Good news: Pakistani tribal area now Talibanistan
posted at 3:25 pm on December 11, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Who could have seen this coming? Besides Bryan, Bill Roggio, and everyone else in the world, I mean.
Islamic militants are using a recent peace deal with the government to consolidate their hold in northern Pakistan, vastly expanding their training of suicide bombers and other recruits and fortifying alliances with Al Qaeda and foreign fighters, diplomats and intelligence officials from several nations say. The result, they say, is virtually a Taliban mini-state.
The militants, the officials say, are openly flouting the terms of the September accord in North Waziristan, under which they agreed to end cross-border help for the Taliban insurgency that revived in Afghanistan with new force this year.
The area is becoming a magnet for an influx of foreign fighters, who not only challenge government authority in the area, but are even wresting control from local tribes and spreading their influence to neighboring areas, according to several American and NATO officials and Pakistani and Afghan intelligence officials.
It’s all downhill from there. Take advantage of the slow news day to read all of this one; it explains at length how that nightmarish “peace treaty” in early September between the jihadis and Musharraf — who stood next to Bush at a White House presser and presented it as a victory — has completely backfired. According to the Times, the International Crisis Group is set to release a report on the deal tomorrow branding the treaty with the scarlet A. Even some Pakistani officials were willing to admit that the policy is a disaster — off the record, of course.
Diplomats in Kabul told the LA Times last week that the next few months could determine whether the Taliban resistance peters out or whether they start a full-fledged Iraqi-type insurgency in the country. We’re killing them militarily but the zombie army has an endless supply of manpower. According to officials, they need to “prevent the militants from seizing and holding more territory, establish reasonably secure conditions in the capital and the hinterlands, choke off infiltration across the porous Pakistani border and mend fences with restive tribal leaders.” None of which directly addresses the problem of having Talibanistan right next door.
After all that, I’ve got to leave you with some good news.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
In the immortal words of General George Custer… “Aww Crap!”
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 11, 2006 at 3:27 PM
They don’t need to win. Just outlast feeble American and Western will.
spmat on December 11, 2006 at 3:29 PM
Well if Talibanistan is its own country, then the Pakis should have no problem with us filling in some valleys.
Iblis on December 11, 2006 at 3:32 PM
I think we need some dialogue to help resolve the crisis.
JammieWearingFool on December 11, 2006 at 3:33 PM
If we were serious about fighting the WOT, these would be the walking dead.
If we were serious about fighting the WOT, we’d consider the Northern areas “autonomous” zones in order to pave the way for coalition infiltration, intelligence and combat missions.
CliffHanger on December 11, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Well, it *would* be good news if there really was a Talibanistan (or Al-Qaidastan) that officially broke away from Pakistan. The reason we can’t get to bin laden is because he’s in Pakistan and Musharraf won’t let our Troops in there to get him for fear of being overthrown by his people because of his allowing infidel soldiers on their soil. But if they were to gain an independent little country of their own, we can bomb the crap out of it, then go in and get bin laden and zawahiri.
Tony737 on December 11, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Why start now? There was a time–right after we knocked out the Taliban in A–when we had all the momentum and good will on our side. That was when we should have started dialogue with the key players. Negotiate from strength and all that.
Now? We blew it.
honora on December 11, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Ah Pakistan, our “ally” in the War on Terror…***(cough) whatajoke!***
CP on December 11, 2006 at 3:38 PM
honora, you exhibit your ignorance on islamic issues more each day. If you had ever been to the region, this paragraph of insight would have to be a sarcastic prode. Since your intent seems serious, I must presume you’ve never been to an islamic country. Negotiation will only succeed in killing our children.
Griz on December 11, 2006 at 3:44 PM
If by “dialogue” you mean “large quantity of heavy ordnance”, well, yes, we DO need some dialogue.
Dinsdale Piranha on December 11, 2006 at 3:45 PM
I disagree that we blew it. North Waziristan isn’t exactly Kabul, it’s about two weird seconds ahead of the stone age.
They may have internet connection by using dishes constructed of old soviet jeep parts, no running water unless it’s irrigation, mud houses, pit toilets, and soviet 1970’s rifles.
For all intents and purposes they have it, because no body else wants it. It’s all mountains.
The hard part is getting them out, because they’ll be dug in like ticks and thick as fleas.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 11, 2006 at 3:47 PM
Honora, if you don’t mind… there are somethings I would rather discuss with you off the forum, if you’d be so inclined to kick me an email.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 11, 2006 at 3:56 PM
honora,
Obviously, you didn’t get the joke.
JammieWearingFool on December 11, 2006 at 3:57 PM
How long before this will be characterized as the “disputed” region of Pakistan or the Wazhiristan territories? Right now they still call it the tribal regions but once the Hamas PR team gets there that will change. Soon they will have the UN demanding money be sent to support them. Stop me if you have this movie before.
LakeRuins on December 11, 2006 at 4:01 PM
Does this mean we can hit this area with the full might of the US military and not care about Collateral damage? Finally?
jman on December 11, 2006 at 4:05 PM
Actually I have been to the mid-east numerous times. Including Iran and Pakistan. Are you suggesting we have never negotiated with Islamic countries? You’re kidding? PS, what is “prode” supposed to be? Assume a typo but can’t figure out what you intended.
honora on December 11, 2006 at 4:14 PM
once we get done with it it shall be named “BombedtoCrapistan”
Defector01 on December 11, 2006 at 4:19 PM
It doesn’t work.
???
honora on December 11, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Fine, name peace deals reached in the Middle East where the nation in question kept their word.
I will give you the only one I am able to recall. Egypt in the Camp David Accords, Carter Administration. Next example? Any other examples?
Snake307 on December 11, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Send over Baker and crew of fartbags to chat. No worries.
Wade on December 11, 2006 at 4:40 PM
Well off the top of my head, the Israeli-Jordan treaty. And the Greece-Turkey agreement re Cyprus.
I’m not sure what you mean by peace deals? Treaties between warring countries or almost warring countries.
honora on December 11, 2006 at 4:46 PM
You don’t seem to understand the difference between a country and a terrorist organization. Are you suggesting there is anything to gain by negotiating with terrorists? Or are you suggesting that negotiating with Iran or Pakistan would yield anything other than broken promises they are completely incapable of keeping?
Prode, as in cattle prode…
Griz on December 11, 2006 at 4:50 PM
Prod. Rhymes with rod. Prode would rhyme with rode.
Who doesn’t understand the difference between a country and a terrorist organization? If you read my post to understand what I was saying–which you obviously didn’t, you were dying to jump in with your insight (needs work), you would realize I was making the point that we foolishly rejected the opportunity to negotiate with countries like Iran when we had the upper hand and could dictate our terms. Those days are gone, thanks to the numbnuts neocons.
honora on December 11, 2006 at 4:56 PM
honora, watching the National Geographic Channel doesn’t count.
Rick on December 11, 2006 at 5:01 PM
Does Iran-Contra count? (Geez, what kind of moron would deal with the Ayatollah….)
honora on December 11, 2006 at 5:02 PM
Hey there! Nice to see you’re up and about after…well, you know. I was in Pakistan last in 2000. Iran, well not to date myself, but when the Shah was on the Peacock throne. God I’m old…..
honora on December 11, 2006 at 5:04 PM
Don’t remind me, I made the mistake of going.
Rick on December 11, 2006 at 5:07 PM
When I first heard about the “deal” between the Pakistani government and the tribal warlords, I thought it was some kind of disinformation or misunderstanding. No one with any grasp of reality could’ve possibly thought that the latter would even make a head fake at keeping their “word” in such a dubious arrangement; it was nothing more than cover for what amounted to a Pakistani capitulation.
And now, “privately,” those on the Pakistani government side are somehow amazed at how things turned out: “No matter how much lipstick we slathered on it, it’s still a pig?!?”
Given that the Pakistani government has effectively punted, we now have two plausible choices:
1. Act in accordance with military axiom that victory is achieved by taking the offensive to the enemy, and begin a policy of “hot pursuit” across the Afghan-Talibanistan border. If the Pakistanis object, remind them of how they gave up any standing to do so by engaging in such a ridiculous “arrangement” with the warlords.
- or -
2. Act in accordance with the military axiom that victory is impossible by adopting a solely defensive posture, and that in such event the best outcome to hope for is simply not to be defeated. Go along with the “decent interval” before bailing out approach that the ISG has in mind for Iraq, then watch everything fall apart again.
With the donkey party in charge in Congress over the next two years (at least), and weak-kneed NATO allies now in charge of much of our military effort in Afghanistan, I have a disturbing suspicion that option #2 is where we’re eventually headed.
Spurius Ligustinus on December 11, 2006 at 5:10 PM
The Scarlett F…for Failure
…these would be the walking dead.
CliffHanger on December 11, 2006 at 3:34 PM
Actually, the zombies should be in little pieces, here and there…
hehehe
urbancenturion on December 11, 2006 at 5:25 PM
honora, you just don’t get it, do you?
We never had good will. We had the uncomfortable support of a world waiting to see how we’d react. Once they realized that we hadn’t gone postal, they began hurriedly trying to recover the ground they’d lost during their “show of support.”
The world that helped the extremists accrue the power they did before 9-11, didn’t just evaporate after 9-11. The UN that was padding the pockets of Saddam, persecuting Israel and actively supporting Hamas and Hezbollah didn’t just go away after their darling little “radicals” got out of control on 9-11.
The world that hated America before 9-11 hated us during 9-11 and continues to hate us today. Get your head out of the sand.
spmat on December 11, 2006 at 5:48 PM
yes, honora we know you liberals love to appease everyone that hates the U.S. including your friends Al-Qaeda, well guess what, EVERYONE is going to hate the U.S no matter what the U.S. does at this point.
Starblazer on December 11, 2006 at 6:22 PM
I’m tired of hearing how we haven’t been negotiating with XXX or not negotiating enough. We have been negotiating, just because there isn’t a video up on Youtube showing the actual negotiations or the NYTimes running a leaked story doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
You can’t negotiate forever, though, no matter how much the UN, the EU and left would like it. We also must know when to negotiate, when not to, and when to stop. Of course we aren’t going to be correct all the time, but damn it, the left needs to just “stifle” with their 20/20 hindsight BS. All I hear is we should have, we should have, blah, blah, blah. Let’s see what went wrong with a bipartisan commission, blah, blah, blah…
Also, just because a couple diplomats issued a couple of prepared remarks showing support for the U.S. after 9/11 doesn’t mean we had any tangible “goodwill” or extra support. Tired of hearing that talking point as well.
reaganaut on December 11, 2006 at 6:52 PM
This is great huh? When the NYT says it happened, its shit, a lie, the liberal press doing its worst. Never happened. But when they don’t say, well, that another story. In reaganaut’s head anyhow.
They were in the streets of Teheran (scroll down to see) marching in support of the US and against the criminals responsible for the attacks.
THeDRiFTeR on December 11, 2006 at 7:46 PM
Are you a comedian by profession? You are a very funny person. I did read your post and basically you were saying we should have negotiated with terrorists through terrorist states. As far as having traveled to Pakistan or Iran you must not have left the Hilton. I’d have to see your passport to even believe you. Had you ever been in a middle-eastern street or been exposed to any islamic law you’d realize just how futile negotiations would be.
Griz on December 11, 2006 at 8:20 PM
Speaking broadly, how are the inhabitants of the Dar al-Islam fed? Especially, how much of their food comes from the farms of the American Plains? I don’t know; I’m asking. But to what extent are we fostering the population explosion within the Dar al-Islam, feeding the fighters of today and the unassimilated immigrants of tomorrow? Does anyone reading this have sufficient knowledge of global agriculture and trade to provide an answer?
Kralizec on December 11, 2006 at 8:48 PM
Great, there are many Taliban in one place. What if we accidentally bombed the hell out of them? Oops!!!
JustTruth101 on December 12, 2006 at 12:59 PM
What? Some nasty twit who has not yet mastered the art of reading and comprending doesn’t believe me when I say I’ve traveled to mideast! Where are my smelling salts?
Listen Griz–I have come to learn on this site there are 2 kinds of people who disagree with me: those who have honest disagreements and are capable of mounting a coherent argument, and those who reflexively hurl insults (and frankly aren’t very good at that) assuming they are being clever.
It’s been my experience in real life that the only ones worth my time are the former. Interestingly, these tend to be people who are successful and contributing members of society, not losers whose only recourse is stealthily emailing their nonsense to people who in real life they probably wouldn’t dare interact with.
Get lost.
honora on December 12, 2006 at 1:25 PM
And that’s the best you can do? You should have ran and hid if that’s the best argument you can convey. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. At any rate I guess we’ve decided negotiations with Iran is futile.
Griz on December 12, 2006 at 1:40 PM
..negotiations is futile…they certainly is. I thought I told you to get lost.
honora on December 12, 2006 at 2:21 PM
And you just keep taking that dive. That’s our liberal’s calling. Never know when to stop, always keep plowing in deeper and deeper, until even the media is incapable of hiding your inept policy. Do you realize I can’t find even one sentence from you in this entire thread that would reflect even a slight knowledge of which you speak. I was right after all, you are a comedian.
Griz on December 12, 2006 at 2:49 PM
Oh, I forgot to mention. Your social behavior is incorrigible. You must be a liberal.
Griz on December 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM
I’m amazed you go back to read my posts, geez, get a life. Also, so you won’t have totally wasted your time, today’s word is comedienne, the feminine of comedian. There, you’ve learned something.
You won’t be hearing from me again, you’re going onto the ignore list. Bu-bye.
honora on December 12, 2006 at 2:58 PM
Just how long has it been since you got laid honora?
Liberals find it so easy to give up. Thanks for proving this fact. And you wonder where our discouragement with the faithlessness of the liberal politicians who send our warriors into battle and then disparage the cause. The disappointment over the agenda-driven liberal media that fails to report our successes as warriors and humanitarians.
You my dear are the epitomy of the liberal left. EVERYTHING is about you. About making yourself feel good about your do-nothing life. You just keep telling yourself as long as I spout my hatred and anger I’ll be worth listening to, I’ll bring change to the table. Never pondering at what cost. Never realizing your misdirection.
Bu-bye.
Griz on December 12, 2006 at 3:42 PM
What’s wrong with Waziristan becoming Talibanistan? I hope they break completely with Pakistan and become a full-fledged Taliban state. Then we can bomb them into paste without offending Pakistan, whose supposed alliance with us is the only reason we are not overtly attacking Waziristan now. Seems to me that the supposed advantages of a mountainous region like Waziristan can be turned into significant disadvantages by cutting choke points like bridges, roads in narrow passes, and mountain roads.
Tantor on December 13, 2006 at 1:34 AM