BRIEFING….WHO ARE THE TALIBAN?

Kabul, Afghanistan - As the Obama administration ramps up focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, insurgents from both countries have teamed up to confront the rising US troop presence. While the insurgents often get labeled as the "Taliban," in reality there are several groups fighting the Afghan government and Western forces, and they often act independently of one another and have distinct command structures, ideologies, and strategies. Here, the Monitor maps out the diversity of the insurgency.

Who are the Afghan insurgents?

The most established group is the Taliban, led by Mullah Omar and others who held top positions in the Afghan government in the 1990s. The Taliban is strongest in Kandahar and Helmand provinces in the south, where it has deep roots. US officials believe that senior leaders are based in Pakistan, possibly Quetta.

• Hekmatyar’s Hizb-e-Islami

A prominent ally under the Taliban umbrella is Hizb-e-Islami, a group formed by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the 1970s to fight the Soviet-backed government and later the Soviet invasion. Throughout the 1980s, Hizb-e-Islami was an ally of Pakistan and the United States.

After the US invasion in 2001, a faction of Hizb-e-Islami led by Hekmatyar joined the insurgency. It is strongest in the northern regions of the country, says Antonio Giustozzi, an Afghanistan expert at the London School of Economics. With its long history, Hizb-e-Islami may have extensive contacts in the government and police.

While many Taliban fighters are poor and uneducated, Hizb-e-Islami members have usually gone to school, even college. Perhaps as a result, they tend to have a more lenient interpretation of Islam than other insurgent groups do – for example, they often allow music and parties.

• The Haqqani network

Western officials say the Haqqani network may be the most dangerous insurgent group. It is centered around Jalaluddin Haqqani, another former US ally, whose son Sirajuddin has in recent years assumed leadership. The group usually operates independently of – though sometimes in concert with – the Taliban and Hizb-e-Islami. It is behind many of the boldest attacks in recent memory, including a raid on government ministries in February and an assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai last year.

Analysts say that, of all the insurgent groups, the Haqqani network has the closest ties to Al Qaeda. "Al Qaeda shares a symbiotic relationship with the Haqqani network," says Matthew DuPee, a researcher on Afghan affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif.

The Haqqani network leadership is based in North Waziristan, in the tribal areas of Pakistan. It has a presence in eastern Afghanistan.

• Other ‘Taliban’

Many criminals and warlords call themselves the Taliban, possibly to try to boost their legitimacy.

Some local groups also operate independently of the Taliban leadership: for example, Hizb-e-Islami Khalis in Nangarhar Province and others in Kunar Province, both of which are in the east.

There’s more here…

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0416/p06s10-wosc.html

The Taliban regime faced international scrutiny and condemnation for its policies. Only Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan’s legitimate government. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S., Saudi Arabia and the UAE cut diplomatic ties with the Taliban.

The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in their territory and, from 1994 to at least 2001, provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and bin Laden is close, even familial—bin Laden fought with the mujahideen, has financed the Taliban, and has reportedly married one of his daughters to Mullah Muhammad Omar. The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (1999) and 1333 (2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over bin Laden for trial.

The Taliban recognized the need for international ties but wavered between cooperation—they claimed to have drastically cut opium production in July 2000—and defiance—they pointedly ignored international pleas not to destroy the 2000-year-old Buddhist statues of Bamian. However, they made no effort to curb terrorist activity within Afghanistan, a policy that ultimately led to their undoing.

Even after their ouster, the Taliban’s brand of Islamist radicalism threatens to destabilize other countries in the region including Iran, China, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan. The Taliban’s relationship with Pakistan is especially problematic. A high percentage of the Taliban are ethnic Pashtuns; Pashtuns are a sizable minority in Pakistan and dominate the Pakistani military. Public support for the Taliban runs very high in the Pashtun North-West Frontier province where pro-Taliban groups have held uprisings and sought to emulate Taliban practices by performing public executions and oppressing women.

In September, 2001, the U.S. placed significant pressure on the Taliban to turn over bin Laden and al-Qaeda in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. On October 7, after the Taliban refused to give up bin Laden, the U.S. began bombing Taliban military sites and aiding the Northern Alliance. By November 21, the Taliban had lost Kabul and by December 9 had been completely routed.

An interim government was agreed upon by representatives of Afghanistan’s various factions during talks held in Bonn, Germany. On December 22, 2001, Hamid Karzai, an Afghan tribal leader, was sworn in as interim chairman of the government. Karzai initially supported the Taliban and is respected by many former Taliban leaders. In January 2002, the Taliban recognized the interim government.

While many of the Taliban’s most radical leaders and supporters were killed, taken prisoner, or fled the country, many former Taliban returned to their homes and continue to work for the Taliban’s goals. The Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, has continued to elude capture.

In 2003, after the United States shifted its military efforts to fighting the war in Iraq, attacks on American-led forces intensified as the Taliban and al-Qaeda began to regroup. President Hamid Karzai’s hold on power remained tenuous, as entrenched warlords continued to exert regional control. Remarkably, however, Afghanistan’s first democratic presidential elections in Oct. 2004 were a success. Ten million Afghans, more than a third of the country, registered to vote, including more than 40% of eligible women. Despite the Taliban’s threats to kill anyone who participated, the polls were reasonably peaceful and the elections deemed fair by international observers.

In 2005 and 2006, the Taliban continued its resurgence, and 2006 became the deadliest year of fighting since the 2001 war. Throughout the spring, Taliban militants infiltrated southern Afghanistan, terrorizing villagers and attacking Afghan and U.S. troops. In May and June, Operation Mount Thrust was launched, deploying more than 10,000 Afghan and coalition forces to the south. In Aug. 2006, NATO troops took over military operations in southern Afghanistan from the U.S.-led coalition, which put a total of 21,000 American troops and 19,000 NATO troops on the ground. In September NATO launched the largest attack in its 57-year history. About 2,000—the vast majority Taliban fighters—were killed in military operations during the year.

In September 2006, Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf signed a controversial peace agreement with seven militant groups, who call themselves the "Pakistan Taliban." Pakistan’s army agreed to withdraw from the area and allow the Taliban to govern themselves, as long as they promise no incursions into Afghanistan or against Pakistani troops. Critics say the deal handed terrorists a secure base of operations; supporters counter that a military solution against the Taliban is futile and will only spawn more militants, contending that containment is the only practical policy.

The Taliban rescinded the cease-fire in July 2007 after clashes between government troops and radical Islamist clerics and students at Islamabad’s Red Mosque. After the initial violence, the military laid seige to the mosque, which held nearly 2,000 students. Several students escaped or surrendered to officials. The mosque’s senior cleric, Maulana Abdul Aziz was caught by officials when attempting to escape. After negotiations between government officials and mosque leaders failed, troops stormed the compound and killed Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who took over as chief of the mosque after the capture of Aziz, his brother. More than 80 people died in the violence. Fighting in remote tribal areas intensified after the raid.

In 2008, after more than five years as Afghanistan’s leader, President Hamid Karzai still has only marginal control over large swaths of his country, which is rife with warlords, militants, and drug smugglers. The Taliban now funds its insurgency through the drug trade. An August 2007 report by the United Nations found that Afghanistan’s opium production doubled in two years and that the country supplies 93% of the world’s heroin.

In February 2008, U.S. Secretary of State Robert Gates warned NATO members that the threat of an al-Qaeda attack on their soil is real and that they must commit more troops to stabilize Afghanistan and counter the growing power of both al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

In August 2008, the Pakistani military launched a three-week-long cross-border air assault into Afghanistan’s Bajaur region, which resulted in more than 400 Taliban casualties. The continuous airstrikes forced many al-Qaeda and Taliban militants to retreat from towns formally under their control. However, the Pakistani government declared a cease-fire in the Bajaur region for the month of September in observance of Ramadan, raising fears that the Taliban will use the opportunity to regroup.

Baitullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban in Pakistan, was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike in August 2009 in South Waziristan, a remote region of the country. He was blamed for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the terrorist attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, and dozens of other suicide bombings. Despite his death, the Taliban continued its resurgence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009. In fact, the Taliban was blamed for the violence that led up to August’s presidential election in Afghanistan, an apparent attempt to disrupt the elections and further destabilize the country.

More…

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

Liz Smith,

I would support General McCrystal’s assessment of Afghanistan.  This should not be a political decision but a decision based on the long term results.   If General McCrystal gets the troops he has requested from this administration we will not have another long drawn out Viet Nam with no results.   If President Obama denies the extra troops then I hope he has the good sense to bring all of our troops home immediately.   Since a woman cannot be considered "a little bit pregnant"  we cannot treat Afghanistan as "a little bit important" in our efforts to remove the Al Qaeda regime.   After all, none of us will forget the 3,000 Americans who died during 9/11.   None of us can forget the "Sleep Cell Terrorists" who live among us here in the United States.   And we know for sure that these "Sleeper Cells" are also positioned and living among citizens of other U.S. friendly countries.  They intend to destroy "the infidels" and they need to be stopped.   Will President Obama keep his campaign promise to "Win the War In Afghanistan?"

As the liberals harshly critized the previous administration for "taking their eye off the ball" in Afghanistan to address Iraq while The Taliban grew stronger, this administration promised to "take care of unfinished and neglected business  to take out Al Qaeda.   Anything short of that promise would create a constant state of insecurity for America and abroad.

No one likes war.   And, no one embraces the terrorists.   President Obama needs to  make a  well informed decision today.   I cannot imagine that he will not do what is right for the safety of our country.   As you know I did not vote for President Obama.  

Liz, it’s unclear what you mean about "the hatefulness going on."   I have to assume you are referring to those Americans, at least 50% of our population, who are unhappy with President Obama’s decisions and direction for our country.    If you call disagreeing with this administration "hatefulness" what in the world would you have called all of those who disagreed with our previous republican president from 2001 to 2008?   

The United States hasn’t won a war since World War II and then we had help from other nations.  The pattern since then is disturbing - from the Korean War to the Vietnam war to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan - no matter how hard we try we can’t get to first base.  One of the reasons is that we are trying to do it alone while the rest of the world including our former allies, prefer to sit back and watch. 

The viciousness of the Taliban is beyond belief.  Obama didn’t get us involved in the wars in the Middle East but getting out isn’t going to be easy.  The future of this country and the world is fraught with peril. 

As far as "hatefulness" in this country is concerned - it is here in abundance. It is not merely a matter of disagreeing with President Obama’s decisions and direction for our country, it is a personal smear campaign that has been going on since he was running for the office of President of the United States; from gross exaggerations, to downright vicious, flagrant lies to personal attacks - through it all, he has beeb unflappable and gracious.

This man took on an impossible task - to try to resolve the horrific problems of this nation without any money in the coffers to do it with was the first huge problem he faced and it’s going from bad to worse. The worst thing we have done in this country is refuse to recognize that we are going "down the tubes" unless we work harmoniously together to resolve the problems.  I’m glad I’m over 70 - but I am sick with worry about younger generations, about my own children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren.  Life as we have known it will never be the same - millions of people in the U.S. are struggling just to survive.  While people play politics in DC and set up road blocks, lmany, many American citizens are cold, hungry, jobless and homeless.  Crime is escalating as people desperately try to feed their families - one man stole a loaf of bread and is going to prison - what has happened to compassion?

Hatred, racism and intolerance have never resolved problems, but rather escalated them.  I pray every day for our President…there is no doubt in my mind that some misguided, hate-filled, misinformed sorry excuse for a human being will take it upon himself to rid the country of a very fine man who took on this thankless job because he genuinely wanted to make a positive difference in the lives of every citizen of this country.  When and if that tragedy takes place, there will be thousands of people in the US who will rejoice and that is the greatest tragedy of all. I was raised to believe we were all created in God’s image - I no longer believe that. 

People conveniently forget who caused the huge problems we’re facing - it wasn’t President Obama - he’s just trying as hard as he can to clean up the mess, to find light in the tunnel.  This is OUR country that is on its knees, floundering and dying - it is up to us as a nation to help instead of hinder the man and the people around him who are trying to get us on our feet again.  If you don’t like his ideas, come up with better ones.  Get involved but stop the mud slinging - help, don’t hinder.  The well being of future generations is at stake here.  I repeat: "HELP, DON’T HINDER!"  We have everything to lose if we can’t come together and work for the greater good!

Liz this article about Afghanistan and our involvement really show your writing versatility. I got so used to your, light-hearted, daily gossip of the Hollywood luminaries. Now you got into this serious world concern "Terrorism." I used to be afraid and very concerned over the fact that these so called Taliban could be the most vicious, narrow-minded group of men who number one is out there to terrorize their own Afghan women. The women education was forbidden, they were required to wear a head-to-toe cover all outfit in 120F degrees heat, they are not allowed to participate in any government or official capacity. In other words, Afghan women are not considered human but just for propagation purposes.

These were the reasons, I became so passionate about this war. However, I was disappointed that when USA was able to drive away these vicious Talibans, they were replaced by a corrupt and inept government who after eight years has not grown back bones to run their own country. Now, the Talibans are back. We can not babysit the Afghan people for so long. They are getting comfortable having someone to take care of their security while their brilliant men in their government are sitting in jobs where they are so inept to perform. We can not go on forever losing lives of our young men and women in military not to mention spending so much money while our own economy is in a big shamble. We are squandering our most valuable resources.

The Talibans will be there forever because that is their country. They knew exactly where to hide. They could easily blend in with the civilians.

They knew the language. They knew every tricks on the books to deceive our soldiers to their demise. They are there lurking and listening to every daily efforts to decimate them. They will kill for every opportunity before anyone could kill them. 

We are fighting a never ending war. We are fighting an "invisible enemy."

They are faceless. They don’t wear uniforms. They use primitive deadly weapons designed to kill anyone, military or civilians. So, where do we draw the line?

We should pressure the Afghan government to get on and take care of business. If they have to recruit more soldiers, let it be. Put more Afghan men to fight the Talibans. Give them more training and the best weapons and tactics they could muster. Then, USA should exit slowly.

We could give more humanitarian aid like educating their children, sending more medical care people, more medicine, more water filter machineries, introduce more agricultural technology. And lastly, investing in businesses run by Afghan people but finance by western money.

I would like to believe that if fighting Al Queda is the real mission, and if it is a worthy one and the threat that it once was, our president and his huge assembly of advisors is devising the best plan for their defeat or containment, which may not involve Afghanistan at all.  After all, US presence there was a fait accompli when he took office.  I don’t have access to all the information he does, and neither does any other human being, so I am a bit put off by the loud opinions on every side, no matter how valid or well-substantiated they may be.  And I’m very put off by those who can see only a military option.  I also have a great deal of confidence in this man’s intelligence and grasp of the Big Picture and I am more than willing to give him the four years of his elected term to deal with more issues than any president in living memory, or perhaps ever, has had to address, whether I agree with every nuance or not.  I don’t know what he knows and I refuse to second-guess him and stumble over my own hubris.  Hubris.  It becomes more appalling with every passing glimpse into the world of politics, more evidently the roadblock to good governance on every level. I’d like to believe our president is capable of removing his ego, admitting errors and making course corrections as needed.  He is often in uncharted territory.

That said, a world without war is my deepest desire so that children everywhere can grow up in peace and safety.  I would also like to see an end to oil dependency (I said "dependency," not no oil at all) so that Mid-East conflict can become a thing of the past, and so that the technologies of the future can begin today, thus ensuring a vibrant economies, robust education, employment for all, and stability worldwide.  Hungry people are not good candidates for peaceful co-existence.  We have global issues, are one planet, and everything one country does affects others.  I hope (and think) our president is thinking and acting at that level, which takes very, very careful thought and decision-making and will never satisfy those who see only a small part of the picture and demand their part be satisfied - yesterday!