Taliban executes 22 pro-government tribal leaders
posted at 7:31 am on June 25, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
Baitullah Mehsud sent a message to the entire frontier region today: Pakistan no longer has sovereignty in those territories. His Taliban forces had kidnapped 22 pro-government tribal leaders from a “peace committee” who had assisted Islamabad in combating radical Islamists in the region. They turned up dead today with gunshot wounds and slit throats, a message to others who take the side of Pakistan against the Taliban with whom Islamabad is negotiating:
Pakistani Taliban militants killed 22 pro-government tribal elders who were kidnapped during battles for control of a strategic town near the Afghan border, officials said Wednesday.
Their bodies were found near the garrison town of Jandola, adjoining the South Waziristan tribal district, where rebels loyal to top Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud have been fighting tribesmen loyal to the government.
The violence underscores Western concerns about the Pakistani government’s negotiations with Mehsud, who was blamed by the previous government and US officials for the December assassination of former premier Benazir Bhutto.
“According to our information 22 bodies of peace committee members have been found in Kiriwam village,” district administration official Barkatullah Marwat told AFP, adding that the men were abducted a day earlier.
Will the Pakistani government allow Mehsud to kill its allies with impunity? So far, that seems to be the message, but that could change. The new government has yet to react to this provocation, but the army has taken positions in Jandola where Mehsud’s forces had attacked pro-government tribesmen over the last few days. Residents say that the standoff is very tense and could collapse into open fighting soon.
Sooner or later, the Taliban and radical Islamists go too far. The same thing happened in Iraq when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi turned Sunnis against the radicals with brutal and outright lunatic violence. Iraqis predisposed to support Muslims over the American occupiers got so sick of the terrorists that they sided with the infidels for their own protection.
The local tribes in the Waziristans and NWFP may soon come to a similar conclusion, and Islamabad may learn quickly that Mehsud is not a partner for peace. Pervez Musharraf could be excused an I-told-you-so smile when that happens. Mehsud will not moderate for the sake of a nebulous autonomy, and the new government in Pakistan may just be realizing that he means to replace them, not live in peaceful coexistence. Eventually, they would suffer the same fate as their tribal leaders, and even if that doesn’t move them, the blood debt Mehsud just racked up will mean war on the western frontier areas anyway.
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
Comment pages:
Pakistan = Berserkistan
Alden Pyle on June 25, 2008 at 7:52 AM
Murder, execution-style.
JiangxiDad on June 25, 2008 at 8:06 AM
Also two days ago they kidnapped 17 policemen. The reason was retaliation for the police talking a suicide bomber out of blowing himself up. (I’ll look back for the link to the story).
Germany, France, Denmark have all increased, or have pledged too, their troop levels, most of which are SF types not road builders. That is a welcome addition to the American forces but until NATO decides to cross the border those additional forces won’t mean a hill of beans.
As far as PAK goes I just don’t get it militarily. Siding with NATO would allow the pinchers to close on the territories. It wouldn’t end terrorism, but it would force them back into cells instead of having thousands of square miles to run their evil empire. But like I said, I just don’t understand how PAK can sit around and wait to die.
Limerick on June 25, 2008 at 8:14 AM
It is apparent that the lowland Pakistanis really do not want to be fighting the fierce, mountain tribesmen of the border region. The Pakistanis would be perfectly happy to remain titular sovereignty over the region but let the local Taliban have
control.
The Taliban may be brutal, but unless the Pakistanis can offer a secure alternative, as the Patraeus-led Americans did in Iraq, you’re not going to see the local villagers changing sides. These 22 murders are a signal to the people in the region: “Side with the government, and this is what will happen to you.”
Does anyone think that the Pakistani military can do what the Americans did in Iraq? Not likely.
MrLynn on June 25, 2008 at 8:15 AM
No but they can block the backdoor while we come through the front.
Limerick on June 25, 2008 at 8:17 AM
Correction of first paragraph:
It is apparent that the lowland Pakistanis really do not want to be fighting the fierce, mountain tribesmen of the border region. The Pakistanis would be perfectly happy to keep titular sovereignty over the region but let the local Taliban have de facto control.
So when will we be able to edit our posts?
MrLynn on June 25, 2008 at 8:17 AM
President O will bomb Pakistan.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 25, 2008 at 8:18 AM
And let us into their (nominal) territory? Maybe, with a wink and a nod. But we will not be able to maintain any kind of long-term presence, nor will the nascent and reportedly ineffective Afghan Army.
The Pakistanis don’t really care what happens in Afghanistan. They just want the hill tribes under Taliban control to stop mucking about with lowland politics. So, yes, they would be happy to wall them off.
I think it unlikely we can do much more on the Afghan side. The best we can do is keep the Taliban confined to the more remote regions. Of course, most of that miserable country is ‘remote’.
MrLynn on June 25, 2008 at 8:25 AM
JiangxiDad on June 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Here is the police kidnap story;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7469683.stm
Can’t think of any other nation where twenty-two local elders and seventeen policemen could be adbucted, and killed, and not have the government go on a rampage.
Limerick on June 25, 2008 at 8:28 AM
What altitude do they store the nukes at?
JiangxiDad on June 25, 2008 at 8:29 AM
JiangxiDad on June 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I meant Obama, not Schwarzenegger.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 25, 2008 at 8:33 AM
And all this time I thought Obama’s accent was fake southern black. I didn’t know he was Austrian. Sorry.
JiangxiDad on June 25, 2008 at 8:37 AM
The Most Merciful, The Most Compassionate.
shaken on June 25, 2008 at 8:43 AM
We can’t blame Pakistan. We should’ve already gone into western Pak. And make no apologies to the world for it. The Bush admin allowed Musharraf to be thrown under the bus. Its time for the U.S. to form up a close/strong alliance w/India and the 2 of us go in and clean up that mess in Pakistan.
Either that or simply to get out and come home. Either do the job needed or bring our troops home. If we can’t get any cooperation from the countries in the region, then let them deal with the problem on their own. DD
Darvin Dowdy on June 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Just more Muslim on Muslim violence.
Like this:
23 June 2008 11 beheaded in sectarian violence in Pakistan
Bicyea on June 25, 2008 at 9:14 AM
The religion of
peacepieces.jgapinoy on June 25, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Pakistan no longer has sovereignty in those territories.
Fire up the B-2s!
Tony737 on June 25, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I’d hate to have to rely on these 7th century tribal schmucks for military support of any kind. But it’s a puzzle why they are so stupid about the threat that faces their country, such as it is.
Jaibones on June 25, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Peace Committee. Isn’t that Obama’s proposed new name for the DoD?
Ed, you’re wrong about the tribes in Anbar. I have it on good authority from the moonbat left that the Anbaris turned because we pay better.
Kafir on June 25, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Won’t work. The Taliban wants it all,….control of the Pakistani government and the nukes. Remember what started the Red Mosque confrontation? Taliban defiance of the government outside the hill country started it. We need access through Pakistan to supply troops in Afghanistan. It has to be dealt with.
a capella on June 25, 2008 at 9:42 AM
It’s fake whatever-I-need-to-sound-like-today. He doesn’t have a culture, having been raised by white Kansans in Hawaii, and then going through the Columbia University “wait a minute…you’re black!” culture revision program. Mix in a little work in Chicago’s Altgeld Gardens and you have the Obama dialect.
Jaibones on June 25, 2008 at 9:43 AM
Again, I still don’t understand why you give this FAILED leader credit for anything. Musharraf was the one who STARTED the whole ‘peace deal’ process.
They won’t ‘turn on’ the Taliban either. They are AFRAID of the Taliban. If the Pakistani government doesn’t use their military as an iron fist against the Taliban (many in the military are sympathetic to the Taliban anyway), then the Taliban will have their own state.
Musharraf won’t have an ‘I told you so’ smile because he was the one who initiated the ‘if we talk to them with peace then we won’t have to fight them’ mentality. I don’t understand why you can’t see that other than you want one guy to be helpful. The ‘go to them in peace’ strategy WAS MUSHARRAF’s
We didn’t like a supreme court ruling about Guantanamo, but we had to accept it. Maybe we’ll excuse an ‘I told you so’ smile for Musharraf concerning his actions with his supreme court when they made a ruling he did not like. Maybe he was right and we should just dismantle the entire supreme court on executive order like your buddy.
The problems in Pakistan started with the partition from India by the UK that should not have happened. After 9/11, we should have treated Pakistan like Afghanistan. We didn’t because we must have had some covert activities there and we wanted to protect some intelligence somehow.
But to treat Pakistan as a friend who would be helpful was probably the biggest strategic blunder the US military has seen since Pickets charge in Gettysburg. Musharraf should be in jail as the commander of the enemy Pakistani troops. . . and you still think he is a great guy who needs to say ‘I told you so’. . . boy does he have you fooled.
He is the one who made this possible by not going after them with his military because the people didn’t want him to.
ThackerAgency on June 25, 2008 at 9:59 AM
The Pakistanis are taking the Democrat tack. They’re “ending the war” by not fighting the Taliban. This of course leads to death, destruction, and desolation; Muslim style.
Mojave Mark on June 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Well, then, I guess we’d better start negotiating with them.
Think_b4_speaking on June 25, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Jaibones on June 25, 2008 at 9:43 AM
And bobama’s cosmopolitan rearing went through Muslim Indonesia in a Jakarta madrassa. His vocal coach not only taught him enunciation but reading the teleprompter like the back of his hand/head.
Now here’s lunacy. PC supposedly accepts everyone “as they are”–I’m OK, You’re OK syndrome. That they instead chant “Obama or Die” proves the ubertard illegitimate whoring of the classical term liberal. According to bobama who wants to unite the world under his AT&T-knock-off pastel blue&white bubble his Muslim madrassa was/is NOT Islamic and he is not directly related to either his Muslim father and stepfather. The fact is, Obama is an illegitimate bastard if he denies his father, his father’s father, his half-relations, his stepfather, his mother, and his mother’s parents who finished raising him with a great education, and his politico-spiritual advisor of 20 years. Obama is not his own man. Obama belongs to Soros and Marx. I refuse to play either Eloy or Morlock to their tune and advise everyone to look sharp.
maverick muse on June 25, 2008 at 10:58 AM
All of the American liberals who bitterly criticized Gen. Pervez Musharraf–they only hated him because he was America’s friend.
All of the things they hated about him, they would have made excuses for, if he went to U.N. events and said “f-ck Bush.” If he was another Hugo Chavez, and we criticized him for it, they would have accused us of “saber rattling”
The left really does hate America. You can see it by how they hate America’s friends and make excuses for her enemies.
daryl_herbert on June 25, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Mojave Mark on June 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM
You surmise that the Pakistani government, regardless of who is elected, is playing fatalism? Probably that’s the fabric upon which the reality paints the sour grapes excuse–who wants that barbaric region can have it since it’s not worth the effort–clearing it out is impossible. There are some regions that either require absolute destruction or absolute apathy. Anything in-between is wasted. But the USA is at the point with the Taliban that it must go all the way. So drop the leaflets and warn everyone to clear out to refugee camps because the destroying angel will fly by soon.
maverick muse on June 25, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I have it on good authority from the moonbat left that the Anbaris turned because we pay better.
If by pay better you mean we won’t chop your head off, or force your kid to go blow himself up, or bust your chops because you want a smoke, or chase willing women, and eventually we’re going to go home, so you better start picking up the slack, then yeah, we pay better.
I R A Darth Aggie on June 25, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Mojave Mark on June 25, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Yep. You know what they call the first side in a war who quits fighting?
The loser.
Chuckie on June 25, 2008 at 12:38 PM
patrick neid on June 25, 2008 at 12:42 PM
This seems to me to be a self-solving problem. When the Taliban starts butchering the leaders of your village, it seems likely to provoke resistance. The tribesmen of Waziristan have a finely-honed sense of vengeance. Such gratuitous killing smacks of desperation and bodes ill for the Taliban.
However, isn’t it funny how the context of such stories determine its spin? When the US fights in a foreign country, indigineous resistance is assumed to be unbeatable. However, when our enemies, like the Taliban, fights in a foreign country, it is assumed that they are unbeatable, not the indigineous resistance. The meta-assumption here is that America’s enemies are inherently invincible while America is always the weaker party facing an unwinnable war.
Tantor on June 25, 2008 at 12:43 PM
If that region of Pakistan has been determined an uncontrollable, non sovereign area, then it should open to B-52 carpet bombing!
byteshredder on June 25, 2008 at 1:09 PM
And all cultures are equil according to the left.
When can we learn to accept reality. It appears to me that they are not smart people. Show me some evidence to the contrary.
saiga on June 25, 2008 at 2:00 PM
I’m not sure how anyone on the left could support the actions taken at the Waco Branch Davidian compound and not support bombing the Taliban villages responsible for these murders.
jaime on June 25, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Big trouble in Nukeistan. It’s not just in caves anymore.
Maquis on June 25, 2008 at 5:04 PM
The question is, who are the Taliban? If they are mostly foreigners (Arabs, Checheyns [sp?], Uzbeks, etc.), then yes, the relatives of the victims will look for vengeance. If they are local tribesmen, then it becomes a more complex story, depending on who is related to whom.
Seems to me we are taking the only possible approach: identify and destroy the leadership, especially the foreigners. And especially al Qaeda training camps.
Beyond that, we need to take a fresh approach to Afghanistan as a whole. For one thing, we ought to take co-opt for poppy crop, by paying more than the Taliban or al Qaeda do.
MrLynn on June 25, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Comment pages: