February 6, 2010 6:18 PM ET
By Tony Prudori

A new statement posted to the Taliban's Voice of Jihad web page [VOJ version here, PDF at non-terrorist site here] says the group will negotiate (the first time I've ever seen it in the past year):

The Islamic Emirate has curtains goals to achieve. They are: 1. Complete independence of the country. 2. Establishment of an Islamic system representing the wants and aspiration of the Afghan people. 3. Progress and prosperity of the country and people. Our first priority is to achieve these goals through talks and negotiation.[emphasis mine]

In spite of appearing to be willing to negotiate, the Taliban remain unimpressed with the conditions for coming into the tent:

Similarly, they put forward conditions, which are tantamount to escalating the war rather than ending it. For example, they want Mujahideen to lay down arms; accept the Constitution and renounce violence. None can name this reconciliation.

In other words, the Taliban are saying 'we want to talk and negotiate, but we're not happy with anything you're offering right now' - interesting opening gambit, that.

Another point: This is the first time in a while I haven't seen a call in a signed statement or editorial for getting all foreign troops out of Afghanistan before talking.

Meanwhile....

But if the invading powers in Afghanistan are not ready to give the Afghans their natural rights which is the right of independence and establishment of a government based on their aspirations and wants, then the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate are determined to carry on the fight until the realization of the said goals.

I remain skeptical, based on previous "talks that weren't talks and/or didn't happen," but stay tuned to see what else they say down the road.

(0)

February 6, 2010 2:12 AM ET
By Bill Roggio

The US Army has released the executive summary of the report on the Taliban assault on Combat Outpost Keating in October 2009 that nearly saw the base overrun. The abandonment of Keating and other remote outposts less than two weeks after the assault gave the Taliban uncontested control of several rural districts in Nuristan.

I've received the executive summary from ISAF Public Affairs. The full summary is posted below. There is one problem I can see in the report, and it is in the final paragraph. The military claims the base was destroyed before it was abandoned. But as the Taliban video above shows, they found quite a bit left behind to use.

Continue reading "Army releases report on battle at Combat Outpost Keating"

(7)

February 5, 2010 11:24 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

The Pakistani government wants the world to believe it is sincere in its fight against Islamist terror groups, but at the same time refuses to deal with the Lashkar-e-Taiba and its front group, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Even though both groups are banned, its leader, Hafiz Saeed, who has been implicated by the Indian government in the November 2008 terror assault in Mumbai, is again openly calling for jihad. If India would just relinquish Jammu and Kashmir, the conflict would end, Saeed claims. From Rediff News:

Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, who is accused of masterminding the Mumbai terror attacks, on Friday said the only solution to resolving problems between India and Pakistan is the 'liberation of Jammu and Kashmir', failing which radical groups will resort to the 'option of Jihad'.

Addressing a gathering of about 10,000 people at the Mall Road in Lahore to mark 'Kashmir Solidarity Day', Saeed said this is the message he would convey to Home Minister P Chidambaram, if he came to Lahore during his upcoming visit to Pakistan.

"We are not against composite dialogues. I ask Chidambaram to first come to Lahore before going to Islamabad and hold talks with me. I will tell him a solid solution to the problems between India and Pakistan," said Saeed.

"There is only one solution to all the problems -- liberate Indian-held Kashmir. Otherwise the option of Jihad (holy war) is open for us," Saeed said.

But Saeed then makes it clear that Lashkar-e-Taiba/Jamaat-ud-Dawa aren't only concerned with Jammu and Kashmir. His groups have designs on Indian Hyderabad as well.

He also warned India that the liberation of the erstwhile state of Hyderabad was also on the JuD's agenda. Saeed, also the founder of the banned Lashker-e-Taiba, warned the Pakistan government not to fool the people in the name of the composite dialogue with India.

"Our rulers get happy whenever India expresses its wish for talks with Pakistan. I want to tell them that India will never talk about liberating Srinagar and Jammu and Pakistan must understand this," he said.

The JuD chief said his group "had already tested the Indian Army".

And while Saeed didn't say it at the jihadist rally, he supports the establishment of a global caliphate, just as al Qaeda does. Lashkar-e-Taiba has "consistently advocated the use of force and vowed that it would plant the 'flag of Islam' in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi," the Southeast Asia Terrorism Portal reported.

But despite all of this, the Pakistani government can't seem to find cause to arrest him. A wise intelligence official told me some time ago that until Pakistan moves against the likes of Hafiz Saeed, the government can't be taken seriously. Nor can it be completely trusted.

(3)

February 5, 2010 5:18 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

At The Wall Street Journal, Matthew Rosenberg rams home the point that US and Pakistani intelligence services are really in the dark on the status of Hakeemullah Mehsud, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban.

"We won't know for certain until the Taliban want us to know," said Rustam Shah Mohmand, a former Pakistani official who spent much of his career in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where Mr. Mehsud operated and may have perished.

The tribal areas—the home base for much of the Taliban's and al Qaeda's senior leadership—remain in some ways an intelligence black hole. US drones patrol the skies above, tracking potential targets and firing missiles at them. But the flow of intelligence from informers on the ground is uneven, at best, and that affects how much can be learned about what the militants are actually up to, current and former Pakistani officials say.

"In the tribal areas news spreads very fast, exceedingly fast. It used to be impossible to conceal any news, particularly news of this magnitude," Mr. Mohmand said. "When people in authority, the people in the security forces and intelligence apparatus, do not know what is happening in the tribal areas, it means there is an institutional vacuum in the tribal areas," Mr. Mohmand said.

The lack of reliable sources and established government in the tribal areas hinders intelligence efforts, as has the decimation of existing intelligence sources by the Taliban in an attempt to purge the region of spies.

Communication intercepts on both sides of the border have also helped to avert attacks in the region and in the West, U.S. and Pakistani officials say.

But the intercepts and drones "can't give us all the proof we need to say someone is dead," said a senior Pakistani intelligence official. "There are a lot of attacks we haven't been able to stop."

The confusion is compounded by Pakistan's growing deficit in human intelligence. The ISI takes the lead in spying in the tribal areas, yet it has lost about three dozen agents and informants in the region since the start of 2009, the Pakistani official said.

I've made some of these points over the past week, see here for instance. Kudos to Matthew Rosenberg and The Wall Street Journal for stepping back and looking at the bigger picture.

(1)

February 5, 2010 11:59 AM ET
By Bill Roggio

The BBC has a chilling story of Meena, a young Pakistani girl from Dir whose father and brother are Taliban. The father and brother had recruited, trained, and deployed many suicide bombers, according to Meena. They tried to make her become a suicide bomber, too, and forced her 9-year-old younger sister to carry out a suicide bombing attack in Afghanistan. From the BBC:

They attached a bomb to my sister Nahida. They tied rectangular pieces to both her arms, and a black strip was wrapped around both her legs.

Then they connected the whole thing. She told my brother the bomb was heavy and she could not walk. He said she would be comfortable once she was sitting down in the car.

They gave her medicine. But she was crying very loud for my mother. She kept going to her and hugging her. When my sister looked down at the bomb, she shivered.

Then my brother and my father started beating my mother, and they were shouting: "Why you are distracting the girl from her mission?"

I heard my sister saying: "Where is Meena? I want to see her." But I didn't have the strength. My heart couldn't take it.

My mother fainted when they put her in the car. My brother said my sister's attack was in Afghanistan.

Do read the whole thing. Then remember that Taliban like Meena's father and brother are the very people the Pakistani government has repeatedly negotiated with, and are the same people with whom the Afghan and Westerns governments now seek to negotiate. Some Afghan, Pakistani, NATO, and UN leaders would be quite happy to bring Mullah Omar into the fold of the government.

(2)

February 5, 2010 10:35 AM ET
By Tony Prudori

The Financial Times shares these highlights about one of the elders US commanders in Arghandab are trying to bring on side as part of their work to bring Afghans on side:

Once locked up in Guantánamo Bay as a suspected Taliban commander, Said Amir Mohammad Agha, a spry 61-year-old, is now high on the list of Afghan elders that US forces want to befriend .... Mr Agha was detained three times by US forces in Afghanistan and spent time in the Guantánamo detention facility in Cuba before being repatriated. US officers believe Mr Agha has retired from active duty as a Taliban commander but maintains contacts with the movement. Sporting a grey beard and turban of the type favoured by Pashtun elders, Mr Agha’s loyalties remain uncertain. Putting aside his prayer beads, he reaches into his robes to produce a certificate from US forces saying he had been deemed not to pose a threat after being detained in Afghanistan from January to June 2004 ....

The interesting tidbit adding some context the Financial Times' coverage comes from Kandahar-based analyst/writer Alex Strick van Linschoten:

…. I was greatly disappointed, however, that (the article’s author) missed out on the key point when it comes to Amir Mohammad Agha — he is Mullah Mohammad Omar’s father-in-law. (And) with that, he also missed the extremely important 1980s context and just how involved Amir Mohamad Agha was involved in the early years of the Taliban movement post-1994.

So, how's your son-in-law doing these days, Mr. Agha? Believe me when I say we're very interested.

(6)

February 3, 2010 10:28 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

Hakeemullah Mehsud in a US Humvee looted from a NATO supply column in Khyber.

First Hakeemullah was dead, US and Pakistani officials said. Now he's alive, an anonymous Pakistani intelligence official told Dawn:

A senior government functionary has told DawnNews on condition of anonymity that Hakeemullah Mehsud may have survived a drone strike.

The official also maintained that another Taliban leader, Qari Hussain, may also be alive.

The government has not officially confirmed the speculations about his death.

The rumor mill from Pakistan is in full gear. One report even claimed that Qari Hussain Mehsud, the master trainer of suicide bombers, and Waliur Rehman Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in South Waziristan, are also dead. The report on Qari Hussain is flat out odd as he spoke to a Pakistani television station on Sunday to deny Hakeemullah is dead. Perhaps Osama bin Laden, Elvis, and the Easter Bunny were also killed in the same strike....

The Taliban have maintained that Hakeemullah is alive, but his spokesman said that Hakeemullah will not release a tape after each and every report of his death. But Hakeemullah, who cannot be accused of being media shy, hasn't been seen or heard from since his "I'm alive" audiotape made on Jan. 16, two days after a US airstrike targeted him and reports indicated he was dead.

As I've noted, reports of Hakeemullah's death are premature and we won't know either way until the Taliban want us to know. At this stage, everything else is speculation.

(14)

February 2, 2010 4:49 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

Hakeemullah and Waliur Rehman Mehsud, before the Pakistani Army launched the South Waziristan offensive in October 2009.

Tariq Azam, the top spokesman for the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan, backtracked on statements made by other Taliban commanders who said Hakeemullah Mehsud would release a tape to prove he was alive. From The Associated Press:

We don't feel any need presently to release a video, but whenever we feel a need, we will do so," Pakistani Taliban spokesman Azam Tariq told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location.

The spokesman's comments came a day after a close aide to Mehsud told the AP that the militant group would try to provide proof in a day or two that its leader was alive. The senior Taliban commander spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution.

Tariq called Sunday's Pakistani television report that first announced Mehsud's death propaganda and said the leader "is perfectly well, alive and staying at a safe location."

The state TV report was apparently based on witnesses who said they attended Mehsud's funeral last week in the Orakzai tribal area.

Tariq said Mehsud would not appear before the media to prove he is alive because it could endanger him.

"We are not going to fall prey to this trap and make our leader vulnerable to the spy network, and secondly, the leadership council has restricted the leader from speaking to the media for certain reasons," said Tariq.

As noted yesterday, the Taliban will ultimately let us know if Hakeemullah is indeed dead. Azam's statement certainly lends weight to the idea that Hakeemullah has departed this planet. But his other statement, that the intelligence services want Hakeemullah to quickly release a tape in hopes of catching the Taliban in a mistake, which could lead to targeting information, is also true (a point that was also made in yesterday's post).

(5)

February 1, 2010 7:49 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

I've obtained a translation of the announcement of the merger of the Ras Kamboni Brigade with Shabaab, and their commitment to establish an Islamic state in the Horn of Africa as well as to support al Qaeda and the "international jihad." The groups merged on Friday, and today, the announcement was released on the Al Qimmah Forum, an Islamist website run from Sweden. The site is used to post announcements from Islamist groups around the globe. The merger dealt a blow to Hassan Dahir Awey's Hizbul Islam alliance. For more on this, see LWJ report, "Shabaab absorbs southern Islamist group, splits Hizbul Islam" from earlier today.

Below is a translation of the statement released on the Al Qimmah Forum. The statement also provides a who's who of the two groups.

By the grace of Allah, the Al Shabaab Mujahideen Movement and the mujahideen of Ras Kamboni Camp today merged under one name: Al Shabaab Mujahideen Movement. The two sides agreed to continue the fight against the enemies of Allah and to seek the establishment of an Islamic government.

Sheikh Fu'ad Mohammed Khalaf and Sheikh Mohammed Dulyadeyn were among the leaders who jointly revealed this at a news conference in Baidoa. The agreement, which contains several items, was read out to the media by Sheikh Fu'ad, who said:

"We hereby state that the two mujahideen brother [groups] have agreed:"

"1. To unite the mujahideen of the two groups.
2. To seek to unify Muslims, especially the mujahideen who still remain out of the merger. We want them to join the mujahideen merger, and Allah will guarantee it.
3. To embark upon the establishment of an Islamic government that implements the law of Allah.
4. To support Muslims, particularly the Muslim people of east and the Horn of Africa living under enemy Christians who are the majority.
5. In order to restore the Muslims' damaged honor, political power, economic power, and military power, Muslims of the east and the Horn of Africa should be united and hostilities the colonizer has fomented among Muslims of this region be brought to an end.
6. To counter the international crusaders' war against Muslims and to combine the jihad of the Horn of Africa with the international jihad."

Sheikh Mohammed Dulyadeyn read out the names of the leaders from the two sides who took part in the talks and are signatories to the agreement. Signatories from the Ras Kamboni side are:

1. Sheikh Hasan Abdullahi Hirsi, also known as Sheikh Hassan Turki
2. Sheikh Mohammed Mohammed Ali, also known as Dulyadeyn
3. Sheikh Mohammed Ahmad Guhad, also known as Abu Sa'ad
4. Sheikh Abdiqadir Abdullahi Mohammed
5. Sheikh Ibrahim Adan Ibrahim

Signatories from al Shabaab Mujahideen Movement are:

1. Sheikh Mukhtar Abdirahman Abu Zubeyr, the Emir of al Shabaab
2. Sheikh Mukhtar Robow Ali, also known as Abu Mansur
3. Sheikh Fu'ad Mohammed Khalaf
4. Sheikh Abdirahman Ahmad Adan, also known as Abdirahman Siro
5. Sheikh Abubakar Zeyli'i

Allah is Great, Allah is Great

All praise is due to Allah

(1)

February 1, 2010 11:18 AM ET
By Bill Roggio

Hakeemullah Mehsud, left. AFP photo.

An unnamed Taliban commander said that the group will provide "proof" that Hakeemullah Mehsud is alive and survived the Jan. 14 airstrike carried out by US forces. From The Associated Press:

A close aide to Mehsud called the report of the militant chief's death "government propaganda" and said he was "doing well."

"We will try in a day or two to give you proof that he is alive," the senior Taliban commander told The Associated Press by telephone from an undisclosed location. He spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of government retribution.

[Warning, gratuitous mention alert.] Also, intelligence sources contacted by The New York Times and The Washington Post are at odds with sources whom I spoke with yesterday morning:

The New York Times and the Washington Post quoted anonymous U.S. officials as saying Sunday they were more than 90 per cent certain Mehsud had died. The Long War Journal, a U.S. Web site that closely monitors the American missile campaign in the northwest, quoted U.S. intelligence officials as saying there was no indication he had been killed.

No arguments here. Different assessments on Hakeemullah's status seem to be floating around. For once, the Pakistani government and military are being conservative while US officials are being more assertive. This is all part of the fog of the Predator war, which I discussed just three days after the report that Baitullah Mehsud was killed in August 2009.

The Associated Press article cited above rightly noted that sources in the tribal areas are thin to nonexistent. We can't even be 100 percent certain if everyone on this list of senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders killed in US strikes in 2004 is actually dead. In fact, the best evidence we have that they are dead is when the Taliban or al Qaeda tells us that the leaders or operatives are dead.

Our best indication of Hakeemullah's status will come from the Taliban themselves, and not from US or Pakistani intelligence officials. If the Taliban release an audio or video tape, we'll have confirmation he is alive; if not, we'll continue to wonder if he is dead.

One reason the Taliban are cautious about quickly releasing audio or video after each and every claim of the death of a commander is because they are fearful the tape will be used to trace back to their location. US intel wants the Taliban to hastily release tapes. And the Taliban know this.

(4)

January 31, 2010 11:39 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

Daily Times has the best description of the North Waziristan Taliban's warning to the Pakistani government not to launch a military operation in the tribal area:

A shura of Taliban in North Waziristan Agency on Sunday said it can withstand government action but would not tolerate a military operation in the agency. In a pamphlet addressed to the people of North Waziristan and distributed in Miranshah Bazaar, it warned the government that launching an operation in the agency would lead to war.

The pamphlet issued by the Taliban shura appealed to the people of North Waziristan Agency to locate to a ‘peaceful’ area in Afghanistan before the clash began. The pamphlet said the shura had been honouring the agreement it signed with the government and had not attacked security forces since then, however, the government was violating the agreement to serve its vested interests.

The shura said the government was taking advantage of the situation, and had established a spy network in the agency and had killing several militants and civilians, according to the pamphlet issued by the Taliban.

The pamphlet said that according to the accord, the government had agreed to withdraw troops from Jani Khel and Baka Khel areas of the tribal agency [note Jani Khel and Baka Khal are regions in district of Bannu, which borders North Waziristan], however, the number of troops had increased there since the agreement. The pamphlet issued by the militants said troops were searching the houses of civilians, and in some cases even demolishing houses.
The shura said army checkposts still existed in these areas and the authorities were even checking women’s identity cards.

Reuters reported that the pamphlet was issued by the Council of Mujahideen.

"We will not accept any sort of operation and if there is any preparation from the government for an operation, or government forces enter any village in this regard, that could trigger a full-fledged battle," said the Council of Mujahideen, which includes the Pakistani Taliban, in a statement.

The Council of Mujahideen was formed in February 2009 and was comprised of North Waziristan Taliban leader Hafiz Gul Bahadar, South Waziristan chieftain Mullah Nazir, and then leader of the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan Baitullah Mehsud. Nazir and Bahadar are not part of the The Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan. The three Taliban leaders formed the Council at the behest of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, who wanted the Pakistani Taliban to form a united front.

With the death of Baitullah in a US strike in August 2009, the Movement of the Taliban in Pakistan was no longer represented on the Council of Mujahideen. And as far as I know, Hakeemullah Mehsud did not take Baitullah's place. With Baitullah no longer part of the council, this allowed the Pakistani military to cut a deal with Nazir and Bahadar to remain neutral while the Army launched its operation in South Waziristan in mid-October 2009.

(0)

January 31, 2010 8:25 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

This was inevitable. The Taliban have used General Stanley McChrystal's statements on his desire for negotiations in their propaganda. Here is an except from the Taliban's English-language Voice of Jihad website:

The top commander of American forces in Afghanistan, Mc Crystal, in an interview with The Financial Times, has said: “We fought along war in Afghanistan. Now there is need for peace and for efforts to establish peace. “

His remarks come amidst reports that it is impossible for his invading forces and other coalition troops in Afghanistan to turn the Jihadic resistance. In fact, the Americans tried every mean and tool to wipe out the Jihadic resistance but the graph of the resistance of the Afghans has been ascending and opposition to the presence of the invaders intensifying.

The legitimate Jihadic resistance of the Afghans not only faced the enemy with defeat in the military field but they have faced them with a psychological defeat as well. All their decisions and planning indicate a clue of their psychological disease.

You can read the rest at the Voice of Jihad; the Taliban basically say that the offer for their leaders to live abroad is preposterous and that their fighters can't be bought off, as proposed by the Afghan government and the international community at the London conference. The Taliban reiterate that they will continue to wage jihad and demand that all foreign forces withdraw from the country.

While we might dismiss the Taliban's statement as mere propaganda, it is very effective to their targeted audience: the Taliban commanders and fighters in the field. McChrystal's words will be viewed as a sign of weakness, and will reinforce the Taliban leadership's longstanding charge that NATO and the US have been weakened and are seeking the exit. McChrystal's statement will be a disincentive for Taliban fighters and low-level commanders who might have considered defecting to do so. This is why you offer the olive branch only after you grind down an enemy force, and not before.

(1)

January 31, 2010 8:06 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

At least one squad of the joint Taliban-al Qaeda Shadow Army operating in Swat.

Britain's Channel 4 will air a show called Afghanistan: Behind Enemy Lines tomorrow night which will neatly show how Al Qaeda and allied movements (or AQAM) is operating in the northern provinces of Kunduz and Baghlan. According to Najibullah Quraishi, the Channel 4 reporter who 'embedded' with the AQAM fighters, the group is interdicting NATO's supply line from Tajikistan and is in control of many villages in the region. Here is how Channel 4 described the group:

Quraishi spent almost two weeks with the Central Group of fighters, known to be among the most dangerous and fanatical factions involved in the war, with Chechens, Arabs and other foreign fighters in their ranks and with close links to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden

Quraishi appears to be describing a unit of the Lashkar al Zil, or al Qaeda's Shadow Army, however I am not able to confirm this. Clearly this unit is composed of fighters from the Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), the Turkistan Islamic Party, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Here is an excerpt of a report on the show, from The Guardian:

The documentary, made for Channel 4's Dispatches and to be shown tomorrow night, concentrates on a group of fighters including Taliban and al-Qaida members but largely composed of men from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hizb-e-Islami group as they attempt to ambush US and Afghan police vehicles on the main road from Tajikistan, one of the US main supply routes. It comes amid evidence that the insurgency, far from faltering under a US surge, is strengthening and expanding its operations.

The men are seen preparing roadside bombs capable of disabling armoured vehicles, planning an ambush and conducting courts and interrogations. Pashtun villagers make clear that they are happy to pay taxes to the fighters and regard them as more legitimate than the government in Kabul.

Operating in Baghlan and Kunduz provinces, the fighters claim they can call on 4,000 men at the height of the fighting season. They all declare they will continue fighting until the Americans and "other infidels" are driven out.

Even more worrying for Nato – in an area overseen by German forces – is the absolute denial by local police that the Taliban are operating near the road, despite the film's ample proof. A crucial proposal at last week's international conference on Afghanistan in London was that responsibility for a number of provinces should be transferred to the Afghan security forces.

(1)

January 28, 2010 2:49 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

While it pains me to have to quote Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and an al Qaeda and Taliban ally, he is absolutely correct concerning the so-called high level talks with the Taliban. From Adnkronos International:

“This [claims of high-level talks with the Taliban] is nothing new. These kinds of efforts were taking place last year as well when former Taliban foreign minister Abdul Wakeel Muttawakil, former Taliban minister in Pakistan Mullah Zaeef, former Taliban federal minister Moulvi Arsala Rehmani (now a senator in Afghanistan) and a Mullah Abdul Hakeem Mujahid met in Saudi Arabia for reconciliation with the Taliban," said Gul.

"But they admitted that they were doing that on their own initiative and not representing Taliban,” said Gul.

With his close links to the Taliban and al Qaeda, Gul certainly is in a position to know what the Taliban's leaders think of the West's overtures and those claiming to represent the group in negotiations.

For more on this subject, see these reports from The Long War Journal:

Taliban reject peace talks - Jan. 27, 2010
Taliban deny reports of negotiations with Afghan government - March 16, 2009
Taliban have not split from al Qaeda: sources - Oct. 7, 2008

(7)

January 27, 2010 2:36 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

The media are atwitter over the prospects of negotiations with the Taliban. Secret talks with high-level Taliban leaders, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's son, were held in the Maldives recently. (The Afghan government and the Coalition have been trying to cut a deal with Hekmatyar since 2002, and have come away empty each time. Hekmatyar, by the way, is best known in Afghanistan for throwing acid in schoolgirls' faces and shelling Kabul after the Soviet withdrawal.)

The London Conference tomorrow will focus on a renewed effort at negotiations in an attempt to split the Taliban and get large segments of the group off the battlefield and back into the farm fields. Lots of money is sure to be thrown around. Yesterday, five 'Taliban leaders' were removed from the United Nations terrorist sanctions list. Here are the names of the 'Taliban leaders' removed from the list, via Geo News.

The five officials removed from the UN list are Abdul Wakil Mutawakil, who was foreign minister under the now ousted Taliban regime; Faiz Mohammad Faizan, a former deputy commerce minister; Shams-US-Safa, a former foreign ministry official; Mohammad Musa, a deputy planning minister; and Abdul Hakim, a former deputy frontier affairs minister.

While the removal of these five individuals from the list is being held up as a major sign of reconciliation, that is not the case. These are five 'Taliban leaders' who have already reconciled with the government. Abdul Hakim is the current governor of Uruzgan province. Mutawakil has propped himself up as an influential Taliban broker. He served as the Taliban's foreign minister in 2001 and broke ranks after Omar refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after the Sept. 11 attacks. He surrendered to US forces in 2002 and has repeatedly tried to negotiate peace agreements.

But the Taliban consider Mutawakil and his allies to be stooges of the Afghan government, and say so often. See this report from March 2009, or these reports from October 2008.

The negotiations with the Taliban have a certain Ground Hog Day feel to them. Every year or so, the Afghan government wakes up and tries to cut a deal with people who are characterized as the top Taliban leaders, only to be rebuffed by the real Taliban leaders. As a bonus, the meetings are used by the Taliban as evidence of Western weakness.

(1)

January 27, 2010 9:25 AM ET
By Tony Prudori

Remember the back and forth on the Taliban's PayPal donations page? Well, there's a new twist. The PayPal page itself is still in operation as of this post, but now, the Taliban have issued an official denial (Arabic - Google English - PDF at non-terrorist site):

Inform you that he does not have a note of the Islamic Emirate of any program or site to collect donations on the Web (Internet). Every site or person (on the network) claims that he collected donations for the Islamic Emirate is a charlatan and a liar, which aims to raise money for itself in a way dirty and irresponsible. We dissociate ourselves from those sites and persons altogether.

Originally, the PayPal link at alemrah.info was part of the Voice of Jihad's official Pashto page (PDF of screen capture at non-terrorist site), but now, it's no longer there (PDF of latest screen capture at non-terrorist site - check page 3 to see no more alemrah.info).

So, what's this mean? Here are three possibilities:

1) The site is still linked to the Taliban, but the Taliban is trying to discourage folks from using it lest PayPal collect information of interest to those hunting bad guys.

2) The Taliban tried the PayPal concept, and are now dumping it.

3) The site was set up by the good guys to help lure dopey donors.

(0)

January 25, 2010 11:38 PM ET
By Bill Roggio

US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry.

The New York Times has dropped a bombshell by publishing Ambassador Karl Eikenberry's memos that were written in early November that explained his opposition to the 'surge' of 30,000 US forces in Afghanistan. According to Eikenberry, who served as the top commander in Afghanistan for an 18-month stint that ended in 2007, Afghan President Hamid Karzai "is not an adequate strategic partner." He also believes that the Afghan government only sought to draw the US in further and has no capacity for sustaining the local governance needed for success. Eikenberry is concerned that the Afghan security forces are unable to fill the role of quickly transitioning security, worries about the cost of the venture, and feels the Obama administration is putting undue trust in Pakistan to police the Taliban on its side of the border.

Eikenberry makes a compelling case against the surge. Several of his concerns, particularly the rush to push the Afghan security forces into the field, many units of which do not yet exist, and the Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, were raised here at both The Long War Journal and Threat Matrix.

The memos also show that the top military and diplomatic leaders in Afghanistan are not in sync as they were during the Iraq surge. The relationship between General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker was instrumental in the success of the Iraqi surge. While the Times said Eikenberry's concerns were alleviated, there is no indication any of his concerns were even addressed.

You can read the article here and the full memos here.

Here is Eikenberry's view on relying on Pakistan and the importance of Taliban sanctuaries across the border:

More troops won't end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain. Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain, and Pakistan views its strategic interests as best served by a weak neighbor. There is reason to be encouraged by Pakistan's current military offensive in Waziristan, but the lasting result of this effort is still unclear. Nor does the Pakistan military action address the role of the Quetta Shura, which has the most influence over the insurgency in southern Taliban strongholds, or the Haqqani network, the most lethal killer of allied troops and Afghan civilians. Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.

(10)

January 25, 2010 9:06 PM ET
By Austin Knuppe

With the coming of a new year, many nonprofits, think tanks, and other policy institutions are releasing their annual reports on the state of our world in 2010. Below is a brief "press roundup" of several of the most relevant findings on the nation of Iran.

The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal just released their annual "Index of Economic Freedom" for 2010, ranking Iran the 168th "freest" country in the world and 16th out of 17 countries in the region. From the report:

Protectionism and heavy state involvement in many aspects of economic activity have led to economic stagnation in Iran’s non-oil sector and a lack of overall economic dynamism. A restrictive business and investment environment depresses development of a viable private sector. More than 500 companies are state-owned, and privatization has been negligible in the past year. Business licensing and closure are regulated heavily by an intrusive and inefficient bureaucracy. High tariff rates and non-tariff barriers impede trade and foreign investment. Corruption is rampant, and fair adjudication of property rights cannot be guaranteed...The oil sector accounts for nearly 50 percent of the government budget.

Freedom House published an extensive preview of their "Freedom in the World 2010" report. Iran did not fare much better on this report. "Iran received a downward trend arrow due to strong evidence of fraud in the June 2009 presidential election and the violent suppression of subsequent protests," says Freedom House. Additionally:

News from the [Middle East] was dominated by the upheaval in Iran, where election rigging, deadly state violence against civilians, and repression of the political opposition were met by a protest movement that impressed the world with its size, courage, commitment to democratic values, and staying power…Declines in 2009 brought the portion of the region’s residents who live in ‘Not Free’ societies to 88 percent.

Continue reading "Iran press roundup"

(0)

January 25, 2010 2:44 PM ET
By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

Osama bin Laden's latest tape, entitled "From Osama to Obama."

As reported in other media outlets, Osama bin Laden released a one-minute audio recording yesterday about Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound plane last month. Addressed "from Osama to Obama," here is the complete Open Source Center translation of the statement:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. From Usama to Obama: Peace be upon the one who follows guidance. As for what follows: If our messages to you could be carried by words, we would not have delivered them by planes. The message we want to communicate to you through the plane of the hero, mujahid Umar Farouk, may God relieve him, is a confirmation of a previous message, which was delivered to you by the heroes of the 11th [of September] and which was repeated previously and afterward; namely, America will not dream of security until we experience it as a reality in Palestine. It is not fair that you should live peacefully while our brothers in Gaza are experiencing the most miserable living. Based on this, with the permission of God, our raids against you will continue as long as your support for the Israelis is continuing. Peace be upon the one who follows guidance.

I would like to make three points about this message. First, in analyzing al-Qaeda's messaging, it is always important to consider the audience for which it is intended -- and frequently the intended audience is different from that which is stated. Though this tape's claim to be "from Osama to Obama" suggests that the audience is either the American president or Westerners more broadly, the themes it hits suggests that the actual intended audience is the Muslim world.

Second, some commentators have portrayed the tape as a claim of responsibility by al-Qaeda's central leadership for Abdulmutallab's attempted bombing. I think that under a more careful reading, the tape does not go that far. True, bin Laden refers to Abdulmutallab's attack in the first-person plural possessive ("the message we want to communicate to you through the plane of the hero, mujahid Umar Farouk" and "our raids against you"), but this does not amount to a direct claim of responsibility by the group's central leadership. The use of first-person plural possessive could indicate the broader al-Qaeda umbrella -- under which fall such affiliate organizations as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, bin Laden uses a first-person plural pronoun in the same tape to refer to the Ummah more broadly rather than al-Qaeda specifically when he says "America will not dream of security until we experience it as a reality in Palestine."

Third, bin Laden's reference to the Palestinian cause is part of a line of argumentation responding to the accusation that while al-Qaeda frequently speaks of the Palestinians, it has neither done anything for them nor undertaken concrete action against Israel. Bin Laden is framing actions taken against the United States as inherently linked to the situation that the Palestinians face. The way he portrays Abdulmutallab's "raid" is meant to refute the charge of al-Qaeda's indifference toward the Palestinian cause by holding out terrorism directed at the US as directly responsive.

(1)

January 25, 2010 11:54 AM ET
By Bill Roggio

According to ABC News, the US may have missed an opportunity to kill radical US-born cleric Anwar al Awlaki because those prosecuting the attack feared "the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance from the White House."

White House lawyers are mulling the legality of proposed attempts to kill an American citizen, Anwar Awlaki, who is believed to be part of the leadership of the al Qaeda group in Yemen behind a series of terror strikes, according to two people briefed by U.S. intelligence officials.

One of the people briefed said opportunities to "take out" Awlaki "may have been missed" because of the legal questions surrounding a lethal attack which would specifically target an American citizen.

A spokesperson said the White House declined to comment.

While Awlaki has not been charged with any crimes under U.S. law, intelligence officials say recent intelligence reports and electronic intercepts show he played an important role in recruiting the accused "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Awlaki also carried on extensive e-mail communication with the accused Fort Hood shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, prior to the attack that killed 12 soldiers and one civilian.

According to the people who were briefed on the issue, American officials fear the possibility of criminal prosecution without approval in advance from the White House for a targeted strike against Awlaki.

One wonders if the same thinking is going on regarding Adam Gadahn, or Abu Azzam al Amriki, the American wanted for treason who serves as an al Qaeda propagandist?

As shown by the confusion over the interrogation and eventual reading of rights to Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab, the Christmas Eve bomber who nearly destroyed an airplane over Detroit, the administration clearly has not thought through the implications of treating the battle against al Qaeda as primarily a legal battle instead of an all out war. Until these issues are resolved, there are going to be a lot of missed opportunities, and there will be plenty of finger-pointing from the military and the intelligence services.

(5)