Pakistan Update: Musharraf out?Foreign fighters okay...

With the DNC bent on taking over all branches of US government, fulling overdue promises of "tough love" by yanking the US troops out of Iraq, ignoring Lebanon, and Pakistan's peace deals further inflaming Afghanistan under NATO's command, it can be said that Middle East allies for the US might be getting to be an endangered species.

Quietly behind the scenes, and out of the western media spotlight, Pakistan is steadily traveling the yellow brick road to rogue and defiant ally-in-name-and-money-only status... content just to silence bombs in their back yard while allowing Taliban/AQ and fellow ilk militants to ping pong back and forth across the Afghanistan border at will.

Two deals were cemented over the past month, involving exchanging of prisoners and, in theory, either exiling or handing over foreign militants. However S. Waziristan Taliban leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of halting their jihad battles on Afghan soil.

“First, we will not accept such a ban. But we hope the peace deal will be inked without a clause that puts restrictions on mujahideen to cross the border (into Afghanistan),” Abu Zakwan, Taliban commander in the Kotkai area of South Waziristan, told Daily Times on Saturday. Using the alias of Abu Zakwan, the commander said that government negotiators are asking for a pledge to stop cross-border attacks, but the Taliban were not committing to such an agreement.

Jihad centre: He said Waziristan was serving the region as “centre for jihad” and people from across the country were being trained for holy war “against the United States”.

To date, the peace deals have not resulted in any militants of note being either expelled or turned over to the Pakistan govt. Indeed, all they've done is add to the terrorists in the region, using their get-out-of-jail-free cards as an exchange for Pakistan Army hostages. As predicted, the militants deny knowing of any foreign fighters' whereabouts. Mehsud claims they are not harboring Zawahiri, OBL or ilk. Indeed, he insists Bin Laden is dead. I've seen this story on quite a few blogs, however not one link to the original story works. Take away what you wish from that note.

Meanship Nawaz Sharif continues his pressure on PPP's Zardari to not only oust Musharraf, but calls for trials for sedition. In today's Khaleej Times, he suggests that Zardari's party has agreed to expel Musharraf from the Presidency. Thus far, there has been no comment or confirmation from the PPP representative, nor PM Gilani.

One can safely say that Pakistan's efforts to curb jihad violence may offer temporary benefits for them... however making deals while they continue to foster jihad against the US doesn't benefit us, or the war on Islamic jihad movements, one bit. This would be the same US/Uncle Sam who's shelled out incentive cash, hand over fist, to Pakistan. And now, to add insult to injury, we're about to lose the rare military general ballsy enough to give a silent nod to US operations over Pakistan soil, and incur/endure the wrath of his country.

Pakistan, however, sees Obama with his incentive packages and "talk nice" coming. They have their hands already outstretched, whining that their anti-terror efforts on the behalf of the US costs twice what the US pays in the Coalition Support Fund.

A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.

Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.

“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”

I have to ask... just how many times has Pakistan has deployed troops, especially in that number? Last year was filled with western media, accusing Musharraf of not doing anything. Yet now we are to believe that they're in the red, deploying troops on our behalf at every turn? Apparently the Pakistanis believe the US should carry the financial load of maintaining peace in their own tribal regions.

There is a smidgen of validity in that argument, of which they will have no problems in convincing a naive POTUS Obama that smidgen is much larger in US dollars. Tho many tribal elders may not seek war against the US or the west, they do harbor and benefit from those who do. However Pakistan's internal battles did not begin with America's more prominent presence in the Middle East. Nor will they end when we withdraw and come home. Jihad was there before we came, and will always be there.

Come the era of a possible President Obama in the WH, there are very different positions on the ME political chess board now. NATO falters in Afghanistan, and NATO alliance countries refuse to pony up the needed troops. Iraqis and US forces in Iraq are making headway, but live under the threat of having their progress reversed the moment a DNC leader takes the oath of office. Lebanon is morphing before our very eyes, with the Hezbollah shadow puppet government becoming more powerful with their legislative veto powers just acquired. Last year, Iran has no nuke program via an NIE - a report Obama buys hook, line and sinker. But today even the IAEA is concerned. Still the int'l community that makes up the corrupt and anti-semite UN, dances around significant action. And Obama will make sure US actions are blessed by the corrupt before implementing.

Pakistan, already proving the appeasement path benefits only their own backyard, and that terrorists will not budge on the bigger battle of training jihad, will be perhaps the next President's biggest problem. A President Obama will make nice, pass over more cash, and terrorists and dictators will continue to smile.

Fasten your seat belts, because we're in for a bumpy ride...

UPDATED:Dangerous liaisons, oil & appeasement policyA vision of our future?

There is a slow groundswell in the West. There is no longer a proud and defiant movement to battle the jihad movements who carried out, assisted, or cheered on the 911 bombers that hit US soil in 2001.Instead the US finds itself inexplicably drawn to appeasement foreign policy, driven by war weary denizens.

It is the military families who bear the sacrifices for the war. For the majority, Americans are unaffected… except now – in their minds - in their wallets. Not for the actual war spending mind you, but because of the link from Iraq to the rising price of oil worldwide.

And so we come to the odd 6 degrees of separation between dangerous liaisons, appeasement foreign policy and the price of oil. It's ironic that it will ultimately be gas prices that herd Americans thru the gates to appeasement. But years of "the war is lost" or "this war cannot be won militarily" have taken their toll on the dangerously misinformed US voter.

We are taught Iraq and Bush are the cause for oil prices. They listen to Cindy Sheehan, as she continues the lie that Cheney still owns part of, and profits off of, Halliburton. Too many give a derelict Congress a pass. Increased global demands by a fast developing India and China, an ailing dollar, and topped with speculators fueling commodies are never factored into reality.

Facts tend to be inconvenient to political ends, and mean nothing to the disgruntled. They only know they are paying almost twice the amount they did last year for filling up their gas tanks, and seeing the effect domino into the cost of groceries. We are a nation of blame... as long as it's anyone but ourselves.

And any villain at hand will do. Mostly especially big oil - the industry America so loves to hate. Yesterday we had yet another rerun in Senate Hearings… just as in Nov 2005, Mar 2006 and May 2007, the oil industry execs appear for their annual reaming from Senators, diverting the attention from themselves to wealthy oil barons. Just as nothing happened back in 2005, nor in the decades before, nothing will again be done. But it makes for good political theatre in an election year.

As long as the US equates war on jihad elements with oil, they will support any and all attempts to extract ourselves from that battle... and hang the consequences. This same mentality that ties the two will curtain future military endeavors as a way to guarantee lower gas prices. Therefore a withdrawal from Iraq goes hand in hand with a new approach in foreign policy to accomplish that objective. Appeasement replaces military response.

Thus we come to a vision of our future. A world where our military hesitates to enter Middle East battlegrounds, and diplomats cut deals that ply our enemy with enough incentives to stop the bombs going off daily, achieving a false sense of relative peace.

Americans, desperate for a return to what they see as prosperity lost, are set to elect leadership that will lead us down the rosy path of appeasement foreign policy to accomplish just that end. Even more distressing, that trend is global in nature.

Obama, likely nominee (if you ask him), promises he will be an American President who sits down unconditionally with the enemy. Britain, formerly one of the US's strongest allies, has already placed a pacifist - PM Gordon Brown - at the helm who fits nicely with a President Obama's ideas. Brown has been busy making appointments of diplomats that echo his own sentiments.

____________________________________

UPDATE 5/24/08 - Britain's Foreign Sec'y "queries" Obama's Iran policy

Well now, surprises never cease. While on the surface it appears an Obama Presidency would be a match made in heavey with Britain's PM Brown and Foreign Sec'y Miliband, it's even more likely (and frightening...) that Mr. Obama is too extreme even for the very liberal Brits in power. Oh my...

David Miliband (see "appointment of diplomats" link above) has met with all three Presidential candidates during a trip to the US this week, feeling them out individually on their foreign policy. Apparently, in as polite of terms as possible, he's not terribly impressed with BHO.

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America’s presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a “naive” commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

snip

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain’s support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. “Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community,” Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate’s positions. But the same source added: “We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don’t know what route he will take or what he means by ‘no pre-conditions’. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we’re doing.”

A Foreign Office spokesman later said: “I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama’s policy. It would be quite wrong to say that.”

END UPDATE
__________________________________________



Australia’s Kevin Rudd is certainly more reserved in military use than John Howard, the previous strong US ally. Tho Rudd remains a strong ally in Afghanistan, and rejects Ahmadinejad, he is still a question mark in the march to appeasement foreign policy.

Pakistan, now under the PPP, has already implemented Obama'esque appeasement policy. They have made pacts with Baitullah Meshud in the S. Waziristan area, and finalizing a similar pact with the Maulana Fazlullah in the NWTA.

Mehsud has had Pakistan dancing to his tune over the past few months. At the beginning of the year, militants ravaged Pakistan with numerous suicide attacks and then suddenly proposed a peace agreement. Under immense pressure from its vulnerable domestic political and economic situation, Pakistan accepted the peace deal and then also accepted the militants' demand for the swapping of prisoners.

The world's reaction to Pakistan’s back room deals? Britain's Brown officials predictably applaud Pakistan's appeasement deals. The Taliban themselves are overjoyed. With the agreements, they have again reinforced their numbers, freeing 55 Taliban militants ranging in importance from the lowly fighter to commanders. As if freedom wasn't enough, Islamabad also "paid a sum of 20 million Pakistani rupees (US$287,000) to the militants."

We all must wonder - was the money paid to the freed jihad terrorists provided by the US for their cooperation in the global war on jihad movements? And will future appeasement deals – paying freed terrorists - also be funded by US incentive money? Such is the ugly reality of striking “deals” with the enemy.

A few of these jailed militants are former guests of Club Gitmo, including Muslim Dost. Mufti Yousuf is again running around free, while Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad is expected to be released soon. A fighter who promises to drive Pakistan to a Islamic revolution.
Where is the sanity in the Pakistan government letting loose a fighter, determined to evoke revolution?

Qari Ziaur Rahman, another freed militant they say is destined to become legendary, was also released in exchange for Pak military hostages in the Meshud appeasement agreement. Ziaur is in charge of Taliban finances.

The few not applauding this foreign policy movement is the current WH administration, and those countries who will be most affected by this “illusion of peac” - countries (like Afghanistan) who end up with these beasts proliferating in their own back yard because of another country's "truce". Other traditionally liberal countries, also directly affected with an increasing Muslim immigration that refuses to assimilate, have elected new, more conservative leadership (i.e. Italy, France and the Netherlands). Apparently, for those on the direct receiving end of these kinder/gentler tactics, it’s only a matter of time before the truth hits - one side of the parties only honors compromise.

As the US, as well as other western nations, start caving in to the appeasement trend, what is it we can expect from "peace" with such men, again running free? Do we assume that their hatred of the west dissipated with their release? Will the west be left alone if the US pulls out of Iraq, but stays in Afghanistan?

These beliefs are the delusions of the hopeful and naivel. The Taliban and other jihad movements, fresh off a propaganda victory, are recognized, forgiven, released *and* compensated for their "unjust" confinement. They have reprieve to regroup, re plan. Only this time, they may enjoy new financial and political incentives to bolster their cause. They already head back to their respective battlefields, relishing their second chance to fight the US and the west.

The bombs may go dormant in Pakistan and other places temporarily. But the new wave of global leaders, embodied by a President Obama, leads us to a fool’s paradise. A world of dangerous liaisons where the enemy has been enabled financially, politically and militarily by us - their targets. Time is not on our side.

UPDATED: Pakistan cuts 2nd "appeasement" dealAfghanistan royally PO'd

Here we go. Round #-who-can-keep-count. AP's Riaz Khan's headline screams "Pakistan, Militants agree to Peace Deal" in the NWFP, including the hotbed of activity in Swat.

A senior minister in the government of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province said the two sides sealed the 15-point plan on Wednesday during talks in the provincial capital, Peshawar.

Militants agreed to recognize the government's authority, halt suicide and bomb attacks and hand over any foreign militants in the area, minister Bashir Bilour told reporters after the talks.

In return, the government will release prisoners and make limited concessions on the demands of the cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, for the imposition of Islamic law in the region, he said.

Bilour also said that the army would "gradually" withdraw from the area - a key demand of the militants.

snip

Ali Bakht Khan, an envoy for Fazlullah, called on the government to release 202 of his associates from custody within the next two weeks.

"We will follow this agreement and shall cooperate to bring peace to Swat," Khan said.

It was unclear whether either Fazlullah or his commanders, whose men allegedly beheaded captured soldiers and pro-government elders, would face any punishment.

Ah yes, there's that we-will-impose-Islamic-law-and-you-will-not-interfere bit. The common denominator among terrorists. Needless to say the Taliban are happier than a pig in a poke about the negotiations. And why shouldn't they be? The aces fall mostly into their hands. However what comes to mind is again, Barry Rubin's article in the Israeli Insider, where he said:

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

But note this deal bears remarkable resemblance to the truce with Baitullah Mehsud's little deal last month. Per an April 24th, 2008 Dawn news blurb:

Pakistan closing in on pact with militant Mehsud tribe PESHAWAR, Pakistan, April 25 (Reuters) - Pakistan is close to clinching a peace pact with the Mehsuds, one of the most recalcitrant tribes in its tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

“It's now a matter of days before we have an agreement. The talks are in a very advanced stage,” a senior government official involved in the negotiations told Reuters.

A draft of the 15-point accord with the Mehsud tribal elders was shown to Reuters. It included a call for an end to militant activity, exchange of prisoners and gradual withdrawal of the army from South Waziristan. The draft did not explicitly say whether militants should stop cross-border attacks into neighbouring Afghanistan. But it did say Mehsud tribesmen should expel al Qaeda and other foreign fighters from their area within a month and stop their lands being used as a base for attacks.

While the authorities and tribal elders made final touches to the pact, Baitullah Mehsud, who was declared as the leader of the Pakistani Taliban late last year, on Wednesday ordered his followers to stop attacks inside Pakistan. A government official described the ceasefire as part of a series of confidence building measures that will be taken before the agreement is signed. He said the government also planned to lift blockade of Mehsud territory by the military. (Posted @ 16:30 PST)

This earlier agreement has been moving forward with little western press. Prisoners have been exchanged, the Pak military pulled back because Baitullah threatened to halt talks when they didn't, and Mehsud met with with the NWFP Governor yesterday to demand reopening of the roads.

Just how does Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta feel about Pakistan's new found friendship with their militants? Needless to say, they are quite unhappy, and sound remarkably like the US Cowboy President.

“Anyone thinking that they are able to reach peace in the region through what we call an appeasement policy — we consider it is a wrong and dangerous policy,” Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta told reporters.

A peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban in 2006 reportedly led to a spike in violence across the border.

Describing the 2006 deal as bad for Afghanistan, Spanta said the government was “extremely and infinitely concerned” about Islamabad’s moves, which officials in Pakistan say have seen troops redeployed in the tribal zone.

He cited media reports as saying the Taliban wanted peace in Pakistan so they would be able to continue jihad in Afghanistan.

“As the victim of terrorism, we have the right to say we’re concerned,” the minister said, adding Kabul had spoken of its fears with Islamabad and Washington.—AFP

While it's highly touted by western media that the US military is on the brink of "breaking", and "spread too thin", it is less reported that the enemy is in the same boat. They are but a shadow of their former selves, reconstituting their organization in Pakistan. If part of these agreements are to again shuffle the fighters back across the borders, Afghani leaders are right to be concerned.

And for what end? Peace talks and truces between the Pak government and their militants do not have a history of success. Afghanistan's concern that this may be merely a bait and switch maneuver is echo'ed by the US and John Negroponte, also citing the last failure with Baitullah Mehsud in 2006. The Afghanis and US/NATO forces will beat the militants back again, and they will - once again - land in the laps of the Pakistanis who seem content merely to get them out of their own back yards.

Fact is, until the Pak govt stops refusing int'l help in controlling these cockroaches (or takes assertive moves to control them theirselves), this ping pong of the enemy will go on, unabated. Yes... Pakistan remains a looming problem for the next POTUS.

Considering the terms of these "truces", one might say it's time to sent our stop watches. To see signs of cooperation at the onset, Mehsud terms dictate he should be expelling foreign fighters within a month. The Fazlullah is supposed to hand them over to the Pak government... but with no stated time frame in the AP article.

From what we've seen of Mehsud's deal in the early weeks, his demands have been fast and furious, and the threats of resuming hostilities remain bubbling ever close to the surface. Yet there is still no line of exiled foreign AQ/Taliban crossing the border to Afghanistan enmasse. Meshud has what he wants. And what of the Pak goverment? They have temporarily quieted the bombs and deaths, and still await bussing of the enemy to anywhere but Pakistan. Yet despite the "peace" deal, the fostering and support of jihad movements - source of Pakistan's bombs - continues. The problem has not been solved. Merely relocated and postponed.

This dependence upon the bad guys to police their own militant buddies contrasts starkly with Iraq military's recent launching of Operation The Lion's Roar - a mission to forcibly expel the foreign elements from their soil. Already in their short history, the Iraqi government has learned that you cannot depend upon those that harbor the foreigners to kick them out into the cold.

But note the word used by Afghanistan's Foreign Minister - "appeasement". This is not a media pundit or candidates for POTUS. This is a word used by a leader who sees the results of "appeasement" in their own back yards. It is a very real result of an oft tried and failed policy.

Which brings us, once again, to our regional ally Afghanistan and their objections to Pakistan's "appeasement" (their words) process. This is a policy that US hopeful, Barack Obama, has every intention of mimicking. The likelihood of a President Obama succeeding in peace with such appeasement deals is just as unlikely as Pakistan will be with theirs.

But obviously, it's extremely likely that he will accomplish royally pissing off our allies...

_________________________________________________

UPDATE MAY 22nd, 2008 - BRITAIN SIDES WITH APPEASEMENT POLICY

According to today Adnkronos article, Britain has decided to back the negotiations with the Pakistani militants.

Britain supports talks between Pakistan’s new rulers and tribal leaders aimed at curbing insurgency along the Afghan border, Foreign Secretary David Miliband told a US audience late on Wednesday.

In a speech to a Washington think-tank, Miliband said there was “no military solution” to the spread of militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Miliband and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a joint press conference in Washington on Wednesday that promoting democracy was the best way to fight terrorism in Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan.

He visited Pakistan last month for talks with the new government and backed the government’s effort to seek a negotiated solution to the insurgency in its tribal region.

But Miliband warned that there should only be reconciliation with those who renounce violence.

Miliband is Britain's youngest foreign sec'y in three decades. Appointed by PM Gordon Brown, he's part of the kinder/gentler British rule that is slowly emerging after the departure of the US ally, Tony Blair. An outspoken "skeptic" of the OIF from the get go, Miliband has been busy shaking up his department, moving diplomats to cover the Asian and Middle East areas more heavily.

He is, evidently, a believer that the days of the US as a superpower are on the decline.

While the world's balance of power is moving from West to East, some have overstated the decline of the United States as the world's superpower, he told the audience.

"In economic terms, and even more so in military terms, the U.S. will have at least another generation as the global superpower," Miliband said. "Nevertheless, this century may come to be known as the Asian century."

Miliband said the United States remains Britain's most important ally, but acknowledged links with a host of other countries are becoming increasingly important.

Our allies... oh joy. Well, he and a President Obama should see eye to eye on the increasing irrelevance of the US in a world dominated by appeasement and politically correct behavior. I guess between the two, they will only piss off our allies who are actually engaging the jihad movement enemies...

Basra: A glimpse into a future Iraq under DNC foreign policy

Gordon Brown's admin has done the GOP a favor in the pre'election run up... they have, with their premature withdrawal from Basra, demonstrated to the world what will happen in Iraq if coalition troops leave before the Iraqis are fully capable of holding their own.

"Holding their own" includes more than just troops training, or political reconciliation - assuming... when you view the US DNC vs GOP... there is such a thing as political reconciliation. Part of Iraq's battle to be self-sufficient also depends upon competent structure in their finance/budget execution departments. For what good is having a stellar military if they cannot appropriate gear and ammunition? And what good is political reconciliation if they can allocate funds for national projects, but can not implement them due to bureaucratic red tape?

Today's Telegraph finds some US senior advisors giving our UK ally a discreet slap on the hand for governing via poll results.

Although British commanders in Basra still intend to play only a back-seat role, the deteriorating security picture nationwide prompted harsh comments from the principal architect of the surge strategy.

Mr Kagan, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think-tank, told The Sunday Telegraph: "British forces have an obligation to step up when needed and it sure looks here like they're needed.

"It is rather a watershed moment in the Anglo-American alliance. I understand that your Prime Minister has already said that the special relationship is over. There's an issue here of fulfilling your obligations as an ally, freely undertaken."

His fellow surge architect, retired US general Jack Keane, also voiced doubts that the Iraqi security forces would be able to pacify Basra unassisted. "There are about 8,000 armed militiamen with a stranglehold on the people of Basra. The situation in Basra has deteriorated since the British pulled out."

Their comments are likely to embarrass Downing Street and anger British commanders in Basra, who have insisted their policy of scaling down their presence is to encourage Iraqi security forces to take the lead. Senior officers also said that the coalition command in Baghdad approved their plans.

snip

Mindful of US unease over Basra, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will signal this week that there will be no withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq this spring.

He will tell the Commons that "all options remain under review", but government sources said it was accepted within the military that any troop withdrawal at this time would be "presentationally unacceptable".

This is the same British Sec'y of Defense who - just days ago in the thick of the Basra battle (March 29th) - stated in an interview that Britain should negotiate with the Taliban and Hezbollah. But, in the next breath, also noted that there was *no* negotiating with al Qaeda.

Defense Sec'y Browne is the perfect embodiment of a leader who lacks the education and comprehension of the enemy and their alliances. Ruling power achieved via violence, and the desire for strict adherence to (their version of) Islamic law, are the common threads of the multi pronged global Islamic jihad movement.

In short, you can no more separate al Qaeda from Hezbollah or the Taliban than you can separate the differing membership of medical professionals from the AMA.

The Basra battle was looming - and is necessary in Iraq's long term future - prior to it's recent kickoff. Or, as Iraqi visiting fellow, Nibras Kazimi put it in his 3/25/08 blog post, "Operation Calavary Charge (Updated)", at Talisman Gate:

This is Operation ‘Cavalry Charge’, which is the best translation I could come up with for صولة الفرسان.

Its chief objective is to flush out the organized crime cartels that control the port of Basra and the oil pipelines of the province. One major criminal force in the Basrawi scene are groups that affiliate themselves with the Sadrist movement and its Mahdi Army. Many of these criminal rings are also associated with certain factions of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that operate in Basra both for intelligence/sabotage purposes as well as enriching themselves. By knocking out these egregious manifestations of lawlessness, Operation Cavalry Charge will have the accrued benefit of mashing up the more subtle patterns of Iran’s malignant influence in Iraqi Shiism’s foremost economic prize, the oil fields and port of Basra.

But is this how this story is being reported by the US and Arab media? Of course not!

The dominant false narrative du jour goes something like this: the Sadrists are angry over a number of things (arrests, political wrangling with the Hakim family and the Da’awa Party, etc.) so they decided to back away from Sadr’s seven-month ‘ceasefire’ (a term invented by the western media as a deliberately wrongful translation of تجميد وإعادة هيكلة جيش المهدي: “freezing and restructuring the Mahdi Army”) by staging ‘civil disobedience’ (…such as shutting down primary schools and shops by threatening teachers, students and the middle class) but things quickly deteriorated into the perpetual cycles violence that these journalists and pundits are mentally wedded to and have staked their thin expertise on predicting as Iraq’s inevitable fate.

If little old me had known about Operation Cavalry Charge a month ago then it stands to reason that the Sadrists and the Iranians had heard about it too. In fact, it was supposed to start a week ago, but got delayed allegedly because Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim got cold feet. However, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced the issue and flew down to Basra a couple of days ago (media reports said he got in yesterday; I was told something else) to personally oversee his boldest move yet: demonstrating that he’s got the gumption to use Iraqi security resources to battle Shia militias and crime cartels and take back Iraq’s vital economic nerve-center, all without appealing for American help and in a direct challenge to Iranian objectives.

The events in Basra are a lose-lose scenario for the DNC posturing on Iraq. They lose in their calls for withdrawal as a way to further Iraq's progress. The British turned over control of Basra to the Iraqis prematurely. Were they still in control, Operation Calvary Charge would have been delayed, allowing yet more time for Iraq military progress and increased equipment.

Yet the British semi-abandoment is somewhat of a blessing in disquise, as now the world can envision Iraq's future with a US premature withdrawal under Obama or Clinton. The Iraqis demonstrated their intents and desires to clean out the criminal cartels in their country. And, despite their fledgling status (and with a little help from US air strikes and some British side fire) they have won the battle. Sadr has called his street dogs off.

The DNC naysayers also lose when they deem Iraq as ungovernable, and in the midst of a civil war. This is about as much a "civil war" as US police actions against mobsters, cartels and gangs operating in US borders. To call Iraqis killing Iraqis (irrespective of Sunni or Shia) civil war demands the same label apply to American on American gang and criminal violence. It should also be noted we have a higher number of of those "American insurgent" deaths.

There are most definitely "wins" here in Iraq progress. The plan and will to secure Basra by the Maliki gov't is a step forward. The fact they lasted so long on their own before getting coalition aid a few days later shows they not only have the will to police their own country, but they are getting better at doing so.

Another win is for Maliki himself, long portrayed as Sadr's puppet and paid official. While it held some truth in the past, as Sadr's support catapulted Maliki to a position of power, that relationship has been altered.

But the biggest win goes to the Iraqis themselves. For it not only shows the govt plans on policing the entire nation, sans cartels, but shuns Iranian influence simultaneously. It is their way of saying their intrusive neighbor - "our port... our control... hands off".

Now picture our future. A newly elected DNC POTUS pulls US troops, leaving Iraq's so-called "civil war" in the hands of the Iraqis. Basra now goes nationwide wide, and the new Iraq police and military forces are overwhelmed, and under supplied with gear, vehicles and munitions. The jihad radicals are, of course well armed with black market war supplies by Iran, Syria, and every other underground channel they can tap. Thre is no dearth in middle east nations that want to see a free Iraq fail.

Iraq's failure or success will lay squarely on the hands of the next CIC, and how he/she chooses to continue our presence in Iraq. And yet, I will wager that if they do the right thing, and Iraq assumes competent control over their future without US troops, the DNC will bemore than willing and quick to take credit for success.

But they will be just as quick to dig a mass grave for the plethora of 2005-2008 press stories of their past - filled with withdraw/surrender demands.

Islamic jihadists hail Aussie withdrawal under Rudd a "victory"

Mata Musing: This all stems from Howard's election loss, and Rudd's ensuing Iraq military decisions as new Aussie PM. With a possible Dem in the WH come 2009, can another "victory" claim and yet more taunts from the Global Islamic Jihad Movement be far behind? With this new found "victory" mentality and confidence, can more assaults be on the horizon?

I think all of us recognize that, with this enemy, it's not if... but when. But if you are still a doubter, perhaps this Jan 25, 2008 interview with Pakistan Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, may sober you up..

"We want to eradicate Britain and America, and to shatter the arrogance and tyranny of the infidels. We pray that Allah will enable us to destroy the White House, New York, and London. We place our trust in Allah. Soon, we will witness the miracles of jihad. I myself have experienced many miracles. Every time I was determined to do something, I prayed to Allah, and he made it possible. Our jihad is defensive jihad. Our determination is great, and it is directly entirely against Britain and America. The soldiers of heresy who have come here to oppress the Muslims - we will respond to their injustice and tyranny. One of the miracles of jihad will be that sooner or later, we will destroy their countries."

Just remember, voters... you gets what you asks for. I do believe that whomever wins the election - Dem or GOP - they are still "my" President. Because of this shared repercussion of an election, I pray voters are wise. For it's quite possible that our decision this fall - if not so wise - may cost the blood of many others in the determined quest for a one-sided peace.

Sean McCormack speaks the truth, as he did in an Oct 2007 press conference, when he reiterated (INRE the PPK) "you can't negotiate with a terrorist organization." Lest ye think this is partisan rhetoric, the proof lies in Pakistan's recent history. Ryan Crocker and Musharraf attempted to quell violence by negotiations and deals with Islamic jihadists in the tribal regions. Crocker, in an interview, himself admitted, "Well, I think what it showed is there are some people you simply cannot make deals with." (see also Frontline's PBS special, "The Return of the Taliban"). These are not the idle words of pols hoping to rack up votes and gain power. These are from those dealing with the enemy and our allies daily.

And you must also remember another fact - the Taliban are only another al Qaeda with a different patch on their jackets. A rose by any other name...

Translation of the gloating jihadists is provided in it's entirety below. Australia's Mark Schliebs responds (sorta) to the jihad website claims with this story.

.

'Fleeing like a cornered mouse'
January 31, 2008 12:00am

BELOW is the full statement from insurgent group the Jihad and Reform Front posted on a propaganda website on December 5, 2007, translated from Arabic for NEWS.com.au.

The political office of The Conquerors’ Army:

Australia – a new ally fleeing like a cornered mouse

In the name of God All-Merciful, All-Compassionate

“They will not fight against you all together unless it is in fortified villages or behind walls, their valour is great among themselves; you think them whole, but their hearts are scattered because they are an irrational people”. (The Mustering: 14)

Praise God the guide of clouds, revealer of the book and defeater of parties, prayers and peace to the maternal Prophet, to kin and friends, to beloved followers and to those who follow them and walk their path to judgment day.

Now then: -

Despite the deception of their Christian enemies, their allies and spiteful agents the Moslem fighters are going from victory to victory and from strength to strength. This is confirmation of the saying of His Majesty: “Those who struggle in Our cause will be guided with Our ways for God is with the benevolent”. (The Spider: 69). It is upon the Moslem fighter to be truthful, sincere in conscience and to present his work and effort, but victory is from the Lord the Custodian and Victor.

Hence when the cross and its allied corroborators exercise their muscles while a series of collapses of its allies and their withdrawals around the Americans continue these will be the result of painful blows to the Christians at the hands Moslem fighters.

It was not but, almost, yesterday when some allies withdrew and today we see the withdrawal of another Christian ally leaving the Americans drowning alone in this swamp. God willing this ally is Australia, and despite the few numbers of soldiers that this country has in the Christian Alliance its withdrawal will be considered an achievement and victory to be added to the numerous victories of the Moslem fighters, praise God. This is proof of the collapse of the alliance through the kindness of God, the Majesty, and the powerful arms of those heroes who lost their blood and money for God their Lord to please Him, the Almighty.

It is proof that the Moslem fighters have walked the right path to victory and empowerment, God permitting, and toward removing the occupier whomever he be from all Moslem lands and toward establishing rational leadership, God permitting, as our beloved and Imam had promised it will be - rational in the way of the prophets. We look forward to that day and are certain of it with every conviction and ask God Almighty that that day will return our people to glory and victory and that the rule in the land will return to God’s law. This is what we ultimately hope for and seek to achieve and will achieve, God willing, through ourselves sooner, or our sons later.

On this occasion we call on all Moslem fighters from all factions working on the land in beloved Iraq to always, in keeping with their undertaking to Moslem kin, to be as one, rather to be as one hand with their like, to crown these ensuing victories by declaring the unification of all the factions of Moslem fighters in Iraq under one title, and one authority, for they are of one goal, one objective and one religion and every faction is the more aware of its steps and struggles.

We say to them that the eyes of Moslems, their hopes in the Islamic world, after that of God Almighty, are all pinned on you and on your unity. So bring happiness into the hearts of Moslems in the Islamic world through your unification and work towards it as you have had before with your painful blows to the cross and its agents. Do so with your blessed steps towards unification between the factions and formation of fronts, we are pulling your arms and imploring you for further of these steps toward achieving full unification between all factions and fronts. Our path will be opposite to that of the cross and its allies so that the scales will balance in our favour, for we are marching towards unification, towards rallying together and our enemies are marching towards being torn, disbanded, and the successive collapse of the allies.

Thus we will achieve victory after God Almighty grants us success. For, the whole matter is with God as already revealed, but it is up to us to endeavour and to trust in him, the Almighty. In fact, Moslems have not been victorious in the past through the multitude of their numbers nor their disunity, but through unity and trust in their God and this is God’s law for his creatures, and there is no substitution for God’s law. We have every confidence in your honesty, and sincerity to your religion, so come forth with us to pay homage to our Prophet - God’s blessing and peace be upon Him. Thereby we will say to Him as His companions in the troop assault (the trenches) had said: “we are those who have paid homage to Muhammad through Moslem fighting so that we may remain eternal.”

In concluding we ask God the Powerful and Holy to unite the ranks of Moslem fighters in Iraq, in particular and around the globe in general, to protect us from all forms of temptation, and to accept what we have presented, will present and what we achieve in action and sacrifice for His sake that He might add them to our balance of good deeds. The last of our evocation is to the Glory of God who has guided us to this and made enabled us to be guided but not without His guidance. God strengthen you against the Christians, those who supported them, tormented them (sic), scattered their hearts and ranks (sic) and showed us in them your power He is All-hearing, All-responsive.

- The Jihad and Reform Front

Faces to the names... all in one place

Bill Roggio, with the help of Matt Dupree, has put together a slideshow: "In Pictures: The Taliban Leadership". You'll not only see many of the more well known Taliban names over at The Long War Journal, but the boys have included some profile bits as well.

Well done... very well done.

Also, another stellar post from Lt. Col. Caveman over at Ramblings from the Rock, "Musharraf's cards and the future of Pakistan". Eloquently puts what few, if none, of our CIC wannabees can figure out... that sometimes you must work with the bad guys to get rid of the really bad guys. Yo, Lt. Col... maybe you should run?

The battle for NWFP and Pakistan Picking the lesser of two "bad guy" factions?

Musharraf's Pakistan finds itself in one tough to win situation. They toe a fine line between a population that resents US/western influence in their affairs, but also wishes to remain a US ally without exacerbating their internal violence. They are also a people that largely reject "Talibanisation" as the law of the land.

Now some officials fear that if they do not contain their internal and border problems, the US may see that as sufficient reason to come in, guns a'blazing (so to speak). Considering the rhetoric of our leading Dem candidates, they may not be far off the mark.

A senior Pakistani security official elaborated for Asia Times Online, "We have actually been thrown into a deep quagmire where we are not left with many options. The CIA's presence in Pakistan has made it impossible for Pakistan to handle the Taliban problem independently and through dialogue. On the other hand, there is no military solution on the horizon against the Taliban and another [Pakistani army] operation against militants would cause more than serious repercussions."

On the heels of the "what to do about Pakistan" debate... and Pakistan's own realization that they are damned if they accept US help, and possibly damned if they don't... there is a viable, and little talked about strategy to cut off supply lines to both the Taliban and AQ in Pakistan using both coalition troops and the Pak army.

The boundaries of the operation have been set on the basis of two facts. These are al-Qaeda's bases and the Taliban's supply lines from Pakistan into the three southeastern Afghan provinces of Paktia, Paktika and Khost and Helmand in the southwest. Al-Qaeda bases have been located in Bajaur Agency and North Waziristan while the Taliban's supply lines have primarily been traced from South Waziristan.

Of serious interest to Pak officials is... as always... the repercussions of such an operation. They know what the hornets do when their nests are disturbed. And one example of that is the diverse calvary militants, riding even now to Islamic cleric, Mullah Fazlullah's, rescue and endangering the hopeful success of the Pak army's crackdown in the NWFP.

Compounding the problem is the fact that the Pakistani military is fast losing all of its gains in the Swat Valley in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). In response to rising militancy in the valley, fueled by Mullah Fazlullah, over the past few months the army has cracked down, forcing the militants to retreat into the tribal areas.

Al-Qaeda responded by activating its network through Maulana Faqir Muhammad, the local strongman of Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. Faqir, from Bajaur Agency, sent men and arms into the valley, while Punjabi and Uzbek fighters from the South Waziristan and North Waziristan tribal areas joined hands with the militants. As a result, the militants have fought back strongly against the Pakistani army, which could pull back in the coming days.

Faqir Muhammad, the local Mujahideen commander, is the possibly the most wanted fugitive in the Bajaur Agency. From a Nov 2006 The News article:

The bearded young Maulana is surrounded by dozens of masked armed men, which the locals said was giving the impression as if his bodyguards are not locals.

“Why would they hide their faces if they are local when their leader is not doing so?” asked a local who chose not to be named, obviously concerned about his safety. “Our Jihad will continue and we will avenge the blood of our innocent brothers and children,” the Maulana said.

This is not the first time Faqir Muhammad and Fazlullah have battled together. In fact, in July of 2007, a familiar cast of characters re-emerges, demonstrating their long term jihad/Islamic law relationship.

In two recent incidents on Thursday July 12[2007], two suicide bomb attacks killed at least seven people, including three policemen, in town of Miran Shah in North Waziristan tribal region and Mingora, Swat.

In the north and the north-eastern districts of NWFP the militant outfits and students from seminaries did make their presence felt by attacking the personnel of the security forces and resorting to looting, burning offices of foreign NGOs working for the welfare of the survivors of the October-8 earthquake and blocking the roads after the military operation in the country's capital was over.

snip

In the South and North Waziristan agencies where it was widely believed that the government would face a tough time at the hands of the tribal militants if Maulana Ghazi was harmed, suicide attacks have now begun. Even the Maulana had mentioned in his statements that tribal militant leader, Commander Baitullah, would come to his rescue.

Note this incident was local elements at war. There was threats if Islamabad interfered, and they were damned if they didn't by another faction.

A pattern starts emerging after cyber-reading of these men, and their intertwined destinies. There are those that see a global jihad, and those content with their own local Islamic law territories. To conquer and control these areas, regardless of the scope of territory involved, there are the warriors... quick to fight, ready and able to instill fear, and easily allied with the global jihad movement (AQ). Men such such as Baitullah, Faqir Muhammad, Zawahiri, Bin Laden, etc.

And then there are those who appear to use the election and legislative system to bring *all* of a state (i.e. Pakist) under Islamic rule. And MMA's Maulana Fazlur Rehman is one such man. In the aforementioned July event, which was inclusive (and did not end with...) the death of the Maulana Ghazi, the Maulana Fazl took a more hands off approach... preferring to use the event for political purposes instead of war. A tactic the Fazl practices even now.

Though, in a belated move, the MMA leadership is trying to use the post-operation scenario against the government by organising public rallies in Peshawar and other parts of the province, the people seem skeptical about the intentions of the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-Fazlur Rehman. Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, heads of JI and JUI-F respectively, preferred to attend the multi-party conference called by the exiled former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in London when the Lal Masjid operation was in full swing.

It's an veritable mind game for our western minds, trying to sort out just which bad guy ends up holding power, and it's effect upon the western infidels. Who then is the worse of evils for the west? Do we opt for those that negotiate for their Islamic state thru more peaceful government means over the violent jihad players? In one way, I would say yes.

But then reality sets in. Do they not still achieve an end goal that threatens the security and very survival of the West? Whether or not their Islamic state is created via violence, or peaceful and legitimate reasons, it is in the Islamic states that the jihad movement thrives unfettered.

It's important to understand that walking that fine line will always be a reality for a Muslim democracy. And tho we know dialogue and appeasement works not between the west and militants, it is in our vested interest to see attempts for deals that work between the militants and the Muslim nations ... attempts such as the little publicized "jirga" in Kabul last summer that enjoyed a slim measure of success. If they can find a tenuous peace that results in minimizing the regeneration of jihad warriorsm we may achieve a disquieting peace in the world.

Visit Lt. Col. Caveman for lots of good stuff!

Lt. Col. Cavement over at Ramblings from the Rock has hit multiple home runs in news links and commentary posts today. You need to go visit and catch his provocative dissertations. Below some summaries of great news, flying under the radar of western media fixation on self-absorbed Presidential candidates.

1: Dr. Amin al Haq, Bin Laden's Black Guard security head honcho, evidently fell short of performance on his own security. Unconfirmed reports of his own capture in Lahore, Pakistan. Don't think the Pakistani's have an ACLU complaining about waterboarding...

2: A couple of items on the Iraq front... Sadr trying to create a new party of the disgruntled... and al Sistani telling his flock to "quit'cher fightin' and turn in the bad guys!" Yeah on the second. And hope that's one small party created from the first.

3: Pakistan updates: Baitullah bunch busy executing tribal leaders who won't play nice with him. That'll win some hearts and minds of the denizens...

Also stellar, and I do mean *stellar* reality check on Pakistan's situation by Amir Taheri. I've not held the belief that Pakistan was going to fall easily and willingly to Islamic law. But if you listen to the western media, Pakistan's sinking fast and Musharraf is the new devil himself. Huh? Oh that we must get our information from such clueless hacks in the western media.

Split in Pakistan's MMA alliances

Had to wonder when the Maulana Fazlur Rahman of the MMA Pak coalition would speak up.

And here he is... reiterating much what any Islamic law advocate does.

BANNU, Jan, 5: The chief of his own faction of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, Maulana Fazlur Rehman has alleged that rulers are trying to create a war-like situation in Waziristan, Swat and other parts of the county to please their American masters.

Speaking at a public meeting at the sports complex on Saturday, the JUI leader said that the reports of attacks on him were just rumours spread by the government’s quarters to create panic.

Maulana Fazl said that the United States and its European allies had imposed an undeclared war on the ummah. He said at this critical time when the whole world was afraid of America’s material strength, only the ulema had accepted the challenge.

He said western powers were trying to defame Islam by launching propaganda against it and Muslims were being portrayed as terrorists. But, he said, the five-year tenure of the religious parties’ government in the NWFP had proved that Muslims were peace loving and did not believe in terrorism.

snip

He said the MMA had raised its voice in parliament against the passage of what he called ‘un-Islamic laws’ such as women rights bill and changes in curricula.

snip

The JUI leader called upon people to come forward and join the camp of the ulema to steer the country out of the crisis.

This appears to be a half-hearted attempt by the Maulana to sound engaged on Baitullah Mehsud's behalf, as Mehsud was under siege this past week by warplanes. I use the phrase, "sound engaged" as my mind wanders back to Ray Robison's analyses, "The War on Terror Comes to Pakistan".

Musharraf, though certainly stepping on a lot of toes with his emergency declaration, has used this time to redeploy his forces, which were stagnant on the border with India, into combat. For the first time, he is sending large scale maneuver forces backed by artillery, tanks, and air support into regions controlled by al Qaeda and the sympathetic Taliban. His forces have reportedly driven the Taliban and al Qaeda forces of Maulana Fazlullah into the hills. The Pakistani military has even followed these terrorists into the administered areas which Musharraf effectively turned over to the Taliban over a year ago.

There are indications that Fazlullah himself had no real interest in an armed takeover of the Swat valley, where the bulk of the fighting has been located. It appears very much like he was driven to it by al Qaeda forces coming in from the tribal areas and imposing their will on the "young Taliban" to take more land in Pakistan.

This is an indication that al Qaeda is desperate, has redirected forces once meant for Iraq and is willing to crush the same people who have hosted them in Pakistan. In effect, they are doing the same thing in Pakistan that led to their defeat in Iraq. Only this time, they have no other strong support base to fall back to if they lose the Pakistan tribal regions.

The most critical indicator is that the MMA, the extremely militant Islamic party that opposes Musharraf, has remained mute as the army has slaughtered its Taliban and al Qaeda brethren. Did no one in the media notice this? Not one journalist noticed that the jihad block of the Pakistan government was silent about the slaughter of the Taliban in Swat? And they call President Bush "incurious"?

MMA's JUI emir, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, is speaking up now... no longer silent. But still lifts nary a digit to physically aid his brethern in arms. Instead, he's doing a stump speech, lobbying for votes and attempting to unite the religious based parties in order to gain power to instill Islamic laws. The JUI party of the MMA was not in support of boycotting the upcoming elections, seeing a weakened Musharraf as a window of opportunity. This attitude, however, is not shared by the majority of the MMA coalition groups.

The Maulana Fazl (alt sp) is no newcomer to Pakistan politics. It was under Benazir's previous PM terms that he created the Taliban at her request with Mullah Omar. That relationship, according to Pak's Daily Times, still remained intact even before her recent death.

Questioning the logic of the APDM decision, the Maulana said it should first gauge public response to the decision. Otherwise, they would find themselves alone after the start of the process, he warned the alliance.

He said that he had talked with PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto on telephone and there was a possibility of seat adjustments with her party.

The JUI would be breaking against the tide of five other MMA coalition parties by not boycotting. Again, this leads to (viable?) rumours of dissention among the leadership of the strict Islamic movement in Pakistan, and documented supporters of AQ in the past.

In case the MMA breaks up, JUI (F) will suffer the most in elections, particularly in the NWFP, where it had won maximum seats in 2002 because of the electoral alliance with other religious parties, especially the Jamaat-i-Islami.

“If other parties in the coalition don’t go by Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s decision to contest the election, and the alliance breaks up because of differences, we’ll not repent our policy,” the MMA leader told Dawn.

Interestingly, chief of another faction of JUI, Maulana Samiul Haq, also dissociated himself from the boycott call.

About the APDM’s demand for restoration of Supreme Court to its pre-Nov 3 position, Maulana Fazal said: “We support the independence of judiciary and not restoration of judges. The sacked judges, including the Supreme Court Chief Justice, had taken oath under PCO. The present lot has also done the same.”

With powerhouse Maulana Fazl bucking his MMA buds, turning a blind eye to the siege on Baitullah, it's apparent he's banking on an election victory. And considering the Maulana's stance on the judges and oaths, mentioned above - one that mirrors Musharraf's - one has to wonder if, as Robison suggested, there is some behind the scenes' agreement with the elected President?

Afghan Islamic Council wants public executions reinstated

Apparently the Qu'ran instructs conversion of infidels to Islam, or death. However it's highly intolerant of conversion *from* Islam.... truly a "my way or the highway" attitude.

Not unexpected news of the day - the Islamic Council's complaint to Afghan president Karzai about conversions to Christianity happening in the country. They want Karzai to not only to prevent foreign aid groups influence on Afghans, but also have demanded that public executions again be reintroduced.

The council, an influential group but without binding authority, is made up of Islamic clergy and ulema (scholars) from various parts of Afghanistan and made the warning in a statement during a meeting with Karzai on Friday

The ulema have always played a crucial role in Afghanistan and have been behind a series of revolts against past governments.

But since the ousting of Taliban's radical Islamic administration by U.S.-led troops in 2001, Afghanistan has seen an unprecedented period of freedoms.

"The council is concerned about the activities of some ... missionary and atheistic organs and considers such acts against Islamic sharia (law), the constitution, and political stability," said a copy of the statement obtained by Reuters.

"If not prevented, God forbid, catastrophe will emerge, which will not only destabilize the country, but the region and the world."

snip

Strict interpretations of Islam as practiced in Afghanistan treat conversions as apostasy, which is punishable by death.

The council also urged Karzai to stop local TV stations from airing Indian soap operas and movies -- enormously popular in Afghanistan -- which they said showed obscenities and scenes which threatened the morality of society.

Unfortunately, with freedom of choice comes really bad western-style TV shows. It's really tempting to mandate some level of entertainment or intelligence standards from Hollywood and foreign spawn. But with the good comes the bad. That's where there are channel changers, remotes, and childblocker software. Maybe we should come up with a "ShariaBlocker" software to sell in caliphate areas... ah... the capitalist in me is at work.

Seriously, anyone with half a memory can recall the broadcasts and reports of the Friday stadium murders prevalent in Afghanistan in 2002. A return to those times is not good. And apparently, the Islamic Council has taken a firm stance against any religious tolerance in new Afghanistan.

Karzai instructed various government departments to address the demands of the council, but stopped short of committing to change, Jebrayeli said.

"If he fails to listen to the Ulema, people will further distance themselves from the government (and) there will be more pessimism and instability," he said.

Somehow I doubt that the majority of Afghans want a return to oppression. So that pessimism and instability predicted by the Sharia puppet, Jebrayeli, will continue to be from Islamic jihadists in the nation - executed in order to reinstate Islamic law in the country. And that's a battle I suspect they will lose. The denizens have tasted freedom from oppression. And while their lives are not perfect, the only way they'd turn back is if forced at gunpoint and sabre.

More divides in Taliban/Afghanistan tactics?

NEFA and the Long War Journal are reporting a parting of ways between Taliban spiritual leader, Mullah Omar and his appointed southern commander, Mansour Dadullah.

Mullah Muhammad Omar states that this decision is based on Mansour Dadullah’s disobedience and carrying out actions which do not comply with the principles of the Islamic Emirate. All members of the Taliban are instructed to completely disassociate themselves from Dadullah, who has not only been removed as commander, but denied any position within the Taliban.

Dadullah hasn't lasted long... only appointed in July of 2007. However his high profile threats to the west not long after his rise in the Taliban are well reported.

Taliban military commander Mansour Dadullah told ABC News that last month he supervised the dispatch of militant cells to United States, Great Britain, Canada and Germany from terror training camps in Pakistan.

"You will, God willing, be witness to more attacks," Dadullah was quoted in the ABC News report of an interview conducted four days ago.

His videos have made it to YouTube. And he claimed that Bin Laden was alive and well in June of 2007, after receiving a letter of condolence from the AQ figurehead on the death of his brother.

Bin Laden "told me to follow in the steps of my brother and urged Muslims to follow the steps of Mullah Dadullah because he was a mujahid", said Dadullah, who was described by Jazeera as a Taliban military leader.

This reaffirms Ray Robison's assertion that the dissent in the ranks of the Taliban, and a possible hostile take over by AQ fighters infiltrating the Afghan Taliban, is indeed true. While Dadullah dutifully appeared to follow Bin Laden's directives, Mullah Omar found him to be too rebellious in his short stint as a Taliban leader to keep.

Per another Long War Journal article on the relationship:

Mujahed, the Taliban spokesman for eastern Afghanistan, did not provide details behind Dadullah's dismissal. Matt Dupee, a contributor to Afgha.com and The Long War Journal, indicated there are "ongoing rifts within the Taliban's upper echelon" over the past year.

"The Taliban’s decision to remove Shah Mansoor as their key commander in the southern areas is a significant development," said Dupee. "Not only does it highlight the ongoing rifts within the Taliban’s upper echelon, but it follows their removal from Helmand’s Musa Qala district and a long list of successful Coalition operations against their command and control capabilities."

Siraj Haqqani has been rising in the ranks of the Taliban in eastern Afghanistan. Combined Joint Task Force-82 has stated Siraj has adopted al Qaeda's ideology and tactics, and is alienating Afghan commanders.

Jihad -AQ umbrella groups still fracturing?

First to catch my eye, and get my brain cells working, was a Reuters article by Jon Hemming, and edited by Alex Richardson - "Taliban leader taunts NATO". It is, as one would expect, the rantings of a Taliban chieftain tossing out barbs and propaganda for a media boost to his "troops".

Apart from the relief that someone (meaning at least Omar) actually realizes that NATO holds the reins in Afghanistan, and not US commanders, of the most interest was the last paragraph in the article...

Omar promised no let up in Taliban activities during the usual lull in fighting that accompanies the harsh Afghan winter and denied there was any rift in his organisation.

Hello? Rift in the organization? Forget Omar's veiled threats and pompous bragging. To me the real story is what Hemming did NOT write about. And a subject that I've been craving more info on daily... to no avail.

And that takes us back to what I blogged on Ray Robison's suggestion that AQ and the Global Islamic Jihad Movement in general is fracturing in multiple places at the very foundations.


There should be more specifics on this "rift" that Mullah Omar goes out of his way to publicly deny... the more than curious want to know.

Also more feedback from Zawahiri on a few different subjects - courtesy of Threatswatch. He condemned the Arab leadership for "betrayal" for their Annapolis summit meeting in his latest Dec 14th video distribution.

“The czar of Washington invited 16 Arab countries… to sit in one room, at one table with the Israelis… (and) witnessed the betrayal deals to sell Palestine.” After calling upon Palestinians to not lose sight of the goal “to liberate every inch of Muslim land.”

But he's not done yet... remember Sayd Imam al-Sharif? He was Zawahiri's predecessor for the group, Egyptian Islamic Jihad. And, in mid November, fired off a new jihad manual with kinder, gentler jihad rules of engagement. Zawahiri, having no respect for his predecessor's views, had a few choice words for him as well..

Zawahiri turns to Egypt and rails against Sayyed Imam al-Sharif, a leading jihadi militant who last month recanted while in prison. Quoting Malcolm X he states that Islam must be defended against unbelief and then paints the Liberal Islam movement as a creation of the United States. “Those revisionists (including Sayyed Imam),” he says, “are in fact calling for a new American religion that violates God’s rules.”

Oh my... Omar creates a new moniker... "Liberal Islam". Think the liberal/progressives in the US will note the distinct similarity?

Last, but not least, this final excerpted Zawahiri rant is for those of you who think if we leave Iraq, the bad guys will leave us alone. In simpler words, those who are sure the only AQ battlefronts for their Caliphate are Iraq and Afghanistan. Another not-so-subtle reminder as to why it is called the "Global Islamic Jihad Movement".

Finally, Zawahiri discusses Algeria, reminding Algerian listeners that it sent representatives to the Annapolis conference, and then concludes with a shout-out to al-Qaeda’s other theaters, including Andalusia, Sebta, Melilla, Bosnia, Kosovo, Cyprus, Jerusalem, Haifa, Um Rashrash, Baghdad, Kabul, and Kashmir and Grozny.”

All in all, the signs of a disintegrating jihad movement, as we know it now, are there. But all too few media are actually putting two and two together on the sporadic news blurbs that fly fast and furious from Kosovo, Afghanistan/Pakistan, Iraq and North Africa.

It must be remembered that it is documented that Mullah Omar and UBL have had power tiffs in the past... From a 2004 Atlantic Monthly feature by Alan Cullison, email translations from an Arab-AQ laptop the journalist purchased in Kabul in the fall of 2001. Turns out the laptop was used mostly by Zawahiri. From one email in particular, an admonishment from Taliban leaders sent to OBL, via Zawahiri, dated July 19, 1999...

The Leader of the Faithful, who should be obeyed where he reigns, is Muhammad Omar, not Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden and his companions are only guests seeking refuge and have to adhere to the terms laid out by the person who provided it for them. This is legitimate and logical.

Not a lot of love lost there.

It should be remembered that the major stronghold for the AQ umbrella organization, that encompasses more than 18 named subgroups, lies in Pakistan/Afghanistan - with strong threads to Egypt. So to experience a large crevice in the heart of the jihad organization is a severe blow indeed.

We need to learn more of this Taliban "rift" Omar touches on.. and find a way to feed it's fury further. In the world of jihad, friends and allies today are the enemies tomorrow. They bond long enough to achieve a common goal, then again turn to feast on their own for power and control.

And that suits the rest of the world just fine.

A new era of power struggles in Pakistan...the same ol' players

Nawaz Sharif has returned to Pakistan. And unlike his previous attempt, where he was immediately deported, he now has a tentative welcome from Musharraf.

It's hard to tell whether Sharif unpacked, or prepared files to run for PM in the Jan elections first. But there's no denying Sharif is back, and again ready to take control... and pontificating all the "right" phrases.

On his return on Sunday, Sharif vowed to “continue his fight against dictatorship”.

In his brief address at the airport in Lahore, he said: “Pakistan was not created for dictators or emergencies. It was created for democracy and the rule of law. I am here to play my role in ridding the country of dictatorship and bringing back the rule of law.”

About boycotting the next elections, he said the All Parties Democratic Movement - an alliance of parties opposed to Musharraf's rule - would assess the situation after the expiry of the four-day notice it had given to the government.

“But the movement is committed to democracy and constitutionalism. That is why it has demanded restoration of the judiciary to its pre-Nov 3 position.”

Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on 3 November, citing rising extremism and an unruly judiciary. He sacked several Supreme Court judges who had shown judicial independence and replaced them with other judges.

Sharif, told the crowd that he had not come to the country under any deal.

“My roots are among the masses and I will never ditch them. I will live and die for the people of Pakistan,” he said amid a thunderous applause.

What a laugh... the words "democracy and constitutionalism" now bandied about by Sharif is truly a publicity campaign that belies Sharif's history. This is no pro-western, pro-freedom leader, as he or unsuspecting, history challenged western media would have us believe.

Even from the not-so-western-friendly Al Jazeera profile site

As chief minister of the populous Punjab from 1988 to 1990, Sharif challenged Bhutto, who became prime minister after Zia's death in an aeroplane explosion.

Sharif - with the military's blessing - was elected prime minister after Bhutto's dismissal in 1990, but after three years he was sacked on corruption charges following differences with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then-president.

Instead of accepting the dismissal, Sharif launched a scathing attack on Khan, considered his former mentor and top representative of the military-led establishment.

Second term

Sharif bounced back to the premiership in 1996 after the dismissal of Bhutto's second government on corruption charges.

He then won a massive two-thirds majority in 1997 elections, which emboldened him to take on the army - the institution which has ruled Pakistan for more than half its existence since independence 60 years ago.

Sharif also moved to increase the powers of his office, reversing a constitutional amendment that allowed the president to dismiss the prime minister.

Later, Pakistan's western allies grew concerned when he sought to introduce sharia (Islamic law), with himself as the so-called "commander of the faithful".

Let's review... Changing the constitution to increase his power and insure he couldn't be canned as PM, corruption charges (like Bhutto), and convicted (with life sentence imposed) for hijacking, attempted murder and terrorism. Then, of course, there's that pesky attempt to instill Shariah law in Pakistan. Sounds like a staunch freedom & democracy lover to me... not.

This is no new welcome entity in Pakistan. Sharif, who appointed Musharraf as chief of the army, did work side by side until they parted ways over Sharif's personal power quest and plans for making Pakistan a strict Islam nation.

So the big three are back... slugging it out for Pakistan's future. AQ is building up in Afghanistan, wearing Taliban insignias. And this would not make Musharraf a happy camper.

The battles for Pakistan, and for Lebanon - where pro Syrian/Hezbollah and pro-democracy govt entities, sans a stepped down President, battle for control while the country remains under control of the military - are two important one's to be watched. Both nations are important in the battle to contain the global Islamic jihad movement.