City of Brass

City of Brass


Taliban’s Mullah Omar changes the rules

posted by Aziz Poonawalla

This is an interesting development:

The militants active in North and South Waziristan agencies have been directed by Mulla Omar to immediately stop their attacks on the Pakistani security forces.

 In a letter to the militants, who have forged a new alliance, Mulla Omar admonished them not to fight the Pakistani security forces and kill their Muslim brethren, a reliable source told The News on Monday.

“Mulla Omar first sent an envoy to the local Taliban and then wrote a letter to the banned Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) admonishing these leaders and told the TTP that fighting Muslims could not be described as Jihad so they should immediately cease attacks on the Pakistani security forces.

He told them that if they really want to participate in Jihad, they must fight the US and Nato troops inside Afghanistan because their attacks on the Pakistani security forces are undermining the objectives of the war against the invaders and cause of the Taliban movement.

“If anybody really wants to wage Jihad, he must fight the occupation forces inside Afghanistan,” the source quoted Mulla Omar as having told the TTP leaders. “Attacks on the Pakistani security forces and killing of fellow Muslims by the militants in the tribal areas and elsewhere in Pakistan is bringing a bad name to Mujahideen and harming the war against the US and Nato forces in Afghanistan.”

“Our aim is to liberate Afghanistan from the occupation forces and death and destruction inside neighbouring Pakistan has never been our goal,” he added.

Could this be related to the surrender of the Pakistan government of the Swat Valley to Taliban rule? With an enclave of Taliban within Pakistan itself, how committed is Pakistan to fighting in Afghanistan anymore?

In Slate, Fred Kaplan asks whether the fact of a Taliban enclave in Swat now means that the Afghanistan war is unwinnable. After all, the purpose of the campaign in Afghanistan is to deny the Taliban a safe haven from which to plot their attacks. Kaplan argues,

There is nothing wrong in principle with trying to negotiate deals
with Taliban factions. Gen. Petraeus has openly said that such deals
will have to be a part of any successful strategy in Afghanistan.
However, Petraeus and other officers make two points about such
negotiations: First, it’s futile to go down that road with hard-core
Taliban; second, to the extent negotiations succeed with any faction,
we need to enter into them from a position of strength.

The deal
in Pakistan breaks both rules: Pakistan’s political leaders are trying
to craft a deal, indirectly, with the hard-core Taliban, and they’re
entering into it from a position of obvious weakness.

This is why
the deal is not only ill-fated but potentially disastrous: It reveals
the severe weakness of the Pakistani state. The politicians pursued the
deal only because the state cannot control its own territory. Unless
Sufi Muhammad can convince his son-in-law to accept peace and obeisance
to secular authority in exchange for a parcel of land where Islamic law
carries some weight, the deal is more likely to convince the militant Taliban simply to press on for more favors still.

And it is precisely because the Taliban are in a position of strength that mullah Omar can make the magnanomous gesture about not targeting Pakistani troops in jihad – in other words, they aren’t a threat. And that’s a pretty ominous portent indeed.

Related – sepoy at Chapati Mystery provides an overview of the situation in Swat and links to several important analyses. Mark Salter (former advisor to John McCain) argues that Afghanistan can be won, but completely ignores Pakistan as a factor in his analysis. The editorial page of the New York Times makes no such mistake, arguing that Pakistan is indeed the key to success in Afghanistan



  • Your Name

    Why should anyone expect somebody else to do the dirty work when there is nothing in return for you except destruction of your country.

  • bdoon

    I can’t help but laugh at the closemindedness of these Taliban. Do they really think an infinite, eternal being that has made more than a hundred billion earths like our own in the timeless space of eternity cares that one group of these sand grains (are we much more relative to infinity?)kill this other group of sand grains but not another group of sand grains? What madness! No different than Richard King of England a thousand years ago killing “Saracens” because they did not believe a certain man was divine or Cotton Mathers followers hanging women on the say so of emotionally disturbed youth. When does the madness end and genuine love of God and his creation begin?

  • Phil

    “Could this be related to the surrender of the Pakistan government of the Swat Valley to Taliban rule? With an enclave of Taliban within Pakistan itself, how committed is Pakistan to fighting in Afghanistan anymore?”
    Actually, it’s a fairly sharp strategic move on Mullah Omar’s part – he’s betting that the Obama led NATO forces in Afghanistan won’t cross into Pakistan to take the fight to the Taliban. Apparently, Omar has decided he can live with the ocasional Hellfire launched from a drone – as lond as the Marines stay out of Swat Valley he knows he’s okay.

  • Your Name

    I see know reasoning in the total elimination of the Taliban. It makes no known practical sense. Not for the region. Not for the Muslim faith as a whole and most certainly not for the USA. In a Democracy you have too allow for these people. They are not the total face of tyranny. In fact they have been threatened for years.
    Many mothers don’t want their daughters to ever live by anything but Sharia law, a Democracy must protect that right, if it doesn’t there will always be war.
    It is unbelievable to presume that we can dictate to them what is allowed in their democracy, it is in fact unspeakable. To continue to destablize any country for this long is going to lead only to greater problems in the future. There must be a time for peace and as an old I think he knows better than I recently put it, we have to let them grow.

Previous Posts

is ISIS Islamic? Wrong question.
There is an excellent longform essay on ISIS published in The Atlantic, "What does ISIS Really Want?" that lays out an excellent case fore ISIS being genuinely different in ideology, motivation and ethos than Al Qaeda. The real question boils down to, is ISIS "Islamic" or not - and makes an excellen

posted 11:34:08pm Feb. 17, 2015 | read full post »

The Price of Extremism
This is a guest post by Durriya Badani. The execution style murder of three young North Carolina students, two of whom were hijab wearing Muslim women, raises questions regarding the rise of Islamaphobia in the United States in the form of hate crimes. Some will argue that the motive for the inc

posted 11:26:53am Feb. 12, 2015 | read full post »

Can atheism drive someone to murder? #muslimlivesmatter #chapelhillshooting
Like everyone else, I am in shock at the horrible tragedy in North Carolina last night, where three young Muslim Americans were brutally executed. The police are investigating and the murderer is in custody and cooperating. The family of the victims will hold a press conference soon, until then I am

posted 4:21:58pm Feb. 11, 2015 | read full post »

Halal Italian and Mexican catering in Chicago
This is a guest post by Whitney Gaspar. I am not Muslim. I am not any religion, really. I was baptized as a Catholic to please my grandma and raised as an atheist by my mother. I am spiritual and I believe in God. But that is not why I eat halal. I eat halal because it is logical. It simpl

posted 11:09:45am Feb. 09, 2015 | read full post »

the State of the Ummah, 2014/1436
I tuned into President Obama's 2014 SOTU for a while last week - mainly beca

posted 12:06:37pm Jan. 26, 2015 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.