ABC News: U.S. hookin’ up with Pakistani terrorists to target Iran

posted at 10:58 pm on April 3, 2007 by Allahpundit

Bad, bad, bad idea. We played the friend-of-my-enemy game with these degenerates once before, when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. We all know how the movie ends. Let’s not go for the sequel.

I don’t know much about Jundullah, but according to Wikipedia they’re aiming to carve out a Taliban state in southwest Pakistan. And an article in a Pakistan periodical called “Newsline” from 2004 says that’s not the only similarity:

Coming from a similar middle-class ground, Attaur Rehman is yet another face of the new Islamic militancy in Pakistan. A graduate from Karachi University, he was arrested in June for masterminding a series of terrorist attacks in Karachi. A tall and heavily built man in his early 30s, Rehman was associated with Islami Jamiat-Talba, the student wing of the Jamaat-i-Islami. He later broke away from the Jamaat to form his own militant group, Jundullah (Army of God), which draws its cadres mainly from the educated and professional classes.

According to police, Rehman is closely associated with Al-Qaeda’s network in Pakistan, which has grown in strength despite the capture of hundreds of its operatives over the last few years. A well-knit cell comprising some 20 militants, most of them in their 20s and 30s, Jundullah is one of the new and, perhaps, the most fierce of the militant groups behind the recent spate of violence in Karachi. The group hit the headlines after a daring attack last month on the motorcade of Karachi’s Corps Commander. The general narrowly escaped death, but 11 people, including eight soldiers were killed. It was the most serious terrorist action targeting the military since the two failed assassination attempts on President Musharraf in Rawalpindi in December last year. Jundullah has also been involved in attacks on rangers, police stations, as well as the twin car bombings outside the Pakistan-US Cultural Center last month.

Jundullah is but one of several small terrorist cells that have emerged after the government’s crackdown on ‘jihadi’ elements. According to police officials, some 20 cells, largely splinters of the banned militant outfits, are operating in Karachi, which has become the main center of terrorist activities in recent months. “Many of those involved in the recent terrorist attacks in the city received training in camps in Waziristan,” says Tariq Jamil, chief of the Karachi police. “Jundullah has close ties with Al-Qaeda.” These splinter groups are trying to cash in on the rising popular disaffection against Musharraf’s domestic and foreign policy actions, particularly his pro-American tilt.

Rehman and 10 other members of Jundullah were sentenced to death last February for the attack on the convoy. The Pak Tribune says they chanted “Allahu Akbar” as the sentence was pronounced. A counterterror analyst interviewed by ABC describes the new leader, Abd el Malik Regi, as “part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist.” Part future amateur jet pilot, too, no doubt.

As for the article itself, I enthusiastically question the timing. This is quite the scoop for “U.S. intelligence sources” to be leaking in the midst of the British hostage crisis. With which side of the political aisle, dare I ask, might they be affiliated? To quote a not-so-great man: I don’t want to draw rolled eyes, but think about it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

It’s a good thing that Iran is almost encircled by U.S. and allied forces. We didn’t listen, but the president said often ‘this is a War on Terror, it’s global and it will last a long time’, or something similar.

These are splinter groups and splinter news in a very large/complex web, of which we know very little (good thing).

Entelechy on April 3, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Wouldn’t this constitute a global coalition? Isn’t it great that we can get others to do our wet work?

Actually, it came from Brian Ross. It’s probably only 5% truth and 95% other ingredients.

cmay on April 3, 2007 at 11:12 PM

Good, let’s get them to fight *for* us, instead of *against* us. We fought the taliban through our proxy army the Northern Alliance and it worked. If these guys get killed by the Iranians, well it’s better than OUR guys gettin’ killed, isn’t it? The Army and Marines are kinda busy right now in Iraq and Afghanistan, so let’s get some proxies to fight Iran for us. We ARE at war with Iran whether we wanna face the facts or not. All we need are some Combat Controllers to call in airstrikes and it’s game over for Amahjihadist.

Tony737 on April 3, 2007 at 11:13 PM

1) Color me overly cynical, but ABC’s “anonymous sources” don’t exactly rate highly in my book. No evidence, no story. The End.

2) But since they insist, arrest the journalist responsible and waterboard him until talks or pukes through orifices he didn’t even know he had. We’re at war. Leaking classified intel is treason. Aiding and comforting the enemy is treason. Get the leaker if he exists, then hang him next to the journalist.

3) Even if it is true, and I don’t believe for a second that it is, I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter one whit to me who whacks the Mullahs and their henchmen, as long as somebody does. The more the merrier. Faster, please.

Misha I on April 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM

Bad idea?

Kill ‘em when you can and use who you can! get real.

Opinionnation on April 3, 2007 at 11:18 PM

cmay, good point, the libs always tell us we need allies (I guess Britian, Australia, Poland, etc, etc don’t count) to justify fighting those who wish to destroy us. And sometimes ya gotta work with some shady characters to get anything done. Pre-9/11, we would not have worked with the Northern Alliance. Things changed on Sept. 11th, but the lefties are still snoozing on Sept. 10th.

Tony737 on April 3, 2007 at 11:21 PM

Kill ‘em when you can and use who you can! get real.

I think calling it a bad idea is getting quite real. This is going to come back to bite us, as it did after the Cold War was over. What happens after the Iran regime topples? If the asking price of their help is looking the other way while they create their own little Sharia paradise, then all we’ve done is substituted an old, bad regime for an emerging, bad regime.

Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 11:22 PM

The negative would be whatever we’re promising them in return for this, if it’s true. I find it hard to believe that we’d give them the taliban haven in Pakistan that they want, but i don’t think they would be cooperating without some promise of return for their efforts.

forged rite on April 3, 2007 at 11:25 PM

This is going to come back to bite us, as it did after the Cold War was over. What happens after the Iran regime topples? If the asking price of their help is looking the other way while they create their own little Sharia paradise, then all we’ve done is substituted an old, bad regime for an emerging, bad regime.

That’s’ extrapolating quite a bit, no? I understand your point but…

Opinionnation on April 3, 2007 at 11:25 PM

You beat me to it Slublog.

forged rite on April 3, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Just like we allied with the soviets during WWII and then became enemies afterwards, we allign ourselves with whomever serves our needs at the time. And when it becomes expediant to kick their a$$es too, we are more than happy to oblige. This concept is lost on the moonbats. As are many other concepts, by the way. Concepts like loyalty to the USA etc.

csdeven on April 3, 2007 at 11:26 PM

That’s’ extrapolating quite a bit, no? I understand your point but…

It just seems to me we’re repeating the mistakes of the Cold War here. Contrary to what the Michael Moores of the world might say, we didn’t “create” the Taliban, but we did help them (or what would become them) fight the Soviet incursion into their country.

They thanked us by creating a repressive regime that gave us Osama bin Laden. It’s too high a price to pay, it seems.

Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM

And when it becomes expediant to kick their a$$es too, we are more than happy to oblige.
csdeven on April 3, 2007 at 11:26 PM

We could, but the politics aren’t there for it.

forged rite on April 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM

A) I agree with Misha. Anonymous sources, don’t have a great trackrecord in The Blotter’s case.

B) We need to have Iran surrounded by our allies. If that means enlisting the help of these people, then so be it.

C) After we’re done enlisting their help, watch them like hawks. Keep an eye on their moves, plans, etc.

D) Don’t put a Clinton in office for 8 years, and we should be able to find the terrorist before they launch an attack.

amerpundit on April 3, 2007 at 11:34 PM

“U.S. intelligence sources” leaking would be the real story here.

If it is true.

Consider the source.

Fake but accurate?

One mo’ time…

.

The Machine on April 3, 2007 at 11:34 PM

This is going to come back to bite us, as it did after the Cold War was over. What happens after the Iran regime topples? If the asking price of their help is looking the other way while they create their own little Sharia paradise, then all we’ve done is substituted an old, bad regime for an emerging, bad regime.

I don’t disagree with your point at all, but I’m hoping that maybe we learned a bit from our mistakes re: the Taliban.

I don’t know what we promised them either, to refrain from hunting them down and killing them for the time being, perhaps? At any rate, no matter what we promised them, there’s no reason we should keep our word if we don’t want to. Who are they going to complain to? The U.N.?

They’re terrorists. I have absolutely no moral qualms about lying to them and stabbing them in the back at a later point in time. I reserve that sort of thing for dealings with actual human beings. Cockroaches need not apply.

Misha I on April 3, 2007 at 11:37 PM

It just seems to me we’re repeating the mistakes of the Cold War here…we didn’t “create” the Taliban, but we did help them (or what would become them) fight the Soviet incursion into their country.

maybe, but you, I gauge from your statement, think it was a mistake to help the Taliban defeat the Soviets. -I don’t think it was. The ‘mistake’ was not keeping them in line after the fact.

Opinionnation on April 3, 2007 at 11:37 PM

They’re terrorists. I have absolutely no moral qualms about lying to them and stabbing them in the back at a later point in time. I reserve that sort of thing for dealings with actual human beings. Cockroaches need not apply.

You or I may not have moral qualms about it, but the striped-pantsed weenies that make up our State Department certainly don’t seem willing to do such a thing.

Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 11:39 PM

Misha: “No evidence, no story. The End.”

“Leaking classified intel is treason. Aiding and comforting the enemy is treason. Get the leaker if he exists, then hang him next to the journalist.”

“Even if it is true, and I don’t believe for a second that it is, I don’t really care….Faster, please.”

I agree with all three points, even though they seem to be contradictory. As Allahpundit implies, there appears to be an agenda behind this story. Either Ross is attempting to undermine the United States during wartime by disclosing a closely held secret, or he is making it up — with intent to undermine the United States while it is at war. Both warrant prison violating the Espionage Act or are overt acts of treason. Not only Ross, et. al., are at risk of prison here, but the leaker in the government (I suspect Rockefeller or Durbin, myself) ought to be brought to justice.

Regardless of the truth of this story, disrupting Iran is A Good Thing ™. That was the third point.

Good post, Misha.

georgej on April 3, 2007 at 11:43 PM

If we aren’t paying them and we aren’t arming them, what is it we are supposed to stop doing? So we stop not arming them or do we stop not paying them? Seems kind of confusing to me.

crosspatch on April 3, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Hmm, the Green Left Online “tried” to break this story a month ago. Must not have got much traction then so someone has tried a different outlet.

crosspatch on April 3, 2007 at 11:50 PM

You or I may not have moral qualms about it, but the striped-pantsed weenies that make up our State Department certainly don’t seem willing to do such a thing.

Slublog on April 3, 2007 at 11:39 PM

Touche, Slublog. Good point.

Also, I don’t know if I managed to make that entirely clear, I completely agree with you that we should be concerned that we might be repeating earlier mistakes here, I just don’t see it as a given. Again, we ought to have learned from what went wrong the last time. Yes, I know, I’m being incurably optimistic again ;-)

I agree with all three points, even though they seem to be contradictory.

georgej on April 3, 2007 at 11:43 PM

They may, but they really aren’t. I was just covering all the bases, including the very hypothetical situation in which the ABC story is true.

Whether there’s a leak or not, that journalist needs the thumbscrews in order to find out. If there isn’t one, then we should hang the journalist for providing aid and comfort to the enemy by willfully, with malice aforethought (lying pretty much guarantees that that’s the case), attempting to undermine our government in a time of war.

If there is a leaker, we should hang him next to the journalist for treason as well.

Not that any of this will happen. We, as a nation, long ago lost the ability to fight and win a war, not to mention the will to employ all the means necessary. If this were WWII, the New York Times would publish daily convoy schedules for the Kriegsmarine to read, and ABC would be tripping over themselves to let the Germans know that we’d cracked Enigma.

Because “it’s in the public interest”, of course.

Misha I on April 3, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Maybe these “intelligence sources” just read the Jamestown Foundation’s Global Terrorism Analysis

Nothing really new in any of the accusations. It is basically word for word the accusations that Iranians have been making for years. I wonder why both US and Pakistani “intelligence sources” would “leak” the same thing at the same time.

crosspatch on April 3, 2007 at 11:59 PM

Also, I don’t know if I managed to make that entirely clear, I completely agree with you that we should be concerned that we might be repeating earlier mistakes here, I just don’t see it as a given. Again, we ought to have learned from what went wrong the last time. Yes, I know, I’m being incurably optimistic again ;-)

Optimism isn’t a bad thing, but I do think it’s gotten us in a lot of trouble as a country. At heart, Americans are good people who want to believe the best of everyone. That’s a good philosophy to have, but it doesn’t always make for good foreign policy.

Especially when you’re dealing with people who AP has appropriately referred to as “degenerates.”

Slublog on April 4, 2007 at 12:00 AM

We could, but the politics aren’t there for it.

forged rite on April 3, 2007 at 11:29 PM

Not now they aren’t, but in the future? Who knows? Look at our alliance with Saudi Arabia. We can all see the writing on the wall. We are eventually going to confront them on their ties to terrorist activity. But for now, they are a valuable ally and we turn a mostly blind eye to it. I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that the same recurring pattern is/has emerge in all our foriegn policy entanglements.

csdeven on April 4, 2007 at 12:02 AM

A comment at the Blotter pretty much sums it up for me…

Tell me the significance of “encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005.” Pretty nebulous charge. Encouraged and advised to do what? Lets see…

“A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context.”

I’m sure the US is reaching-out to many groups like this throughout the region. Like it or not, this kind of “human intelligence” work is necessary. In that part of the world, there is shortage of “nice guys” to work with.

A leak about this work, with this group, at this time, smacks of another leak from a disgruntled CIA type.

DaveS on April 4, 2007 at 12:38 AM

“A leak about this work, with this group, at this time, smacks of another leak from a disgruntled CIA type.”

But the blotter says it was from both US and Pakistani intelligence sources. So either it was people posing as US and Pakistani sources or there was some reason for people in both intelligence services to leak at the same time to the same outlet.

crosspatch on April 4, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Bad karma.

Want to disable Iran?

step 1 – put the kettle on

step 2 – fire off a few well placed missiles at key military & power/communications infrastructure targets.

step 3 – make a nice cup of tea

uptight on April 4, 2007 at 12:55 AM

I would say that one missile into an oil refinery at 2am should do it. Probably wouldn’t kill anyone either.

crosspatch on April 4, 2007 at 1:17 AM

Let them go after each other. Whether we like it or not, we will have to deal with whoever wins in the end – that’s a fact. They are using us (whether it’s indirectly or not) and we are using whoever we can in that part of the world. That’s the way it works.

Rick on April 4, 2007 at 1:20 AM

One giant glorious suicide attack?

- The Cat

MirCat on April 4, 2007 at 1:50 AM

As for the article itself, I enthusiastically question the timing. This is quite the scoop for “U.S. intelligence sources” to be leaking in the midst of the British hostage crisis.

This is the sort of thing that can get those sailors killed.

see-dubya on April 4, 2007 at 1:57 AM

Yale, Princeton, Harvard, GW University, et al……
right where most the ‘analysts’ get recruited from……..
good ol Red-White-n-Blue U.S. Rah Rah patriotic academia…

We need to can the whole damn lot and hire Michael, Sonny, and Tom Hagen.

Limerick on April 4, 2007 at 6:46 AM

Quiet, this is a secret.

JammieWearingFool on April 4, 2007 at 8:04 AM

JammieWearingFool on April 4, 2007 at 8:04 AM

I’m not sure, but did I detect a tone of sarcasim in that link? /sarc off

hahaha

csdeven on April 4, 2007 at 10:13 AM

The only reason this came back to bite us after the Cold War because we stopped playing the game. Instead of then playing the Northern Alliance off of the Taliban, we abandoned them. A Sunni/Shia jihad is an excellent idea. Exploit the fault lines within Islam as Hugh Fitzgerald and Robert Spencer suggest.

PRCalDude on April 4, 2007 at 11:27 AM

ABC, Rosie’s network. What else does one need to say. Zero credibility.

Mojave Mark on April 4, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Pre-9/11, we would not have worked with the Northern Alliance. Things changed on Sept. 11th, but the lefties are still snoozing on Sept. 10th.

Uh, pre-9/11, we did work with the Northern Alliance. That’s whom we teamed up with during the Afghan war against the Soviets. It was the Pakistani Intelligence Agency that funded the Taliban. It was after the Soviets left that the Taliban basically routed the Northern Alliance and took over in Afghanistan.

Allah, I think that addresses one of your points, too. We didn’t work with bin Laden or the Talis. No money, no help.

Finally, I wouldn’t trust Wiki on anything remotely political. It has been more than unreliable in the past, and this is ripe for manipulation to make us look bad. Especially since it’s now big news.

So, yes, you have reason to be concerned. But I don’t think we have all of the facts yet.

nukemhill on April 4, 2007 at 1:07 PM

What’s that tired old expression about when you lie down with dogs…..

honora on April 4, 2007 at 2:17 PM

It’s easy to see where this is going next – the Dems will be calling Bush a hypocrite because of his stance on states sponsoring terrorism, and they will then be questioning whether we are the biggest sponsors of terrorism.

Rick on April 4, 2007 at 2:35 PM