Top Haqqani Commander Killed in NATO Strike

A week after the senior Haqqani network leader in Afghanistan was captured, a coalition airstrike killed one of his associates, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said on Wednesday.

Dilawar, known by one name, died in the Musa Khel district of eastern Afghanistan’s Khost province on Tuesday in what ISAF called “another significant milestone in the disruption of the Haqqani network.” Two other militants were killed in what was an Afghan-coalition operation, ISAF said.

Dilawar was a “senior Haqqani leader” and “a principal subordinate” to Haji Mali Khan, whose capture in Paktia province last Tuesday was hailed as a blow against the network, widely regarded as one of the most effective militant groups in Afghanistan.

Western officials believe the Haqqanis were involved in the assassination last month of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the chairman of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, and a June attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul.

Dilawar planned attacks with Mali Khan, including an ambush on Afghan forces in Paktia last month.

“Dilawar operated along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, between the Khost and Paktia provinces, where he actively coordinated numerous attacks against Afghan forces and facilitated the movement of weapons. Dilawar also facilitated the movement of foreign fighters and was associated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,” ISAF said.

ISAF said security forces have conducted more than 530 operations this year “to disrupt Haqqani network activities in eastern Afghanistan. It said the effort led to the deaths of 20 network leaders and the capture of more than 1,400 suspected Haqqani insurgents.

Khan is the uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani — the brothers who lead the network — and worked directly under Siraj, managing bases and overseeing operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The network was founded by Siraj Haqqani’s father with Pakistani backing to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Today, the group is believed to maintain ties with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

Top Haqqani Commander Killed in NATO Strike

A week after the senior Haqqani network leader in Afghanistan was captured, a coalition airstrike killed one of his associates, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said on Wednesday.

Dilawar, known by one name, died in the Musa Khel district of eastern Afghanistan’s Khost province on Tuesday in what ISAF called “another significant milestone in the disruption of the Haqqani network.” Two other militants were killed in what was an Afghan-coalition operation, ISAF said.

Dilawar was a “senior Haqqani leader” and “a principal subordinate” to Haji Mali Khan, whose capture in Paktia province last Tuesday was hailed as a blow against the network, widely regarded as one of the most effective militant groups in Afghanistan.

Western officials believe the Haqqanis were involved in the assassination last month of Burhanuddin Rabbani, the chairman of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, and a June attack on the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul.

Dilawar planned attacks with Mali Khan, including an ambush on Afghan forces in Paktia last month.

“Dilawar operated along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, between the Khost and Paktia provinces, where he actively coordinated numerous attacks against Afghan forces and facilitated the movement of weapons. Dilawar also facilitated the movement of foreign fighters and was associated with both al Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,” ISAF said.

ISAF said security forces have conducted more than 530 operations this year “to disrupt Haqqani network activities in eastern Afghanistan. It said the effort led to the deaths of 20 network leaders and the capture of more than 1,400 suspected Haqqani insurgents.

Khan is the uncle of Siraj and Badruddin Haqqani — the brothers who lead the network — and worked directly under Siraj, managing bases and overseeing operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The network was founded by Siraj Haqqani’s father with Pakistani backing to fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Today, the group is believed to maintain ties with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

US establishes contact with Mullah Omar

ISLAMABAD: The United States has established contacts with elusive Taliban leader Mullah Omar to negotiate an end to the conflict in Afghanistan. A former Afghan Taliban spokesman has played a key role in the US-Taliban communication, a source told The Express Tribune.

Former Afghan Taliban spokesman is said to have facilitated the contact.

Abdul Haqiq, who was operating under the alias of Dr Mohammad Hanif as an Afghan Taliban spokesman, is said to have helped Washington reach out to Mullah Omar.

Dr Hanif was arrested by US and Afghan intelligence agents from a secret location in Afghanistan in June 2007. He was one of the high-profile Afghan Taliban spokesmen along with Yousuf Ahmadi, appointed after chief spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi was arrested in October 2005 in Pakistan.

So far, several claims have been made by the US about negotiations with the Taliban but Islamabad and Kabul have never been taken into confidence over the much speculated-about talks.

According to reports, the US had offered the Taliban control over the south of Afghanistan, while leaving the north for the other political forces under American influence. However, this was rejected by the Taliban.

“The acceptance of such a proposal could not be possible for the Taliban as it could lead to the disintegration of Afghanistan,” said former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Gen (retd) Hamid Gul.

However, a Pakistani diplomat in Kabul remains optimistic about the talks. “The Taliban are aware that it will be difficult to defeat foreign troops in Afghanistan, or capture the entire country,” he said, adding, “Similarly, the US is also aware that it cannot defeat the Taliban in the next few years.”

On the other hand, a senior official in the Foreign Office is not as sure of the success of the US-Taliban talks. “Such talks are bound to fail as Washington is trying to achieve its goals without taking [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai into confidence. If at all the Afghan Taliban agree to the reconciliation talks, their preference will be with Afghan leaders over foreign forces,” the official argued.

Central Asian diplomats in Islamabad have also expressed their doubts about the practicability of the US-Taliban talks.

“On the one hand, the US is building six permanent military bases in Afghanistan, and on the other, talking about the withdrawal of its troops from the country,” an ambassador of a Central Asian state was quoted by a Foreign Office official as saying .

Iranian and Russian diplomats in Islamabad are also doubtful of an actual and meaningful US-led foreign troops’ pullout from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, chief of the Afghan High Peace Council Prof. Burhanuddin Rabbani told the Afghan House of Representatives earlier this month that his council had made contacts with the Afghan Taliban. He further told the house that the Taliban were not willing to trust the Afghan government’s reconciliation process. “The Taliban nurse doubts about Kabul’s initiative,” he said.

The council during the last five years also contacted other armed opposition leaders such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as well as the Haqqani network, Rabbani claimed.

The council had previously said it had made direct and indirect contacts with the Afghan Taliban leadership, but the Taliban still seem to be insistent on their call for a withdrawal of US and Nato forces from Afghanistan as a pre-condition for talks with Kabul.

However, the Afghan parliament said that the achievements of the council have so far been satisfactory.

Former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan Rustum Shah Mohmand is also doubtful about the sincerity on the part of Kabul for the success of the so-called Afghan reconciliation effort. Mohmand told The Express Tribune that those who are enjoying government privileges in Afghanistan are not interested in the success of the effort.

“In real terms, such privileged people are opposed to the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan as they are very well aware that they will also have to pack up as soon as foreign troops are withdrawn,” he observed.

Beware Decline in Pakistani Relations

Politico

The global handwringing over Pakistan’s nuclear security began minutes after the news about Osama bin Laden’s demise in Abbottabad. This happens every time there is a dramatic event in Pakistan – such as the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a terrorist attack on the army headquarters or a flood.

The Abbottabad strike has sparked concern about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

No matter what happens, Western officials and commentators ask, “What does this mean about the nukes?” In fact, Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are probably quite secure from terrorists – the nukes are its crown jewels. The army cares about them in ways that it does not about bin Laden’s whereabouts or fighting the Haqqani network.

But Islamabad is at a fever pitch about whether its nuclear facilities are safe from Americans.

The nuclear issue looks different from Pakistan. For most of the world, the question is, can terrorists steal the nuclear weapons? In Islamabad it’s, can the United States or India steal them?

The SEAL raid on bin Laden’s compound shakes Pakistanis. The stealth with which U.S. commandos slipped into and out of Pakistan – seemingly without provoking a Pakistani response – is read in Pakistan as evidence that such a mission could be successfully directed against nuclear facilities.

Pakistan’s security establishment is humiliated that bin Laden was holed up within sight of its top military academy. Whether the Pakistani army and intelligence services were complicit has no bearing on the nuclear security question. But the alternative – that the security forces are incompetent – should be alarming.

Pakistan’s military is regarded as its only national institution that works. It is supposed to be omnipresent – with eyes and ears across the country. In that respect, it does not seem credible that no one in the establishment knew bin Laden’s whereabouts.

Unless, of course, that image is overblown and incorrect. This is the real concern.

Western analysts were quick to pounce on the nuclear security implications of incompetence. According to The New York Times: “It has raised the issue of whether any assurance provided by the Pakistani military can be trusted, including the security of its nuclear arsenal.”

In Pakistan, however, the adequacy of its nuclear security triggers different alarms. There, the fear is that the United States or India will launch a pre-emptive strike to destroy or steal Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. This is a longstanding fear, cultivated since the 1980s, when Pakistan’s bomb program was clandestine.

In recent years, it has been bolstered by conspiracy theories surrounding the growing U.S. presence in Pakistan. Fueled by wild stories in the free-wheeling Pakistani media, many Pakistanis believe that the large-muscled Westerners wearing shalwar kameez and driving big SUVs are in search of the country’s nuclear weapons, not Al Qaeda.

This was evident in the rumors surrounding the Raymond Davis affair, in which Islamabad detained a CIA contractor.

Kamran Khan, on his nightly Geo TV talk show, asked provocatively: “We had the belief that our defense was impenetrable but look what has happened. Such a massive intrusion, and it went undetected. … What is the guarantee that our strategic assets and security installations are safe?”

He was not wondering whether the nuclear weapons are safe from terrorists but from the U.S.

This concern is not confined to media commentators and armchair analysts. Pakistani Army Corps commanders, a powerful group, met days after the killing to discuss the events. The group signaled its interest in kicking all U.S. military and intelligence personnel out of the country and reaffirmed that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal would be secure against U.S. and Indian threats.

This paranoia is unfounded – killing one person in a stealthy raid is a far different proposition than capturing nuclear weapons and material in multiple, heavily guarded facilities. But even the perception worries Pakistan’s generals, which is detrimental to the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

Both Pakistani and U.S. experts lament the growing gulf in trust between the two countries. The nuclear security debate is the clearest evidence of this gap.

It is impossible to build a strategic relationship when one partner can’t be trusted to prevent nuclear terrorism and the other can’t be trusted not to exploit its intelligence and military presence to steal or destroy the other’s nuclear deterrent.

Instead of more handwringing and conspiracy theorizing – which are partly to blame for the trust deficit – it is time to set aside the nuclear-security debate and move on to issues on which U.S. and Pakistani interests align. Critical work can be done to build Pakistan’s economy, revamp its energy system and boost regional trade. Progress in these areas would be good for Pakistanis and stabilizing for the region.

Is Pakistani Resistance to North Waziristan Combat Intentional or Circumstantial?

MAARS News

In response to questions by reporters on whether Pakistan will immediately be taking steps against the militants in North Waziristan, Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar, said that Pakistan will not take any action until it is ready.

“We can ‘do more’ only whenever we can. We have to see to our interests first,”he said, cited CNN.

Questions on action against the Taliban stronghold are suspected to have risen on account of comments by US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen who visited Pakistan earlier this week. Mullen had recommended that the people in charge in Pakistan should try to focus more on the threat of militants within the country’s borders rather than on the perceived strategic threat from India.

“They are weakening the American-led military effort in the nine-year-old Afghanistan war against the Taliban and al Qaeda, and they are killing Pakistani civilians as they seek to undermine the government in Islamabad,” Mullen said.

Mullen had already pointed out earlier that North Waziristan was a haven for terrorists where extremists like the Haqqani network plan and launch attacks on NATO-led forces across the Afghanistan border.

However, Mukhtar maintained that Pakistan will meet Mullen’s demands only when it is required by the country and its armed forces. He also added that the severity of the measures taken against these terrorist outfits will also entirely depend on the requirement of the country at that time.

For quite some time now, Pakistan has been feeling the push from the United States to start combat in North Waziristan. Over 100,000 troops have been moved to the border region from Islamabad so far. These troops have been fighting terror groups in Swat Valley, the Khyber tribal area and South Waziristan.

Over 18 months of sustained combat has seen the killing of thousands of Pakistani troops. The displacement of millions of Pakistanis during a massive flood also made the army undertake relief operations over large parts of the country.

Although the Pakistani military might have valid reasons for resisting The suggestions to go after the militant outfits in North Waziristan, it is suspected by some analysts that it may be intentional and have other reasons associated with it too. They have brought to note the existence of the Haqqani network in the area which is a faction of the Taliban and believed to be close to some of the members in the Pakistani security forces.

Fighting the Pakhtuns

Ahmed Quraishi

There is a very simple question that every Pakistani government official needs to ask the Americans: If you fail to pacify the Pakhtuns in Afghanistan, is it Pakistan’s responsibility to sever historical ties and wage war against them?

This is the mother of all questions because it deals with the issue of some, not all, of the Afghan Taliban using Pakistani territory to attack occupation armies in their country. Apparently this is the excuse the United States is using to expand its failed Afghan war into Pakistan. US officials say Pakistanis are unable to exercise sovereignty over their own territory. Then some here inside Pakistan – in politics and the media – use this argument to ask another question: isn’t Al-Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban violating Pakistani sovereignty by using our border-pockets as hideouts away from action inside Afghanistan? This argument is used to justify US violations of the Pak-Afghan international border. If the Afghan Taliban can do it, why not the US military? So the justification goes.

Pakistan still has time to come out strongly with two arguments at policy level. One, there is no way of completely stopping Pakistani Pakhtuns, who are an integral part of the Pakistani nation, from sympathising with the Pakhtuns in Afghanistan. And two, the US must solve the ‘Pakhtun problem’ inside Afghanistan. The solution is not by starting a war between the Pakistani military – manned in substantial part by the Pakhtuns – and Pakistani Pakhtun tribes or some of the Afghan Taliban, like the so-called Haqqani network. This will not fix the toy the Americans broke in Afghanistan.

In other words: what is it the US is doing wrong in Afghanistan to spur Pashtun and Taliban resistance, including pushing some of them inside Pakistan? And should Pakistan respond by killing these Pakhtuns because the US says so?

There are two more strong arguments that can strengthen a Pakistani policy review, which is overdue nine years into a failed war.

One is the fact that the Pakhtun and Taliban resistance against occupation in Afghanistan is not a function of the Pakistani tribal areas. The US military dare not claim that Pakistan’s devastated tribal belt is alone responsible for the rout facing US, NATO and ISAF forces across Afghanistan. But this is what the Americans imply when they shift the world focus to Pakistan without anyone from the Pakistani side disputing this twisted American logic.

And the second argument has to do with Al-Qaeda. Pakistan needs to dispute American claims about the quality and strength of Al-Qaeda presence in the Pakistani tribal belt. London’s International Institute of Strategic Studies is not exactly a den of antiwar activism. In a report last month, the think-tank questioned the US-policy line that Al-Qaeda can muster attacks anywhere outside Afghanistan or Pakistan.

If anything, we are seeing a US-occupied Afghanistan becoming a magnet for unknown terrorists from multiple backgrounds and questionable loyalties using Afghan soil to enter our tribal belt, as in the case of the Germans involved in the alleged Mumbai-style Europe-terror plot. Washington is conveniently using these conspiracy theories to expand its war onto Pakistani territory without any credible evidence.

Pakistan does not have a quarrel with the Afghan Pakhtuns or the Afghan Taliban. The latest US reports and assertions that Pakistan’s spy agencies maintain contacts with either are ridiculous. Islamabad must maintain those contacts. In fact, we must expand contacts with the Afghan Taliban in view of the double game the United States played with us in Afghanistan over the last eight years, where it turned Kabul into an Anti-Pakistan Central and deliberately expanded and continues to encourage Indian presence on our western borders.

The American duplicity extends to peace talks. Washington wants us to enter into a war with Afghanistan’s Pakhtuns while it secretly establishes contacts and tries to win them over behind Pakistan’s back. The same argument extends to the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Kashmiri groups. Islamabad can’t shower bombs upon Kashmiris who decide to become part of LeT or support their kin resisting Indian atrocities in Kashmir. The solution there too is for India to resolve its own problems. Its festering occupation in Kashmir, like the festering American occupation in Afghanistan, is breeding a two-way violence that first and foremost de-stabilises Pakistan. Our answer can’t be to send troops to crack down on Pakhtuns and Kashmiris. others need to answer for their actions that are destabilising Pakistan and the region.