Petraeus Wants Pakistani Insurgents Added To Terrorist Blacklist

Today's AfPak Round-Up:

Petraeus wants Haqqani insurgents added to terror blacklist. The Haqqani network, based along the Afghan border, is linked to Al Qaeda and responsible for a series of attacks in and around Kabul and across eastern Afghanistan. If added to the blacklist, its foreign assets would be frozen and its leaders banned from overseas travel. Petraeus' request could antagonize Pakistan, which is believed to covertly support the group, and seems to clash with recent efforts by Afghan President Hamid Karzai to have senior Taliban leaders removed from the list to encourage a peace settlement. [NYT]

Gingrich: Afghanistan "won't end well." On a visit to Iowa, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticized Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan, saying it "doesn't go deep enough for someplace like Afghanistan." He added, "You're dealing with Afghan culture that is fundamentally different than us, in ways we don't understand." [Politico]

Afghan Army won't be ready until 2014. The death of three British soldiers at the hands of an Afghan soldier on Tuesday cast further doubt on the army's readiness to secure Afghanistan after NATO forces withdraw. But, writes the BBC's John Simpson, there is reason for NATO to keep supporting its development: it is far stronger than it was when the Soviet Union withdrew from the country in 1989—and in that case, they managed to hold off the mujahideen for three years. [BBC]

Peace with Taliban threatens women's rights: rights watchdog. According to a new report by Human Rights Watch, women in Taliban-controlled areas face intimidation, death threats and violence. "Religious police," the report notes, have forbidden girls from attending school and are beating women they believed to be inappropriately dressed. A power-sharing deal with the Taliban that does not enforce women's rights, the groups says, will further reverse the progress seen since the Taliban were forced from power in 2001. [BBC]

Comments

[raydeanturner]

08:57 AM on 07/16/2010

If America was truly concerned with "defense" we wouldn't have troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, or most other foreign places for that matter. Our troops would be at home, policing the border, the airports, the train yards and the freight that comes in. If we were really concerned about WMD's and attacks, we'd do a better job of keeping undesireables out of the country, and keeping tabs on the ones we suspect are already here.

The Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or any of the fringe extremist groups could not hurt America if we were really "defending" the country, and it would save a lot of money. All of our major "foes" already have large nuclear stockpiles. A nuclear threat clearly does exist if they can ever get these weapons here, but you aren't going to just buy enriched uranium and plutonium at the Quick Trip down the street. We have to stop it from entering the country by really protecting the borders, etc. It will have to come from somewhere else, but it won't come from simple brainwashed fanatics running around 12K miles away shooting off their AK-47's shouting religious death-threats to America, especially if we're more focused on actually "defending" America making sure they can't get it in the country in the first place.

[BestGuest]

07:02 AM on 07/16/2010

Im particularly enjoying the Indian commenters here. They need to shape up their skills coz it's quite clear just by the froth emanating from their lips who they are. Despite some of the western naming avatars being used...

[my2pesos]

10:09 AM on 07/16/2010

Since you brought it up, about east indians using western naming avatars... In Arizona a lot of them try to pass as mexican americans (I've seen it first hand), I wonder if with the new law in AZ that targets mexicans, they will still try to pass as mexicans...

[camus2]

10:22 PM on 07/15/2010

funny , when americans say french are xenoph*bic.
how many catholics are in Guantanamo jails ?
how many catholic country are Us at war at ?
Who are the Gitmo prisonners ? muslims
Who are the talibans ? muslims.
Irak , Afghanistan and pakistan are 3 muslims countries
and now america wants to fight in yemen , iran , and somalia.
Do american wants to fight catholics there ? or muslims ?
yet , america is a free country with no xenoph*bia , so why america is only at war with muslim people ?
what is worse , to ban burqa or your war on the third world against islam ?

[buddhalounge]

12:49 AM on 07/16/2010

If catholic militia had attacked US, then US would have been at war with them. Was not US at war with Germany which is Christian. US is not at war with muslim people only with attackers that happen to be muslim. Only mistake that the US did was its war on Iraq which was unjustified aggression by us.

[Hassan shoja]

06:48 AM on 07/16/2010

US has chosen to wage war against Muslim countries.

US could chose to wage an intelligence and police war against Wahabi terrorists groups instead.

Now at some point US should stop escalating the conflict into more and more Islamic countries and use intelligence and police to capture terrorists instead of using military force.

[muck-raker]

08:24 AM on 07/16/2010

buddhalounge...YOU SAID "ONLY MISTAKE"....here is an excerpt of a good read:
Political activist Noam Chomsky says that although President Obama views the Iraq invasion merely as “a mistake” or “strategic blunder,” it is, in fact, a “major crime” designed to enable America to control the Middle East oil reserves.

“It’s [“strategic blunder"] probably what the German general staff was telling Hitler after Stalingrad,” Chomsky quipped, referring to the big Nazi defeat by the Soviet army in 1943.

“There is basically no significant change in the fundamental traditional conception that if we can control Middle East energy resources, then we can control the world,” he added.

In a lecture at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London Oct. 27th, Chomsky warned against expecting significant foreign policy changes from Obama, according to a report by Mamoon Alabbasi published on MWCNews.net. Alabbasi is an editor at Middle East Online.

“As Obama came into office, (former Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice predicted he would follow the policies of Bush’s second term, and that is pretty much what happened, apart from a different rhetorical style,” Chomsky said.

Chomsky said the U.S. operates under the “Mafia principle,” explaining “the
Balance of article:
http://pubrecord.org/nation/5953/chomsky-invasion-major-crime/

[ray christl]

08:19 PM on 07/15/2010

Maybe we could put the CIA-Pentagon on the terror list. The Pentagon built on the sacred hempfields of "Arlington Farms"and the U.S. Govt. botanical research center, for over 40 years.Cannabis-Hemp was to be the new "billion dollar" crop. It made ethanol,and this plastic substance-invention.... The ethnophaulism--MARIJUANA--was contrived and Global War Paradigm was manufactured i.e. Pentagon-Langly etc...CIA-Mafia control all !

[muck-raker]

08:27 AM on 07/16/2010

ray christl.....excellent post....you are fanned and favd.

[omobob]

07:18 PM on 07/15/2010

If you are going to get anyones attention in the US then you’d better say the magic word, Al Qaeda .That The Haqqani network is close to the taliban is moot. Al Qaeda continues to get front page coverage. Why is that?

[BestGuest]

07:00 AM on 07/16/2010

Prolly coz Alqaeda is "Transnational". It can show up in any country with resources or geo politically expedient opening many doors for the power that be.... IMHO of course

[shantanum78]

01:35 PM on 07/15/2010

Hey, he may as well add half the Pakistani government and the entire ISI on the watch list then.

[ViSH iX]

12:38 PM on 07/15/2010

We need to put pakistan on the terrorist list then attack and secure the nukes, destroy their army and break up that country. Then America can come home with mission accomplished.

[GinnyW]

05:02 PM on 07/15/2010

Why not put the country with the originators of al Qaeda and the worst oppression of women . . . Saudi Arabia??? After that the nation with the largest numbers of Moslems -- Indonesia? What exactly is the definition of "terrorist" or "insurgents" in Pet's dictionary?

[MMRDO]

08:50 PM on 07/15/2010

You want to piss off 1 billion Muslims? Mecca is in Saudi Arabia, do you know why the AQ network does not like us?

[ViSH iX]

10:16 PM on 07/15/2010

excellent point. The brand of islam that saudi arabis exports is creating a lot of problems. We can see this in Indonesia, Pakistan, The Philippines, and Afghanistan.

[politicalgenius]

11:57 AM on 07/15/2010

The problem with spreading democracy into regions where extremists thrive is that if/when it comes time to vote and the extremist win, what's the backup plan? It will be seen within the region(s) has legitimate, democratic elections. U.S. interference would only make things worse after that.

[hello All]

12:26 PM on 07/15/2010

Hamas won elections in Gaza and then came blockade and operation cast lead, thats the plan B.

[BestGuest]

07:06 AM on 07/16/2010

Ironically Hamas was created by Israel to counter the PLO. Much like Alqaeda was a byproduct of America's cold war endeavors. And they still don't get the concept of blowback!!

[Tom Joad]

11:11 AM on 07/15/2010

...Iran,Iraq,Afghanistan,Pakistan...let'sglobalizeRegionalConflict...

[Justaminute]

11:08 AM on 07/15/2010

That list is getting so long, we're going to have to start alphabetizing.

[llozano]

11:02 AM on 07/15/2010

We have found the perpetual motion machine in the naming of terrorists. It is us. The more we extend this stupit war the more people and countries are going to rebel and fight back. It is a formula for total destruction. I can't believe Petreaus is held in such high esteem, is he really our best and brightest?

[angrymanspokane]

10:48 AM on 07/15/2010

The Afghan army will never be ready, ever. These guys change sides regularly. Loyalties change based on who pays the most. One thing they can all agree on though, is they all hate us, and our uninvited presence among them.

Using our current logic to define a "terrorist", or an "insurgent", our founding fathers would have definately made "the list". I guess it all depends on which side you're on.

[PalinTaitz2012]

10:23 AM on 07/15/2010

Put'em on a LIST that'll show'em! Geez...

[bobo5]

10:34 AM on 07/15/2010

Gay tango dancers also need to be added. Be afraid, very afraid.

[GinnyW]

04:57 PM on 07/15/2010

Why your nom de plume that recognizes S'Error and Oily? At least the latest training program in Afghanistan is teaching rudimentary reading skills, so if they ever get electricity and can see on the internet or satellite TV that they're on "The List", they'll be able to read it.

[General Armchair]

09:52 AM on 07/15/2010

The U.S. is anxious to forestall negotiations under the mistaken belief that they will be able to "improve their battlefield position" in the coming year or so. Labeling Haqqani "terrorists" gums up the works and could add months of complications to negotiations. Remember how long it took to decide on shape of table at Vietnam peace talks in Paris?

I say "mistaken" because it's obvious that the Taliban are stronger than ever, and what the current campaign is going to reveal is their strength and resilience, the pointlessness of our "local partner," and guerilla forces taking and giving hits all over the country, getting bloodied, but training new cadres for next year's campaign.

The "counter-insurgency" strategy affords certain protections to the guerilla forces. The Taliban are wily, resourceful, and adaptive. They are highly political, and they are building an Islamic people's war against us. In this the parallels to Vietnam ARE accurate. For all his bluster, and the supposed ascendancy of COIN in the U.S. military, I don't think Petraeus, or anybody, has figured out how to crack that nut. We've let the Taliban train against us for 8 years. They have a deep bench of experienced squad- and platoon-level leaders. They have us pretty well figured out, lots better than we have them scoped.

One year, more or less....pfffft! Like so much chaff in the wind.

[vinny]

08:50 AM on 07/15/2010

"Afghan Army won't be ready until 2014"

extending the war into next admin - that's the plan

[PalinTaitz2012]

10:24 AM on 07/15/2010

Ready for what?