Afghanistan Mystery: What's Behind the US, Pakistan, and the Captured Mullah?

UPDATE 1145 GMT: The Washington Post this morning has a very different view of US-Pakistan relations and the Mullah Baradar case:

The capture of senior Afghan Taliban leaders in Pakistan represents the culmination of months of pressure by the Obama administration on Pakistan's powerful security forces to side with the United States as its troops wage war in Afghanistan, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

A new level of cooperation includes Pakistani permission late last month for U.S. intelligence officials to station personnel and technology in this pulsating megacity, officials said. Intercepted real-time communications handed over to Pakistani intelligence officials have led to the arrests in recent days of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Afghan Taliban's No. 2 commander, and two of the group's "shadow" governors for northern Afghanistan.

---

Gareth Porter, writing for Inter Press Service, goes behind the official story of the US-Pakistan joint operation to break the "Old Taliban" in Afghanistan with the capture of the organisation's second-ranking leader:

Contrary to initial U.S. suggestions that it signals reduced Pakistani support for the Taliban, the detention of Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the operational leader of the Afghan Taliban, represents a shift by Pakistan to more open support for the Taliban in preparation for a peace settlement and U.S. withdrawal.

Afghanistan: The Latest on the US Military-Covert Offensive

Statements by Pakistani officials to journalists prior to the arrest indicate that the decision to put Baradar in custody is aimed at ensuring that the Taliban role in peace negotiations serves Pakistani interests. They also suggest that Pakistani military leaders view Baradar as an asset in those negotiations rather than an adversary to be removed from the conflict.

Pakistan has long viewed the military and political power of the Taliban as Pakistan's primary strategic asset in countering Indian influence in Afghanistan, which remains its main concern in the conflict.

Afghanistan: The Latest on the US Military-Covert Offensive

Brian Downing offers this overview for Asia Times Online:

In the past week, American, British and Afghan troops launched a major campaign around the southern Afghan city of Marjah in Helmand province - part of the counter-insurgency program begun in earnest last year. Shortly thereafter, far to the south in the Pakistani port city of Karachi, a major Taliban figure was taken into custody. The two events may help bring about a negotiated settlement.

All go in Marjah

Operations began near the central Helmand town with little prospect of a large-scale battle with Taliban bands that had operated freely there. The much-publicized buildup to the operation might have been throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the Taliban to a major battle, but the Taliban know such engagements go badly for them as their levies are no match or a Western unit's cohesion and firepower - a lesson learned repeatedly over the years.


Marjah is not a large city but it is a large town. The 80,000 inhabitants lived under Taliban rule - an embarrassment to Kabul and Washington alike. Further, it is a major center of the opium trade - a source of Taliban revenue, though one often exaggerated.The town will become a logistical and administrative center for counter-insurgency programs: school construction, well-digging, medical and veterinary services, agricultural support, and the like.

The operation seeks to demonstrate the combat efficacy of the Afghan National Army (ANA). The West has made great efforts to build the ANA but has been disappointed by its performance in the field, which unfortunately ranges from desultory skirmishes with local insurgents to negotiated truces with them.

Perhaps most importantly, the Marjah operation is designed to stop the momentum the Taliban has been building over the past several years, which leads many Afghans to believe that the Taliban will once again rule the country and that they must sooner or later settle with them. Taliban success has come less from craft in the field than from blunders in Kabul and distractions in Washington, which left the country open to Taliban parleys with various tribal leaders.

Success over the years has left parts of the Taliban leadership with confidence that they can conquer most of Afghanistan, as they did in the mid-1990s. The campaign into Marjah, in conjunction with counter-insurgency programs and tribal diplomacy elsewhere, will seek to break that confidence and force the Taliban to a negotiated settlement.

Thus far, fighting has been relatively light. Most Taliban fighters fled the town during the buildup; others are putting up sporadic resistance, setting up explosive devices, and preparing to melt into the population if need be. They will also seek to bringWestern firepower down upon civilians - a tactic in which the Taliban have developed expertise over the years - making counter-insurgency programs in coming months less likely to take hold in aggrieved people.

Action in Karachi

More significant news comes out of Karachi, the Pakistani port city that has filled with Pashtun refugees over the years and to which the Taliban's chief council, fearing drone strikes, has fled from Quetta, the capital of Balochistan province. Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, second to Mullah Omar in the Taliban leadership, was captured by Pakistani and American intelligence officials. Reports indicate that he is providing intelligence, though his colleagues would have changed locations on his disappearance.

Read rest of article....

Today on EA (16 February 2010)

Iran: More posturing today over the nuclear issue, as well as slurs and counter-claims between the US and Iran on which country is the "dictatorship". Human rights continues to dominate internal news, and labour activism appears to be gathering speed, although there no firm signs of a nationwide general strike yet. We have live-blogging from Ahmadinejad's press conference, and as always, all news and links will be updated throughout the day on our live weblog.

Late-breaking news is of a rising challenge from the Karroubi family, with both Mehdi Karroubi's wife and son making pointed challenges to the regime. That bears out the importance of the analysis by EA's Mr Verdeof the beating of Medhi Karroubi's son Ali: "Imagine for a moment that the son or daughter of a Presidential or Prime Ministerial candidate in the US or Britain had been taken away by plainclothes security forces and kept in an unknown locations for days. Imagine that he or she had been beaten and threatened with rape...."



We've posted the text of human rights lawyer Shadi Sadr’s address to the United Nations last Friday: “In addition to the numerous examples of human rights that are systematically violated…during the post-election events, basic and fundamental human rights remain in serious peril, such as equality of persons before the law, the right to peaceful assembly, the rights of political prisoners, and the rights of human rights defenders and civil society activists.” Four labour unions published a public declaration of their ten minimal demands.

Middle East: We have the full transcript of US Secretary of State Clinton's interview by Al Jazeera at the Qatar Town Hall Meeting on 15 February.

Middle East and Afghanistan: Ali Yenidunya's Inside Line picks up on the capture of the second-ranking official in the "old Taliban" of Afghanistan and on the Saudi line for action against Iran.

Middle East/Afghanistan Inside Line: Top Taliban Leader Captured?; Saudi Line on Iran Nukes

"Old Taliban" Number Two Captured? The Afghanistan Taliban's top military commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, has been captured in Pakistan in a joint raid by Pakistani and U.S. spy agencies, a U.S. official said. Another U.S. official said: "I would call it significant. But even when you get their leaders, they've shown an amazing resilience to bounce back. It's an adaptive organization." However, the Taliban denied the capture of Baradar and said he was still at work.

Saudi Line on Iran Nukes: Following a meeting with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that they needed an "immediate resolution." He said:

Our talks also considered the Iranian nuclear issue. The Kingdom reiterates its support of the P-1+5 or the 1+5 group to solve the crisis peacefully through dialogue, and we call for a continuation of those efforts. We also call upon Iran to respond to these efforts to remove regional and international suspicions towards its nuclear program.

Sanctions are a long-term solution. But we see the issue in the shorter term because we are closer to the threat. We need immediate resolution rather than gradual resolution.

Afghanistan: Is It A Battle If No One Shows Up?

It has been eerie to watch the first few days of Operation Moshtarak, the US-Afghanistan-ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) military offensive against the Taliban in Helmand Province. It is not just the observation of the battle from thousands of miles away; it is that this encounter has been scripted.

The offensive was signalled weeks ago in declaration from US military and political headquarters, reporters were suitably embedded, and the ritual proclamations were issued. BBC radio even turned over several minutes of prime-time programming to the speech, in full, of a British commander to his troops on the eve of battle. (Ever since William Shakespeare put words in the mouth of Henry V at Agincourt in 1415 --- "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers" --- this has been required in presentation of English/British wars.) Yet all the scripting could not set down the final-act resolution of this question:

What if you threw a war and no one showed up?

The Afghanistan Occupation: 700 Military Bases (and Counting)

This morning an Afghan official is declaring that 12 Taliban were killed on Sunday. That makes it a score draw with number of dead civilians, as 12 perished in an American rocket strike. In total, about 40 Taliban are reported dead since the start of the offensive. That's 40 bad guys in what was supposed to be a showdown battle for the Taliban "stronghold" of Marja and in what The Washington Post, voicing the words of a US Lieutenant-Colonel, is calling "last-ditch efforts" by the enemy.



The official line of victory was offered by a British general, "The operation went without a hitch. We've caught the insurgents on the hoof, and they're completely dislocated." Now, the narrative goes, US-British-ISAF forces will bring in 2000 Afghanistan police to restore order in Marja.

Hmm.....

An alternative interpretation would be that the Taliban chose not to fight in the "stronghold". Indeed, if you go with the concept of "asymmetrical warfare", that would be the expected move. Faced with the overwhelming firepower of the US and ISAF, most of the insurgents would disperse and resume the battle --- explosive devices, guerrilla attacks, moves against the Afghan Army and police --- when the US-ISAF threat had dissipated.

One of the misleading analogies in the US-UK press this week has been that Marja 2010 is not Fallujah 2004, the Iraqi town that was the arena for two major battles between US troops and Iraqi insurgents. The script reads that, unlike Fallujah, there has been little confrontation, little bloodshed, and relatively little damage. That "victory" story misses an important point. In both the Fallujah battles, most of the top insurgents had left the town in advance of the US attack. Those who stayed behind effectively provided violent cover for a tactical retreat.

So here's the twist in the script. The US-led forces probably did not want a fight. That is why the offensive was signalled so long in advance. Speaking a few minutes ago on the BBC's top radio programme, Air Chief Marshal Jock Stirrup, the head of Britain's Defence Forces, declared, "We are not battling the Taliban. We are protecting the local population."

And that takes this play beyond any immediate staging. The issue moves to whether Marja and other Afghan towns can be held, and that in turn brings up all the questions beyond US artillery: the strength of the Afghan police force, the significance of development, the legitimacy and competence of local government, the policies of Kabul. (Those who would like a sobering lesson in what may be involved can check out the story of the northern Helmand town of Musa Qala, which has bounced back and forth between Taliban and British control since 2006.)

No doubt we will hear, over and over, in forthcoming days about "the battle for hearts and minds". (Let me correct that: I just saw the article, "Troops Fight for Hearts and Minds in Afghan Assault", published by Agence France Presse and being pushed by the ISAF public-relations staff via Twitter.)

Already, however, The New York Times has shifted its headline from Rah-Rah-Victory to "Errant U.S. Rocket Strike Kills Civilians in Afghanistan". And the BBC shifted from glorification to tough questions this morning, challenging Stirrup over the dead civilians and "victory". His response? "We will know in about 12 months" whether success had been achieved.

Operation Moshtarak ("Together") was a showpiece. If you want a battle, look for it not in the biff-bam-boom of this telegraphed offensive, but in the less dramatic but more important contests to come.