happy. Afghanistan is now producing more opium than the previous record high for total world production. The government is in on it, and the money is financing the bad guys:

    Afghanistan’s world-leading opium cultivation rose a “staggering” 59 percent this year … The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin – outstripping the demand of the world’s heroin users by a third … The trade already accounts for at least 35 percent of Afghanistan’s economy, financing warlords and insurgents. … the area under poppy cultivation in Afghanistan reached 407,700 acres in 2006, up 59 percent from 257,000 acres in 2005. The previous high was 323,700 acres in 2004. … The estimated yield of 6,100 tons of opium resin … is up 49 percent from 4,100 tons last year, and exceeds the previous high for total global output of 5,764 tons recorded in 1999. … Last year, about 450 tons of heroin was consumed worldwide, 90 percent of it from Afghanistan … In an indication of the alarming extent of official complicity in the trade, a Western counternarcotics official said about 25,000 to 30,000 acres of government land in Helmand was used to cultivate opium poppies this year. … police and government officials are involved in cultivating poppies, providing protection for growers or taking bribes to ensure the crops aren’t destroyed. … the Taliban – which managed to nearly eradicate Afghanistan’s poppy crop in 2001, just before their ouster for giving refuge to Osama bin Laden – now profit from the trade. In some instances, drug traffickers have provided vehicles and money to the Taliban to carry out terrorist attacks

  • Chapomatic says:

    Silver Lining (Or at least gunmetal gray)

    If there’s a Taliban-led country of Waziristan, then Pakistan doesn’t have much to say about what they–or anyone else–does there.
    It’s almost Westphalian.

  • Johnny from the Block says:

    One ‘possible’ positive outcome of this peace treaty came to mind when reading this post. Maybe by the Pakistani’s throwing in the towel on Waziristan and signing a treaty containing strong language such as referring to the region as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan”, this may be a blessing in disguise for the US Led NATO coalition. With the Pakistani’s distancing themselves from this area in such a manner, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the US/NATO could begin to conduct more covert ops in the area and in a best case scenario bring in some conventional forces as well. Such operations in Waziristan would yeild not only the capture and/or death of many Al-qaida/Taliban leadership but would also have a direct positive effect on the regime stability and violence of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

  • Global War on Terror Watch: Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan

    The Fourth Rail: Talibanistan: The Establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan
    Pakistan’s “truce with the Taliban is an abject surrender, and al-Qaeda has an untouchable base of operations in Western Pakistan which will only expan…

  • North Waziristan Tribes Sign Peace Pact With Musharaf

    to win in Afghanistan you have to do three things: Kick everyone’s ass, demonstrate that you will persist, and then buy all the local warlords to your side. The warchest needs to re-open in southern Afghanistan, and we need to use it to corner Omar a…

  • jukeboxgrad says:

    johnny: “blessing in disguise”

    Bill said this: “Musharraf would not survive any US incursions into Talibanistan.”

    Musharraf said this: “Pakistan would never allow U.S.-led coalition forces currently hunting al-Qaida and Taliban fighters on the Afghan side of the border into tribal areas on its side. ‘On our side of the border there will be a total uprising if a foreigner enters that area … It’s not possible at all, we will never allow any foreigners into that area. It’s against the culture of the people there.’ “

    I think they’re both worth listening to. I think Bill gave you the reason Musharraf said what he said.

  • johnd01 says:

    I’ll be the first to admit that I am not a military genus, so please take this for what it’s worth.

    I just get this feeling that if the US/NATO tried to launch incursions into Waziristan, the Talib/AQ-types would just wander back deeper into Pakistan. Slowly, we’d be giving AQ more area, not less, and would end up needing an even larger occupation force in one of the crummiest places in the world.

    Our only option at that point would be to back them up all the way to the Indian border so at least there could be a two-front war.

    Eventually, the tribal Talib’s would all end up melting away in the major population centers like Islamabad and Karachi. Let’s face it, the US isn’t all that great at urban warfare yet. Just look at Baghdad.

    Oh yeah, at that point there’d be a few loose nukes we’d have to worry about.

  • Media Bias: Did you know of Pakistan’s surrender

    Bill Roggio reports that Pakistan has surrendered to Al Qaeda in its province of North Waziristan. The terms of the surrender include:

  • ProCynic says:

    One step forward, two steps back

    W made a statement today on the treatment of detainees captured in the war on Islamofascism. He acknowledged that there were secret CIA priosons in other countries where these prisoners were probably tortured, which I don’t like because we should be …

  • UNCoRRELATED says:

    Bad News or An Opportunity?

    As usual, the drive-by media is AWOL on one of the truly important stories on the war on terror. While there is lots of “reporting” on the “civil war” in Iraq, a real civil war in Pakistan is going unremarked. Pakistan’s negotiated truce with–lets jus…

  • Jon says:

    Jukebox quoted Musharraf:
    “On our side of the border there will be a total uprising if a foreigner enters that area … It’s not possible at all, we will never allow any foreigners into that area. It’s against the culture of the people there.’ ”
    I agree 100%. I post regularly on a handful of “islamist” fora, two being heavily populated by Desi-muslims in particular. Almost every muslim I’ve known has a very clear(at the very least) idea of what delineates “muslim land” from other land. To say that Pakistanis are VERY AWARE of this distinction is a rank understatement; their culture of honor is violated by much, much less than the kufar invading their land. And I think us invading–in any capacity–Waziristan would almost immediately topple Musharraf’s regime; He would either have to respond to our incursion with his own–which he seems not to want to do(nor do we, he is an “ally” however useless)– or public outrage(and I mean fanatical outrage lol) would have his head literally on a platter for his refusal to “restore honor to these exclusively muslim lands”. This development is certainly miserable news on its face!
    I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments and Mr. Roggio’s blog. Great stuff, keep it coming.

  • Andrew says:

    The ABC interview was probably a freudian slip by the Pakistani spokesperson, and it was of course expected that they would retract.
    What is perhaps most surprising (to a non-American, at least) is that statement that Bin Laden would not be arrested or killed by Pakistan was news to Americans in the first place.
    Forget Iran/Iraq/Syria/Libya and other ‘evil’ states, they might not be any friends of America but they certainly had little to do with 9/11 or Al Queda. Al Queda and the related terrrist network and their activities are wholly a createion of Pakistan and their ISI, with significant ammount of Saudi funding and guidance.
    The whole Pakistani ‘WOT’ is a magnificient charade to milk you guys for aid, new arms, and international recognition for a rogue military regime, they are never going to get rid of the Islamist terrorists, as:
    1> The Pakistan Army (who BTW maintain very close ties with the Mullahs and depend on them to keep the masses in control) are themselves heavily Islamised and regard and use Islamist terror as a weapon just like other armies would view surveillance drones or artillery.
    2> The ISI is heavily interlinked and enmeshed with Al Queda and will not turn in their own people. Apart from many other reasons, for the simple reason that doing so would expose their own networks. Do you still wonder why Pakistan offers up any number of ‘Al Queda # 3’ whenever they are unders some pressure, and never the #1 or #2? Some dummy guys or tier 5 operatives get captured and delivered and Musharraf gets endless praise for it, while the tier 1 and 2 guys are probably cooling their heels in airconditioned comfort in some ISI safehouse.
    3> Musharraf and the Pak Army were under tremendous pressure after 9/11 and simply made a Haudibiya type agreement with the West. Mohammed felt he couldnt defeat the people of Mecca so to escape from a sticky situation he signed the treaty with them. Mohammed made peace with the people of Mecca but used a private conflict as an excuse to violate the treaty a few years alter when he had marshalled enough forces to attack Mecca.
    Musharraf did exactly the same with America to get out of a hole that his army and intelligence forces had dug for themselves culiminating in 9/11. Musharraf himself refers to the treaty in his speech to the nation soon after 911 to justify his decision to ‘join the war on terror’ , read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
    A nation that IS islamist extremist to the core and has to be forced or bribed to get rid of terrorists or stop terrorism, rather than do it themselves because it is the right thing to do, is no kind of ally.

  • Andrew says:

    I just want to add to my post above, that the speech mentioned was given by Musharaff to the local populace in Urdu, while his tone while talking to the western media and diplomats (in English of course) was totally different. This is SOP for Pakistanis.
    I would suggest that anyone who thinks that Musharaf is sincere should read the speech in it’s entirety.
    Faced with the ability to bring the perpetrators of a horrific tragedy like 9/11 to justice, any civilized person/nation would not think twice before comitting unconditionally to destroying the terrorists.
    With Pakistan its a different case as almost the entire country sympathizes and shelters terrorists, the whole idea of the Pakistani state (Pakistan means land of the pure) is rooted in Islamism, and to a large extent the Pak Army and ISI ARE the terrorists.
    Meanwhile life goes on, and the state dept has just come out in support of Musharaff’s plan to throw in the towel and beat a retreat giving the terrorists control. Look for videos from Al Queda (produced and edited somewhere in Pakistan of course) to come out celebrating their latest victory. The US has promised Pakistan some 50 F16s, with advanced weapons such as JDAMs and enough AMRAAMs to wipe out a medium sized Air Force (all useful for fighting Al Queda, no doubt), perhaps its time to send them some F-22s and LA Class SSNs.

  • Speller says:

    >I completely agree with Andrew’s assessment. We have been duped by Musharraf and the ISI.
    >While posing as an ally Pakistan has proliferated nuclear weapons technology to at least Iran and Libya, developed and tested continually better ballistic missle platforms for their nuclear warheads and provided a safe haven for the Taliban/Al-Qa’eda since 2001.
    >During this period Musarraf rewarded rather than imprisoned A.Q.Khan, and held him up as a hero when he was caught spreading WMD., Khan didn’t tells us that he had helped Libya’s nuclear program, Mohammar Qadaffi did.
    >While interceding on Pakistan’s behalf with India when India was under continued attacks by ISI backed terrorists, the U.S. has driven India deeper into Russia’s client/patron relationship.
    > Now, having established the Karzai government in Afghanistan, we cannot leave. If we leave and Karzia’s government falls or goes Taliban we will never be trusted to stand by the new Iraq government.
    >This looks like a quagmire. We are doomed to a war of attrition in Afghanistan. We cannot win because of sanctuaries in Pakistani sovereign territory and we can’t leave because we installed the government in Kabul.

  • Waziristan

    Osama has hisself an emirate.
    According to Bill Roggio at the Fourth Rail, Pakistan has concluded a truce with the Taliban and al Qaeda that cedes control of North and South Waziristan. The Pakistani Army is leaving.
    The United States invaded Afghanist…

  • Gen. Musharraf Lies Through His Teeth

    This is just bad reporting by Carlotta Gall:
    Afghan officials have long contended that Pakistan has harbored Taliban leaders and fighters and has done too little to keep them from crossing into Afghanistan and carrying out attacks.
    General Musharraf…

  • Friday Winds of War: September 08/06

    Welcome! Our goal at Winds of Change.NET is to give you one power-packed briefing of insights, news and trends from the global War on Terror that leaves you stimulated, informed, and occasionally amused every Monday…

  • pacific_waters says:

    Let’s just cut to the chase and forget all the blather. We are at war. By we I refer to the west and everybody else and islam. it has been active for 1400 years with brief periods of quiescence. It may be phased and fought differently than convemtional wars but the end result is the same. Unfortunately we (europe in particular) are rendered helpless by denial and politicians who are afraid to speak the truth.

  • BLOG: Quick Links 9/13/06

    Sorry I’ve been a little short on baseball content the past week. That was certainly one crushing loss for the Marlins last night. Anyway, on to some links: **My initial reaction to the news that Pakistan was effectively conceding its…

  • The Threshold of Ignorance

    DCP blogger Dwazhon turned me onto a blog called, The Fourth Rail. Here’s DW take on it: Please check out Bill Roggio’s The Fourth Rail. He’s former military and a reporter who’s done 2 rounds of embed, 1st in Iraq…

  • Pakistani Problems

    Suicide bombings take their toll, but may have been very foolish indeed in their choice of targets, the main civilian opposition to General Pervez Musharraf, the People’s Party together with supporters of ousted Supreme Court Justice Iftikhar Moh…


Islamic state



Al shabaab

Boko Haram