NYT: Taliban, AQ, jihadis tighten alliance in Pakistan
posted at 2:05 pm on October 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Obama administration has floated a number of trial balloons over the last couple of weeks about the idea of separating the Taliban from al-Qaeda in order to justify a reduction of resources for the counterinsurgency strategy championed for the last two years by Barack Obama himself. The argument goes that the Taliban just want to return to Afghanistan and have political engagement, and that they are different in style and intent than al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In other words, they want to consider the two different movements with far less integration than previously reported as a means to open negotiations with the Taliban while ostensibly stepping up attacks on AQ.
The New York Times throws a big dash of cold water on that effort today in reporting a much closer integration of jihadist forces than previously assumed in Pakistan, and not just between the Taliban and AQ:
A wave of attacks against top security installations over the last several days demonstrated that the Taliban, Al Qaeda and militant groups once nurtured by the government are tightening an alliance aimed at bringing down the Pakistani state, government officials and analysts said. …
But the style of the attacks also revealed the closer ties between the Taliban and Al Qaeda and what are known as jihadi groups, which operate out of southern Punjab, the country’s largest province, analysts said. The cooperation has made the militant threat to Pakistan more potent and insidious than ever, they said.
The government has tolerated the Punjabi groups, including Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, for years, and many Pakistanis consider them allies in just causes, including fighting India, the United States and Shiite Muslims. But they have become entwined with the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and have increasingly turned on the state.
The alliance has now stepped up attacks as the military prepares an assault on the Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan, where senior members of the Punjabi groups also find sanctuary and support.
The White House effort plays on a fundamental misreading of the Taliban and its place in the region. The Taliban are radical jihadists primarily comprised of Pashtuns, a major tribe in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their success in grabbing power gave them great credibility among the Pashtuns, and their downfall gave us an opportunity to push the Pashtuns to produce more moderate, stable leadership to integrate into an Afghanistan nationhood that they mostly don’t recognize. The effort we need to make is to separate the Pashtuns from the Taliban, not a fantasy of separating two radical and violent jihadist movements from each other.
That kind of effort will take decades, though, because we have to show the Pashtuns that (a) such a move will benefit them in terms of freedom, infrastructure, economic development, and progress without threatening their own interests, and (b) we will stick around long enough to keep the Taliban from conducting reprisals in the future. Just the mere mention of negotiating with the Taliban will make it very difficult for the Pashtuns to reject these radical, violent leaders. They will certainly be worried that any cooperation now with the US will mean a very unpleasant death for them in the future — and our backpedaling also gives a pretty good indication that the radical, violent leadership is winning the war. That will incentivize the Pashtuns to back the strong horse, not the weak one.
As the Times reports, the Taliban — all of the Taliban in both countries — are essentially the same as al-Qaeda, only with different goals in mind. The Taliban have their sights set on wresting control away from the elected governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan and reimposing the Draconian, shari’a based government that we saw in Afghanistan before 9/11. AQ wants to conduct global terror operations to force the US and other Western nations out of the Gulf area and eventually to seize control of the oil resources in Saudi Arabia so as to control world commerce. The Punjabi groups want to seize Kashmir for Pakistan. All of them are totalitarian in nature, use terror as a means to their political ends, and are incapable of any real compromise — as repeated efforts at truces from the Pakistani government have demonstrated.
If the White House continues to argue sotto voce for engagement with “moderate Taliban,” they expose dangerously naive thinking in the war on radical Islamists.









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
Mmm mmm mmm
That Cairo speech was great
LibTired on October 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM
According to a Geraghty tweet over at NRO decision to come on Afghanistan in two weeks. Which it shouldn’t take that long, as he notes, if one was inclined to go with McChrystal.
Wethal on October 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM
I am getting the impression the academics running the foreign policy are simply making up their own template to fit their outcome, and then design descriptions of groups.
Fantasyland.
Starlink on October 16, 2009 at 2:09 PM
Nope not a shocker at all.
upinak on October 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Captain Louis RenaultSheriff Joe Biden is shocked, shocked!red winger on October 16, 2009 at 2:12 PM
quagmire?
cmsinaz on October 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM
According to a Geraghty tweet over at NRO decision to come on Afghanistan in two weeks. Which it shouldn’t take that long, as he notes, if one was inclined to go with McChrystal.
Wethal on October 16, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Agreed on your analysis. Evidently they need the two weeks to come up with a BS way to spin withdrawal.
Not to worry, though: remember this is the “moderate” Taliban we’re talking about. I’m sure they will in turn moderate the previously radical AQ and the whole terrorism problem will be solved!
(Just to avoid misunderstanding: first paragraph serious, second sarcastic. Have a nice day.)
jwolf on October 16, 2009 at 2:17 PM
“Ignore the Constitution, that’s a Peace Prize.”
red winger on October 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM
The Tal-e-bon? Isn’t that who Obama wants to partner with in afghanistan?
PappaMac on October 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM
red winger on October 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Oops, wrong thread.
red winger on October 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM
So a lot of folks are acting like the USA has a long future ahead.
Could someone convince me there’s a scenario in which the USA is not nuked within two years?
Bueller?
jeff_from_mpls on October 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Looks like you had an errant colon in there:
fixt.
Hesiodos on October 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM
they’ve been doing that since 20Jan09
cmsinaz on October 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Not another balloon thread! I’m so sick of hearing about . . . oh, wait. Never mind.
TX Mom on October 16, 2009 at 2:23 PM
Right. The Taliban want to over throw Pakistan (which is impossible) and Al Qaeda want to over throw Saudi Arabia which also ain’t gonna happen.
What a waste.
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Like that would be a change in official behavior since 9/11 and long before.
BL@KBIRD on October 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM
TX Mom, I never even considered the irony of that intro — thanks for the laugh!
Ed Morrissey on October 16, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Clearly the Presidential Daily Brief has to include more than the current war on Fox News.
fourdeucer on October 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Wow, I just stopped by that green lizard site and boy does CJ have a woody for hot air or what?
RobD on October 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM
No, the errant colon is in the White House!
Old Hippie Vet on October 16, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Yes. Instead of a nuke, the unicorn fairy will be dropping skittles.
LibTired on October 16, 2009 at 2:31 PM
By the way, they are not “Radical Islamists”, they are “fighting in the way of Allah”, the most sacred path a Muslim may walk. The west can try to diminish them and call them fringe elements but that is not how good Muslims view them. They are the Mujaheddin, warriors of God. It only throws mud in western eyes to describe them as rogue malcontents with no backing. That was the Bush policy, shield and protect Islam by denying the truth about Islam. As long as this line is walked (8 years now), no progress will be made.
BL@KBIRD on October 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Ummmm.. the article says Punjabi elements are now turning on the state and have closer ties to AQ and the Taliban. I thought they were the ones who comprised the military forces protecting the nukes?
And that the Pashtuns were the ones with the closest ties to the Taliban.
Or am I not remembering correctly which group is mainly used to guard the nukes?
journeyintothewhirlwind on October 16, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I have to agree with Ed. Funny stuff! ROFL!!!
I also have to add…I don’t know about you all, but this hope, and change, is sure making knots in my stomach.
capejasmine on October 16, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Indeed. I say kill everyone who practices Islam. At least it’s a start.
Sarcasm.
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Never saw that one coming~~~~
Hang in there our Beloved Fighting Brothers in Arms.. We shall defend her here at home while away on tour.
God Bless
hawkman on October 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM
It’s nice to see former enemies like the Taliban and AlQaeda getting along so well. Perhaps they will invite our Nobel Laureate for tea sometime so they can celebrate their newfound friendship.
And to think all of this happened without a single Beer Summit.
You know, I am beginning to see why the guy got a Peace Prize. He’s got a gift, I tell you. A gift.
Lily on October 16, 2009 at 2:40 PM
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 2:24 PM
IMHO the Taliban seeks to do to Pakistan’s government what AQ did to Spain via the Madrid bombings. That is, neutralize it vis a vis the fight against radical Islamic groups. This is, again IMHO, a realistic goal which is very much within the reach of the Taliban.
The prospect of the Taliban achieving the radicals’ wet dream wish of actually taking over the Pakistani government (and possibly, their nukes) is in comparison very unlikely. But I don’t think it is so unlikely that I would want to bet a US city getting nuked against it.
As for AQ, as far as I know they do not seek to govern anything. But they do seek to murder anyone in power who does not fall in line with their views of Islam. They attempted to murder a Saudi prince very recently. If they had the means to kill the Saudi ruling family, they most definitely would do so.
jwolf on October 16, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Rome burns as the emperor fiddles away.
right2bright on October 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Not sure how you would come to that conclusion even by sarcasm. Unless your working for Charles the Mad and his lizard chorus or tards.
BL@KBIRD on October 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM
“dangerously naive=”smart power”?”–we tried to tell them before the election…We need to start making a list of all the oxymorons that equal Obama.
Then we need to make a list of surival gear…
lovingmyUSA on October 16, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Indeed that brings up the main question: how far are we willing to go, how many innocent must die, and how much of our hard worked for money will be spent in the name of safety. You can only go so far before you get to a fascist or police-state environment.
To put it into perspective, in 2008, individual income tax receipts were 1146 Bil while defense expenditures were 613 Bil. That’s over half of all individual income going to defense alone and that’s not counting black budgets.
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 2:57 PM
…how much of our hard worked for money will be spent in the name of safety.
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 2:57 PM
FWIW, I would rather have my tax money spent in the name of safety than in the name of hope and change. But that’s just my opinion.
jwolf on October 16, 2009 at 3:19 PM
… which have crash landed like the one we saw yesterday, but with less fanfare.
TXUS on October 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM
And yet over at SmallWarsJournal one guy argues that some kind of splitting of the Taliban into mderate and radical is inevitable. And that seems to be at a high governmental level plus the level of turned informant.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/10/an-interview-with-peter-godwin/
His accomodation did not seem to be based on weakness.
Note the point I mention is only part of the larger historical perspective of the interviewee in that 7 page article.
AnotherOpinion on October 16, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I’m more interested in keeping as much of the tax cash in the hands of the citizenry as possible.
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I’m more interested in keeping as much of the tax cash in the hands of the citizenry as possible.
The Calibur on October 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Fair enough. But keeping cash in the hands of the citizens appears to be a low priority under the current administration. And in any case, to the extent I am taxed, I naively entertain the desire that those taxes be used to fund government activites that are actually written in the Constitution.
jwolf on October 16, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Of course! They know they’re dealing with President Pussy and Secretary of State Softee.
MaiDee on October 16, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Just imagine the Taliban in control of those nukes. Gives me the willies just to think about it.
Terrye on October 16, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Are you saying that while Obama is doing nothing, our enemies are getting stronger…wonders never cease.
What a coincidence…
right2bright on October 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Hey Mister Taliban
Tally me some love here,
I just won the Peace Prize
And me have to prove dem right.
mrt721 on October 16, 2009 at 4:15 PM
All roads lead to Rome…..
BigMike252 on October 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Look at it from the eyes of the enemy. If President Pussy was my opposition, after a congratulatory, back-slapping party of celebrating my good fortune, I would start collecting the world and everything in it.
MaiDee on October 16, 2009 at 4:27 PM
But it’s not acceptable to kill ordinary terrorists.
Dr. ZhivBlago on October 16, 2009 at 4:57 PM
I like how the Obama administration believes they can “buy off” the hardcore Taliban leadership and get them to give up the AQ.
Bush tried that at the beginning of the war. You can buy off the Taliban local and regional warlords – but not Mullah Omar.
What you’re dealing with here is two hard-core groups that are totally loyal to each other and will go to the mat for each other.
The Obama administration doesn’t understand this kind of loyalty and dedication. They ascribe their morals and motivations onto others – which is why we are losing …
EVERYWHERE.
HondaV65 on October 16, 2009 at 5:21 PM
That should make it easy to buy them off…..
drjohn on October 16, 2009 at 5:42 PM