May 2009 CTC Sentinel

[S-2]

A link to May's issue of the CTC Sentinel with a lead story by Bruce Reidel on the American and Soviet Experiences in Afghanistan. Also a good article for the Quetta Shura and more.

Always a worthy read-

CTC Sentinel-May 2009

 

[waraich66]

A link to May's issue of the CTC Sentinel with a lead story by Bruce Reidel on the American and Soviet Experiences in Afghanistan. Also a good article for the Quetta Shura and more.

Always a worthy read-

CTC Sentinel-May 2009

US wrong policies made al qaida network much stronger in past OBAMA accepted that fact in his todays speach , hardliners saudi salfi islamist is back bone of OBL , we need to first break the bond between mullah omer and OBL and then joint action US/PA/NATO could defeat Al QAIDA .

 

[S-2]

And from what part of this month's CTC Sentinel was this inspired?

Riedel's article sets the stage nicely for Mukhtar A. Khan's article on the Quetta Shura.

"...we need to first break the bond between mullah omer and OBL..."

I'm uncertain how closely these two work together any longer. A.Q. ties seem closer now to Baitullah Mehsud and, of the Afghans, Haqqani & son. I would expect that many of the uzbeks and arabs in SWAT/Buner are A.Q. affiliated foreign proxies as you've suggested with the salafi/wahabbist militants. Maybe I'm wrong, but those ties seem the most enduring among soldiers recruited by A.Q.

 

[fatman17]

And from what part of this month's CTC Sentinel was this inspired?

Riedel's article sets the stage nicely for Mukhtar A. Khan's article on the Quetta Shura.

"...we need to first break the bond between mullah omer and OBL..."

I'm uncertain how closely these two work together any longer. A.Q. ties seem closer now to Baitullah Mehsud and, of the Afghans, Haqqani & son. I would expect that many of the uzbeks and arabs in SWAT/Buner are A.Q. affiliated foreign proxies as you've suggested with the salafi/wahabbist militants. Maybe I'm wrong, but those ties seem the most enduring among soldiers recruited by A.Q.

what say you to the lead story yesterday in the NYT about the US holding backdoor discussions with the quetta shure including mullah omar, jalaluddin haqqani and gulbedin hekmatyar on the future of afghanistan! very interesting development.

1. US/Nato forces to withdraw to their bases in afghanistan
2. the "shura" forces will not attack the US/Nato forces.
3. interim govt to be put in place to include all factions.
4. forces of muslim countries to provide security blanket.
5. general elections
6. US/Nato withdraws from afghanistan in 18 months?

 

[S-2]

"what say you to the lead story yesterday in the NYT about the US holding backdoor discussions with the quetta shure..."

You're talking about Filken's article. Yeah, I saw it and think that there wasn't much really new about it.

Preliminary talks by lower-level go-betweens are fine and dandy but I'm dubious that they'd lead to anything substantive.

Substantive from our perspective still means disarming and allegiance. That's what's available today to any militant. Omar has officially said he'd not negotiate with any entity other than the current gov't and only AFTER NATO/ISAF departs. Thus he won't disarm, wishes to see the Afghan gov't utterly neutered, and THEN shall negotiate at the point of his guns.

Filkens article suggested that Omar may be speaking with forked tongue there so that's got to be clarified. That'll take time and leverage...

I see Omar, Haqqani, and Hekmatyar as separate entities-all requiring separate negotiations. I question the abilities of any of these men to fully control their minions to any binding agreement nor the allegiances of their men and themselves to one another.

Can a leader be split from his troops? If so, what does that mean? I'd like to think that it means the supply and financing of a frontline commander in Afghanistan just got a LOT harder if Hekmatyar (as example) and his key leaders are hustled off to a luxurious exile in KSA for three years.

Carry on the fight and re-align with Haqqani, for instance? Call it a day and cut your own best deal for your guys and you? Any negotiation spins on leverage. Tough negotiations are where both have near-equal points of leverage. Easy negotiations is where one side or the other holds all the cards.

F.M., I don't think you'll see any serious movement by either side this year. Contacts established at some level to open channels of communication maybe but I think 2009 is a fighting year for both sides.

Likely the worst.

 

[fatman17]

F.M., I don't think you'll see any serious movement by either side this year. Contacts established at some level to open channels of communication maybe but I think 2009 is a fighting year for both sides.

Likely the worst.

i agree!hold on to your helmets!

 

[waraich66]

what say you to the lead story yesterday in the NYT about the US holding backdoor discussions with the quetta shure including mullah omar, jalaluddin haqqani and gulbedin hekmatyar on the future of afghanistan! very interesting development.

1. US/Nato forces to withdraw to their bases in afghanistan
2. the "shura" forces will not attack the US/Nato forces.
3. interim govt to be put in place to include all factions.
4. forces of muslim countries to provide security blanket.
5. general elections
6. US/Nato withdraws from afghanistan in 18 months?

US is in search of escape route from AFGHANISTAN that is reason putting pressure on Pakistan to take serious action againt Pakistani talaban.

But now talaban are loosing popularity in pushtoons and trible leaders are not supporting them.

Even then to completly flushout insurgents is impossible.It may take decades.

US should be ready for long term strategy to keep insurgency incontrol across PAK-Afghan boarders .

Lets see after 2011 when NATO exit ,how US coupe with satuation alone.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

1. US/Nato forces to withdraw to their bases in afghanistan
2. the "shura" forces will not attack the US/Nato forces.
3. interim govt to be put in place to include all factions.
4. forces of muslim countries to provide security blanket.
5. general elections
6. US/Nato withdraws from afghanistan in 18 months?

I think point 4 needs to come into play before or simultaneously with point 1.

There cannot be a security vacuum, and point 6 would need to be accompanied with an insurgent disarmament and disbanding.

But what Muslim nations would be acceptable and willing to deploy in significant numbers willing to undertake combat operations if needed? Who would fund them? Under the UN umbrella?

 

[S-2]

"I think point 4 needs to come into play before or simultaneously with point 1."

Before. They need to get in, see what's happening and to what extent our operations have evolved, and transition in the field before we deploy into cantonments. Simultaneous, to me, would be a goat-screw with our forces focused on re-deploying and their forces left naked to assume the responsibility.

Doesn't ground them well enough IMHO. Need good troops. Who? Probably I'd most trust the Jordanians, Turkish Army, and Egyptians in that order. Jordanians and Turkish army are likely the best-trained muslim forces in the world aside from Pakistan's. Perhaps Malaysian/Indonesians as well.

U.A.E. and Turkey have troops in the field and have done well to date. The U.A.E. guys look very well-equipped and clearly have an affinity in villages that's helpful stemming back a decade plus to the taliban days when they had relations.

KSA? That's a big, fat "no". They should open their wallets though. That'll likely receive a big, fat "no" from them too.