The fall of Waziristan
The fall of North and South Waziristan and the rise of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan was an event telegraphed by al-Qaeda and the Taliban. During the winter of 2006, Osama bin Laden announced his strategy to establish bases and pockets of territory along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The Taliban and al-Qaeda (virtually indistinguishable in this region at this point in time) had been fighting a long term insurgency against the Pakistani Army after President Musharraf put troops in the region shortly after 9-11. ...
Pro-Pakistani government tribal leaders and informants were murdered and made an example of. The Pakistani Army paid a devastating price for their operations in Waziristan. The official government reports claim around 200 soldiers killed, however the unofficial numbers put the casualties somewhere around 3,000 killed in combat.
On June 25, I sounded the alarm that a truce would be in the offering in North Waziristan. The Pakistan Army was taking a pounding, and President Musharraf lacked the will to fight in the region became apparent. All along, Musharraf and the Pakistani elite attempted to draw distinctions between the Taliban and “miscreants” and “foreigners” - which is merely code for al-Qaeda. The failure to realize the Taliban and al-Qaeda worked towards the same end, and have integrated political and command structures, led the Pakistani government to cut deals with the 'local Taliban' and the eventual establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan. The Taliban and al-Qaeda are by no means finished with their goals of carving out safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
The series of posts below document the history of the fall of North and South Waziristan and the rise of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan, from 2006 onward.
Commentary
Roggio's dispatches bring into focus the problem which everyone who hankers for the "good old days" of multilateralist containment must face. What happens when diplomacy, aid and the United Nations aren't enough? Part of the problem lies in that while we can put anything in a conceptual "box" -- to the satisfaction of the diplomats at least -- and declare it contained, modern Western countries don't really have the tools to reach into the box and straighten things out. Christopher Hitchens described in both dry and scathing terms the public horror at finding its boxed monsters were wriggling out between the bars after September 11.
TONY JONES: It seems that the United States, and much of the Western world, is still learning the lessons of 9/11. After reflecting on this for five years now, what did we get right and what did we get wrong?
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Mmm. Well I think we found out that we were at war, which was better than being at war and not knowing it, which was the case until five years and about five minutes ago. Until five years and five minutes ago, for example, we didn't know the name AQ Khan. We didn't know that Pakistan was being Talibanised from within, that there were al-Qaeda sympathisers in its nuclear program - and we weren't doing anything about that either. We didn't know, incidentally, that international black market of rogue states: North Korea, Libya and Iran, linked by AQ Khan and exchanging nuclear and other technologies, formed the corners of the box in which we thought had Saddam Hussein. When people talk about the box he was in, that box included AQ Khan and the North Koreans and the nuclear black market. So that goes also partly to the point that keeps coming up of whether or not we are safer. I always think that's a contemptible question. Not just because it can't be answered, but because it seems to demand that our governments exist to give us a sense of security, rather than a sense of our duties in the case of a war. ...
So what is brewing in Waziristan and what does the West propose to do about it, except cheer Musharraf on?
posted by wretchardthecat at 9/13/2006 06:24:00 PM
30 Comments:
NATO needs to tell Musharraf that Waziristan is causing a problem in Afghanistan and if he doesn't go in and clean it up, NATO will. And then NATO needs to follow through.
jim in richmnd said:
The only question is will it be in the tradition of Clinton or the tradition of Tokyo, Dresden, Horoshima and Nagaski. Just hope Pakistan's nuclear facilities are first destoyed.
A little too late for that, don't you think? Pakistan is a nuclear power, and nuclear powers hit back. Okinawa showed us how hard it was to stop a suicide plane. Now imagine a suicide plane with a nuke set to trigger on impact.
Isn't it about time that Mr. Musharref became assassinated? I suppose everyone is afraid that an Islamist would take his place, but at least then the cards would be on the table and we wouldn't have the guy in charge telling us one thing and then doing another.
Wasn't Saddam offered an opportunity to go into exile before we went into Iraq? Musharref looks distinctly peaked, and like he could use a long vacation in exile, too. AND he could be shown the examples of Saddam who didn't, and Idi Amin who did.
At the same time, something needs to be done with his nuclear person, Khan. I think dead would be better for him, than exile.
Shall we vote on it?
Waziristan fell?
Was our objective to clear and hold there?
I think it's just as well that these would-be tough guys are mustering again. They're much easier to kill - if that's what you want to do - than when they're hiding in caves or behind their mother's bhurka.
Nahncee:
Mushareef does indeed look like a lame duck. His popularity with the natives must be nil. I don't know how he's held out this long.
I don't think anyone at the state dept or in the oval office thinks he should go. He's been an ally in the WOT as best he could given very bad circumstances there.
NahnCee said...
"Isn't it about time that Mr. Musharref became assassinated? I suppose everyone is afraid that an Islamist would take his place, but at least then the cards would be on the table and we wouldn't have the guy in charge telling us one thing and then doing another."
Not just any Islamist, Nahncee, but an Islamist with a nuclear arsenal. Let's think about that for a moment. Hmmm.
Hitchens the Avowed Trotskyite wrote:
"We didn't know, incidentally, that international black market of rogue states: North Korea, Libya and Iran, linked by AQ Khan and exchanging nuclear and other technologies, formed the corners of the box in which we thought had Saddam Hussein.When people talk about the box he (Saddam Hussein) was in, that box included AQ Khan and the North Koreans and the nuclear black market."
Really? Can anyone substantiate that Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons progam? That he had actual business dealing with Iraq? If so, could they please notify the Iraqi Survey Group which unsuccesfully hunted for said program? If containment failed to hold Saddam, then what exactly was the threat? His withered third world army? His nonexistent operational ties to AQ (see the President's two recent admissions, or the CIA reports, or the Senate Intelligence Committee's report)?
If Iran really formed part of the "corner" of a box that contained Hussein, should we really assume that they would supply him with a nuclear bomb? What an asinine statement.
My error, that should read "That he had actual business dealings with AQ Khan?"
At the end of the day, I think we face similar problems in Saudi Arabia- we want the Saudis to put an end to the Wahhabi schools (and their teachers) that operate as terrorist indoctrination camps. But if the Saudi regime is further weakened through bowing to our pressure, the danger of the current regime getting "displaced" grows, and the next regime may not only tolerate the Wahhabis but even support them.
I also truly believe in the power of democracy and its ability to teach people what it is they really want- it's akin to dating. You finally date the cheerleader you always dreamed of only to find out that the girl you loved to look at can be hell to live with (hopefully the conclusion of the Palestinians).
What is unclear is whether the world can wait for the Saudis or Pakistanis (or others like them) to figure this out. The wrong government elected at the wrong time in the wrong place could wreak havoc the likes of which we haven't yet seen.
In the end we may be darned whether we do or don't.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Or is this "just too hard," and we sit back and wait to be attacked once again...."
I think we have a winner, though I wonder if there's actually anything to wait for, since it is unlikely everything's suddenly going to become crystal clear after another attack.
It is so nice of reocon to drop by here to give us the benefit of the NY Time's talking points.
See these Lilliputians for the instructions to tie up Gulliver.
What a maroon.
Bisaal,
I agree. The positive aspect of this (and a very significant positive aspect) is that this will bring India closer to us.
As far as Musharraf goes, it is no surprise. Virtually any nation/leader is going to do what is in their best interests, or at least what they perceive to be in their best interests. He is not going to personally sacrifice himself to help us in our struggle.
For all its de facto Mullah cringe, Waziristan is and will remain a territory within the national bounds of Pakistan. As a general officer, Musharref eventually will "just fade away". What then?
Here's a zinger, certain to evoke outraged howls from all and sundry: Unilaterally or otherwise, America should declare the Nuclear Club no longer open. Iran, North Korea, yea even Waziristan, may not and WILL NOT acquire nukes-- deliverable or no, in any wise.
To those who gently admonish, "You're an Imperialist, how dare you presume to dictate transnational foreign policy (sic)!" we reply: This is a matter of civilizational life and death. Hundreds of millions of lives, the enlightened progress of many centuries, are all at stake. Such a ban does not "Rule the World", it imposes reality upon feckless jihadis and other nihilists whose "policy" is not victory or defeat but simply death.
Twenty years from, the Chinese People's Republic (if there is one) intends to plant a permanent installation on the Moon. This will be a military base, whose sole object will be to destroy competitive space-faring by threatening to drop nuclear devices down our Gravity Well. In high dudgeon, who will then lay waste Cathay?
Far-fetched? No more so than the Herzegovian spark that ignited World War I. Once new dynamics form, they run their course... politically impossible? As in Hitler's re-occupation of the Rhineland, who could know that taking action prevented WWII? Alas, not being prophets, we yet must act-- effectively, and in time.
Too bad that Islam and its murderous acolytes force the issue. A Declaration of Nuclear Intent should have been issued by Eisenhower in 1953 if not by Truman in 1945-- backed with explicit guarantees that (for example) Stalin and his henchman Mao would not survive regime-change. Hindsight, yes... but what of hindsight from 2025's perspective? We --the peaceful, prosperous, dynamic civilization of the West-- will otherwise be "one with Ninevah and Tyre".
Rome fell to Odoacer 1,530 years ago last week. Prepare to join her, in a new Dark Age.
It is beyond me why Wretchard continues to think that Hitchens is witty or wise. Cut through all the rhetorical flash and what Hitchens is saying is: “OK, we found no WMD in Iraq but Saddam COULD HAVE purchased them,” which is the worst post-hoc justification for a failed preventative war imaginable.
Hitchens was part of a cabal with fellow Trotskyite Kanan Makiya and the convicted con man Ahmed Chalabi to convince gullible American policy makers that the Iraqi people would be secular, liberal and pro-Israel. Here is Hitchens weasel-ly mea culpa over his ties to Chalabi:
http://www.slate.com/id/2101345
And here is where Chalabi went politically with all that American goodwill:
http://www.needlenose.com/i/swopa/SadrChalabi.jpg
Yes, that’s Sadr, Chalabi’s ally. Hitchens has much to answer for.
sirius_sir said...
"As to an operational link to AQ Kahn, the Israelis (no slouches at keeping track of such things) accused Iraq of having sent nuclear physicists to Libya to work on a joint weapons program."
Oh please! Another Judith Miller adventure! You'll have to do better than that to convince me. And Weswinger claims I'm putting up NYTimes talking points?! (BTW Weswinger if you want to actually refute the points I raise then please do so.) Miller writes of: "Stories sourced to senior Israeli officials"? What stories, what officials? This is sloppy third hand attribution that shows why Miller is now a radioactive joke in the journalistic community.
Sirius_Sir, if the Israelis had RELIABLE evidence of a joint Libyan-Iraqi nuclear weapons program, don't you think they'd share them with us? I think the Bush administration would be dying to release such info if they had it . . . to justify their Mesopatamian misadventure at least.
Sirius_Sir, you obviously didn't read the second article you posted. Here's the opening paragraph:
"Saddam Hussein's government paid North Korea $10 million for medium-range Nodong missile technology in the months before the Iraq war, but never received any goods because of U.S. pressure, the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq said yesterday."
This is a success story for containment. It worked. The Iraqis did not get there medium range missiles. (If they were to be aimed at Iran, maybe they should have?)
The best thing we can do to prop up Musharraf is to prosecute Waziristan with great prejudice. He will inevitably condemn the actions and he can show that once and for all what side he is on. It worked wonders for Saddam. Talibani with nukes, jeesh.
occam whisker said...
"Reocon,
Saddam was part of a distributed Jihadi WoMD network."
Evidence. I ask for some substantive evidence. And before you post it here, please send it first to the White House which needs it even more than I do. (And please, given recent history, spare us the histrionics of a Judith Miller.)
Eggplant,
"I suspect that democracy in the Middle East is our only option short of invoking a scorched Earth tactic and exterminating most of the Middle East's population."
Exactly! We could arguably (and rationally) have skipped the attempt at democracy and gone straight to scorched earth, but morally and ethically I think we at least needed to make the attempt.
The question is "is how many Muslims would answer the call to a Taliban style Islamic theocracy if they felt that the West had put a target on all Middle Easterners".
Worked wonders for Hezbollah.
Guys,
I keep saying and I still believe that there is big opportunity for our side in Waziristan. One proven technique for fighting terrorism is to give them a safe haven wfor a while. Peru used this against the Shining Path.
Waziristan is now a safe haven with US (and NATO for a little while anyway) troops on one side. Something along the lines of Sherman's march to the sea, starting with an Air Assault on Quetta and going to the Afgahn border would have a nice effect.
"Exactly! We could arguably (and rationally) have skipped the attempt at democracy (A) and gone straight to scorched earth (B), but morally and ethically I think we at least needed to make the attempt."
The problem, in retrospect, is that whereas after 9-11 the US citizenry could have been mobilized emotionally and politically, it now is in many ways impervious to such a drastic change of course. Institutional and cultural inertia.
After 9-11 a significant minority of Americans wanted to use nuclear weapons, now we're debating coerscive interrogation. Whereas the Democratic Party, Europeans, and generally everyone but Iraq was forced into line immediately after 9-11, all of them are now openly or silently hostile - something that might not change even after a significant attack, now that they've got President Bush, Iraq, and American foreign policy as a crutch to last them until the 21st century. Most people will grasp at any straw in order to avoid the conclusion that we need to initiate a war that will kill millions of people (as a wide war in the Middle East would do).
IMO it is extremely unlikely we're ever going to get to (B).
sirius_sir said...
"And not to put too fine a point on it, you obviously skipped right over the part in that same story which you accused me of not reading where it is revealed that Saddam had successfully continued operating illegal weapons programs despite the UN inspections--inspections which, by the way, you argued in a previous thread violated Iraq's sovereignty."
Please. Iraq jury-rigging Silkworm anti-ship missiles into land based attacked missiles? Twelve of them? That's a sad commentary on their declining military effectiveness, not proof that they were a threat to us an ocean away.
"So according to you we were successfully keeping Saddam in his little box, despite all evidence to the contrary, and despite your contention we had no right to do so."
The containment regime insured that Saddam was not a threat to us. Jury-rigged Silkworms and undelivered Nodong missiles and nonexistent WMDs did not constitute a threat to US security. Especially compared to knocking over Iraq and giving it to pro-Iranian Shiite Islamists. No, Saddam still had utility for us in continuing to check Iran. With a little bit of ingenuity we should have had them go at again, which was a nice state of affairs.
occam whisker said...
"Reocon,
I don't know who Judith Miller is. And I don't care."
You should know a little bit about the sources you publish, otherwise they could be pro-Chalabi dupes so thoroughly discredited that they were dropped by even the New York Times. That would be embarassing.
"Whether the evidence was there or not, is really besides the point."
Oh, but of course it is. How silly of me. Sheer suspicion alone should be reason enough to topple an anti-Iranian regime and give it to . . . well, Iran. What was I thinking?
Wazistan,
Hellfireland. I doubt they will gather for funerals frequently, now that we showed them what remote-sensing means.
It will beome difficult to operate anything there, with our drone inventory improving to 36-hours time over target, automatic relief, mid-air refueling for UAVs by solar-powered tanker UAVs, etc. Swarms of multipurpose, unmanned, watchers. Nosecone video at 11:00.
annoy mouse said:
The question is "is how many Muslims would answer the call to a Taliban style Islamic theocracy if they felt that the West had put a target on all Middle Easterners".
Any Shi'ity little country can have any 7th Century theocracy they want to, with the caveat that no citizen of that country gets to fly on any Western airline.
While there are some positive aspects to having an open and considated enemy area, generally sanctuaries are a net negative. See Afghanistan pre 9-11, Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos, and China during the Korea War. I don't think anybody ever won a war by allowing the enemy to regroup, no matter how temporary they hoped it would be. The smart ones aren't going to stay and fight if you eventually move in anyway. The Second Battle of Falluja probably raised the resistance's collective IQ.
Cutler,
"IMO it is extremely unlikely we're ever going to get to (B)."
It will take at least one more major attack on the west to get to that point.
Sirius_Sir,
It's OK, though, because the 12 weapons labs are contained in a box.
Cutler,
"IMO it is extremely unlikely we're ever going to get to (B)."
It will take at least one more major attack on the west to get to that point."
I hope you are right, and I once held out on it, but I'm beginning to think this may be wishful thinking - that even if we lose this round, the next round will somehow be different. Personally, I fear differences between Americans and non-Americans, and Republicans and Democratics, to widen rather than narrow after another attack.
Committing to that sort of adventure is a big leap of faith, especially when someone like Wretchard, won't even commit to fullblown torture. I'm fearing we're more bark than bite insofar as (B) is concerned.
"Committing to that sort of adventure is a big leap of faith, especially when someone like Wretchard, won't even commit to fullblown torture."
Using torturing terrorists as a benchmark against the ugly stuff that is going to happen fighting a couple hundred million hostile Muslims, backed by foreign public opinion and many of our own opinion makers.
Torture, even full-blown "get out the pliers" type stuff, is small potatoes.
"And then, there's still this, which you seem to have missed too."
And don't forget that during the 2003 liberation of Iraq that US forces came across a previously unknown chemical factory, one that even our satellites had missed. Located near Najaf, the 100-acre complex was surrounded by an electrical fence and the Iraqis had camouflaged the facility by swathing it in sand-cast walls to make it look like the surrounding desert. Inside the factory US forces captured an Iraqi general. Kind of above his pay grade to guarding a "lowly" chemical factory, don't you think? And why would the facility be camouflaged? Answer: Saddam was getting ready for the day that the sanctions would be lifted and he could resume making chemical weapons. You have to remember that Iraq had developed the most extensive chemical weapons in the Third World and had used them in war. They were among only three nations (US, USSR and Iraq) to have produced VX gas on a large scale (they admitted in 1996 to having produced 4 tons of the nastiest nerve agent known to man). Saddam used the Food for Oil program
to influence and corrupt many in the West. With the billions he skimmed out of the program Saddam bought allies and created a constituency (can anyone say France?) to end the sanctions. The "box" was about to be opened. Once the sanctions were removed can anyone doubt that Saddam would not have rebuilt his WMD programs in short order? He was a clear and present danger. He needed to be dealt with.
Exhelo,
If you get a chance I'd like to know what you think about my 4:36, I've always respected your opinion. It wasn't just a rhetorical post, I'd genuinely love an optimistic point of view.
Post a Comment
<< Home