In recent months the idea of engaging the more “moderate Taliban elements” has grown in popularity as coalition recalibration in Afghanistan fails to yield the immediate dividends that some were hoping for. This notion however fails to account for the structural shifts ongoing amongst militant cadres and the rise of a new generation of militants, more radical, more violent and less amenable to any political dialogue than their predecessors.
In the face of this radicalization, old guard factions have begun to lose ground even as al-Qaeda re-orients its strategy to serve as an inspirational resource catering to these new jihadi elements. While this dissension may conceivably provide an opening for counterinsurgents, it will also result in a wider targeting scope leading militant outfits to support attacks beyond their traditional regional competencies. This is seen in the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan’s (TTP, or Pakistani Taliban) first attempted international strike on Times Square in May 2010. Furthermore with this generational shift gaining momentum, it is likely that any negotiations will be a poisoned chalice for any militant leader seeking compromise, regardless of his jihadi credentials.
Historically, the prevailing belief has been that militant groups in the tribal areas of Pakistan despite their diversity generally operate together in a “broad-based ideological movement,”[1] and despite the considerable autonomy afforded to local commanders, operate under the loose command structure headed by Mullah Omar. Others such as Steven Walt have theorized that the linkages between the various militant outfits are less an ideologically inspired alliance than “balance of power politics” incentivized by the advantages of working together to oppose the foreign presence in the region.[2]
Nonetheless, the general consensus has been that these organizations have coexisted in relative harmony, often sharing resources and expertise. It has also traditionally been believed that while most Af-Pak militant groups have paid lip service to jihad further afield, it has always been peripheral to their core focus. For some that focus was Afghanistan as with the Quetta Shura Taliban and Haqqanis, for others Pakistan as with the Tehrik-i-Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and for yet others India as with groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed.
The emerging generational divide among militants however has profound repercussions on these traditional beliefs. The ‘old guard’ of militants, such as Mullah Omar and the Kashmir-focused jihadi groups, came of age with the support of the ISI and have acted at least partly on behalf of the Pakistani state. However today after almost a decade of war in the Af-Pak region, a new guard has emerged, more often than not composed and led by brash, young and ultra-aggressive militants such as the 21 year old master suicide bomber trainer Qari Hussain[3] and the late 20s current leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakeemullah Mehsud.
These men have spent a large portion of their formative militant careers hunted by Pakistani and American forces. They have had little to no formal contact with the Pakistani establishment, both visible and invisible, and have shown little regard for traditional Pakistani structures, including mainstream political parties, intelligence agencies and tribal structures. Instead they have associated the Pakistani state as a puppet of the United States and actively sought its overthrow. This has had a ‘splintering’ effect on traditional militant structures where older, more established groups are rejected in favor of newer, more radical groups “each further removed from their original ISI puppet masters.” [4]
This trend has been noticed across the spectrum of jihadi groups. According to a senior Afghan Taliban commander, 80% of its fighters are in their late teens or early 20s and this composition has led to a recklessness and contempt for authority that is like “earth and sky” when compared to their predecessors who fought the Russians. A young fighter best explains their disdain for their leadership based out of Pakistan, commenting after the capture of Mullah Baradar, “We are here on the ground with our Kalashnikovs and RPGs and we live and die by our own quick judgments. We don’t need to listen to anyone who is not out here putting his life on the line.”[5]
This emerging divide is also reflected in the Haqqani network in North Waziristan, known to be Pakistan’s strategic asset of choice for a post-American Afghanistan. Jalaluddin, the Haqqani patriarch has explicitly stated that attacking Pakistan “is not our policy. Those who agree with us are our friends and those who do not agree and continue to wage an undeclared war against Pakistan are neither our friends nor shall we allow them in our ranks.”[6]
The group owes much of its strength to its relationship with the ISI, allowing it a sanctuary in North Waziristan and the ability to stay ahead of American drone strikes.[7] In return the Haqqanis have worked with the ISI to attack Indian targets in Afghanistan.[8] Despite this symbiotic relationship even the Haqqanis have not proven immune to the growing radicalization process. An interesting anecdote by New York Times journalist David Rohde who was captured and held by the Haqqanis describes how his young guards shattered his misconception that the Haqqanis were “Al-Qaeda lite” with little ambition outside their Afghan campaign. Instead he claims that their contact with other militants has led many of their young fighters to truly seek to “create a fundamentalist Islamic emirate with Al-Qaeda that spanned the Muslim world.”[9]
This phenomenon can be traced back to the Army’s storming of Islamabad’s ultra-radical Red Mosque in 2007. Anger over the operation diverted the traditional focus on Western targets in Afghanistan, giving way to a new breed of militants equally interested in the overthrow of the “near enemy.” The most prominent proponents of this strategy were the Tehrik-i-Taliban, formed 5 months after the operation. Their relentless wave of attacks inside Pakistan heralded the birth of the new phase of the militancy that left no aspect of the Pakistani establishment safe.
The ISI came under direct attack with its headquarters bombed in both Peshawar and Lahore. The Pakistani Army witnessed a dramatic escalation when militants moved beyond attacking its outposts in the tribal provinces to attacking the seat of its power, the Army GHQ in Rawalpindi. The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI), a key supporter of militant groups in the Afghan jihad period and traditionally seen as the political face of the Taliban, witnessed its leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman being targeted with rockets fired at his house and his name allegedly discovered on a Taliban hit list. [10] More recently another senior leader, Maulana Mirajuddin was killed by unknown gunmen.[11] He had helped broker peace deals between the government and the Pakistani Taliban in 2005 and was currently working with the government to help residents of South Waziristan return to their homes after the fighting.
But nowhere has this shift in targeting priority been more dramatically illuminated than by the April 2010 capture of former ISI alums Khalid Khawaja and Sultan Amir Tarar by a hitherto unknown group calling itself the Asian Tigers. The subsequent execution of Khawaja by the Tigers came as a surprise to many observers given the sterling jihadi credentials of both men. Tarar was widely known in Pakistan as Colonel Imam, an honorific title bestowed upon him by the Afghan Taliban for the training camps he established and ran as an ISI officer during the Soviet jihad. His students included Mullah Omar, withwhom he was reputedly very close.
Khawaja who was booted from the ISI for a critical letter he penned to President Zia ul-Haq in the 1980s was a braggart compared to Imam’s mujahid credentials but was known to many Western journalists for his extensive militant connections. Khawaja claimed to have set up meetings between Osama Bin Laden and former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. His organization, the Defense of Human Rights, has been extremely active in supporting militant causes including filing a petition with the Lahore High Court blocking the extradition of Mullah Baradar and other top Quetta Shura members detained by Pakistani security services.[12] Khawaja also came under suspicion of involvement in the kidnapping and execution of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl[13] and was briefly detained after storming of the Red Mosque.
Its interesting that Mr. Varun is speaking and writing the language of his former Imperial masters from almost a century ago and the Afghan Pashtuns still havnt been enslaved. Varun you could learn alot from the Taliban about sefl respect.
What a ridiculous comment.
Good work. The last paragraph ıs strıkıng. The potentıal of Pakıstanı groups to contınue to target Pakıstan after Amerıcan wıthdrawal from Afghanıstan.. I personally belıeve a lot of them are orchestrated by CIA or other Amerıcan establıshments though. Take Maulana Fazlullah for example. He fought Pakıstanı Army ın Swat Valley. But last week we saw hım and hıs 300 men attackıng Amerıcan bases ın Noorıstan. What changed and he turned to Afghanıstan agaın..
Great piece by Varun in which he tried to bring so many theories and facts together and educate the reader. However, there are a few things I’d like to make clear.
Unlike the world-wide impression of Taliban as an agent of the ISI or CIA, the Kandahar-based Islamic movement is purely indigenous. It came as a result of CIA and ISI miscarriages in Afghanistan. Taliban is not a product of the ISI. Back in 1994, ISI was busy aiding and arming Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of Hezb-e-Islami when Taliban captured Kandahar in a lightening raid. No one took them seriously until they captured Herat within couple of months. The ISI only aligned itself when Taliban marched towards Kabul via Khost and Ghazni.
It may be true that the ISI, like any other intelligence agency that is opportunist at heart, changed its strategy and decided to embrace Taliban while abandoning Hezb-e-Islami.
Taliban, from day 1, was only interested in restoring peace and order in Afghanistan. The desire to impose Shariah law made it unacceptable for the West as well as Iran which is an ideological adversary of the Taliban. Taliban ranks included all minority ethnic as well as sectarian groups including Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Baloch and Shias. It is the interference and rejection from the West and Iran that put this fragile unity at stake and isolated the reconciliatory powers among Taliban ranks.
The inclusion of Pakistani Taliban, most of them coming from Sipah-e-Sahaba, damaged Taliban’s Afghan nationalist stance and did their best to turn the Islamic movement into a hardcore Sunni militia. The core Taliban leadership was never interested in ruling anything else than Afghanistan, as suggested by the writer.
Al-Qaeda has never enjoyed complete trust of Taliban and never will due to the fact that Afghans are always wary of the foreigners. They will be hospitable but will never refuse to let go their qualms about foreigners.
U.S. never gave Taliban government the chance to comprehend the situation and analyse the role of al-Qaeda in 9/11 attacks. Mulla Umar, along with other Taliban leaders, agreed to hand over Bin Laden to a third country, a clear indication that they were suspicious about the organisation. People who know the history of Afghanistan and Taliban will tell you that Taliban extended their hospitality to elements of al-Qaeda on the condition that they remain dormant and not use Afghanistan as the base of their worldwide operations. Taliban leadership was never happy with the fact that the mastermind of USS Cole attacks was trained on Afghan soil. However, they couldn’t do a lot about it due to extreme pressure from West-backed Northern Alliance.
The West wasted a golden opportunity to contain the virus of al-Qaeda in 2001 by invading Afghanistan. Taliban, tired of 2 decades of foreign invasion and civil war, were in no mood of an aggression. However, the Afghan code of defending the homeland at all costs preceded and Taliban retreated to regroup and expel the foreign invaders.
What al-Qaeda has done so far in Afghanistan and neighbouring Pakistan has harmed the interests of Taliban who rely on the support of many Pakistanis including businessmen and civilians. If you travel across the country, you’ll find that Pakistanis still have a soft spot for the Afghan Taliban despite being hostile to al-Qaeda and their Pakistani allies viz Kashmiri mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi or TTP.
So to sum up, I’ll say that any resolution of Afghan conflict depends on the fact that all groups need to be dealt with on case by case basis. Punishing them all with one stick is just going to make the situation extremely complicated and self-defeating.
Moign, I agree with most of this, but actually Pakistan was supporting the Taliban before their capture of Kandahar. Hekmatyar by that time was seen as a failed use of their resources. Ahmed Rashid writes, “In Islamabad no foreign diplomat or analyst doubted that they had received considerable support from Pakistan. The fall of Kandahar was celebrated by the Pakistan government…” He also writes:
“However the Taliban’s closest links were with Pakistan where many of them had grown up and studied in madrassas run by the mercurial Maulana Fazlur Rehman and his Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam (JUI), a fundamentalist party which had considerable support amongst the Pashtuns in Baluchistan and the North West Frontier Province (NWFP). More significantly Maulana Rehman was now a political ally of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and he had access to the government, the army and the ISI to whom he described this newly emerging force…. Pakistan was getting tired of backing a loser and was looking around for other potential Pashtun proxies.”
He is referring to the time before the capture of Kandahar. Coupled with the fact that Pakistan funded the madrassas from which the Taliban arose (at a time when the CIA was funneling money to the ISI to support the mujaheddin jihad against the USSR), it seems quite fair to say that the Taliban is in no small measure a creation of the ISI. And certainly, Pakistan openly supported the Taliban from Kandahar forward, so for most of its existence, it has clearly been a tool of Pakistan policy, a situation that continued into the post-9/11 period.
Jeremy, Ahmed Rashid knows a lot about the region and the history however he is not an authority. He’s one Taliban basher who has always criticised them and never gave any credit to a few things they did good for the Afghan people.
The trouble with Taliban is that they’re naive people for sure. Mulla Omar has never travelled outside Kandahar. The farthest he’s been to is Khost. He never travelled to Kabul either. The elements in Pakistan, including ISI and JUI, as you mentioned, have always taken advantage of the Taliban, not to mention the Kashmiri jihadi groups that collected money in the name of Taliban without their permission.
Another impression about the madarsas is that they’re funded by the ISI which is not true. A few top madarsas like Haqqania, run by Maulana Sami-ul-Haq, a rival of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, can be funded by ISI. However, the bulk of madarsas in far flung areas are purely run by public support. The bulk of Taliban come from such madarsas and not from the top notch ones.
Gen. Hameed Gul is also of the idea that Taliban is an indigenous movement which later got the support of ISI after establishing their credibility and control.
A stable Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s as well as the region’s supreme interest and supporting the Taliban is a no-brainer. The parasites on Taliban changed the course of the movement and transformed it into an extremist movement. Had the West accepted the regime that controlled 90% of the country and sat to negotiate with it, things would have been completely different. Bulk of the Taliban are poor peasants and students of madarsas who live in simple mud houses and have no desire to live in palaces. It is the evil elements in ISI, CIA, Kashmiri mujahideen groups, sectarian groups, al-Qaeda, US and western governments that manipulated and tarnished Taliban’s image and transformed it into a puritanical movement bent upon imposing strict form of Islam.
Moderate voices like Mulla Wakeel Ahmad Muttawakkil (former Taliban FM) and Abdus Salaam Zaeef were imprisoned and tortured by the US. These were the people who wanted to keep the foundations of a modern Afghanistan and were willing to have a meaningful dialogue with the West. Sadly, West revels in creating monsters and naming them Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, Taliban etc.
Moign, If Rashid isn’t an authority, I don’t know who is. He is very widely considered to be a leading expert. I don’t agree with your characterization of him. He certainly criticizes them, but I don’t think unjustifiably so. And he very much gives credit to the positive developments they accomplished in Afghanistan, beginning with their rise to power being seen as liberators and establishing law and order, through to their eradication of the poppy crop, etc.
When I said madrassas were funded by the ISI, I was not speaking of the present, but of during the Soviet-Afghan war. Again, from Rashid: “Between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 generally radical Muslims from 43 Islamic countries in the Middle East, North and East Africa, Central Asia and the Far East would enjoy their baptism under fire with the Afghan Mujaheddin. Tens of thousands more foreign Muslims came to study in the hundreds of new religious schools (“madrassas” in Arabic) that Pakistan’s military government began to fund, in Pakistan and along the Afghan border. Eventually more than 100,000 generally radical Muslims were to have direct contact with Pakistan and Afghanistan and be influenced by the holy war (jihad) against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.”
You cite Gul as a credible source on the Taliban, so I would observe that Gul told me in person that RAW and Mossad are backing the TTP, which I know you disagree with. If you believe Gul that Pakistan didn’t support Taliban prior to Kandahar, why do you disbelieve him that TTP has foreign backing?
You argue the Taliban was not supported by Pakistan, and yet at the same time say that, “A stable Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s as well as the region’s supreme interest and supporting the Taliban is a no-brainer.” If it’s a no-brainer, why should we not trust Rashid that Pakistan supported them from the beginning? It seems fairly uncontroversial to me that that was the case, for just that reason.
There also seems to be a disconnect between your saying, on one hand, that the CIA and ISI are not behind the Taliban, while also saying, on the other hand, that CIA and ISI manipulated the Taliban to turn it into an extremist movement. So I’m a bit confused there, as there seems to me to be a contradiction.
Well Jeremy, I’ll elaborate. What I’m trying to say is that Taliban’s origins are from the very people of Kandahar and it started spontaneously due to some disturbing events in southern Afghanistan viz. Chaman and Kandahar. When they captured Kandahar it seemed as if it’s another take over by a warlord in the region. However this time it changed the game forever. Taliban emerged as a serious group that wanted to change the law and order situation and impose some form of rules and regulations.
What happened later is another story. Once they emerged as a serious group with proximity to certain elements in Pakistan, ISI stepped in to tap their power. Some say they armed the Taliban while others say the Pakistani intelligence controlled them. It may or may not be true. However, Taliban emerged as the most powerful group in Afghanistan and went on to capture 90% of the country including Kabul.
On TTP, my stance is clear. They’re a product of US-Pakistan policies in North and South Waziristan and al-Qaeda’s influence in the region. People in that region have strong sentiments against the war in Afghanistan and oppose Islamabad’s cooperation with US military. TTP was formed to impose Taliban style Shariah in Waziristan and to aide their brethren in Afghanistan which the ISI and Pakistani establishment didn’t like at all. This might have given RAW and other ISI rivals the chance to cooperate with them of which I’m not so sure. The flames of discontent were there and all that needed to be done was a bit of fanning them. RAW and Mossad might have done that.
So in a nutshell, I always say that general discontent leads to the creation and establishment of a insurgent movement (Taliban, TTP, LeT, BLA etc.). It is only after that stage they start receiving support from external players (ISI, CIA, RAW, Mossad etc.). It is not easy for intelligence agencies to create a militant from scratch. However, it is very easy for them to lend support once it’s spotted and vetted.
I hope I’m more clear now. Thanks.
Thanks for the clarifications, Moign. I think we’re pretty much in agreement, given what you’ve said here, which I think is pretty much right on.
Good summary Mr Khawaja. Thanks
http://www.theunjustmedia.com/Islamic%20Perspectives/June10/Operation%20Blue%20Tulsi%20How%20India%20Approached%20Israel%20For%20Help%20Against%20Pakistan.htm Artıcle explaıns Indıan and Israelı efforts to balkanıse Pakıstan and take hold of ıts nuclear assets. It ıs quıte confusıng for non experts lıke me though. You mıght be ınterested ın that kınd of stuff. I would gladly read any clarıfıcatıon on thıs matter.
The fact that the websıte ıs the mouthpıece of Afghan Talıban makes ıt ınterestıng to read. Contrary to your claıms Mr Khawaja they say TTP ıs mujahıds only agents ınfıltrated ınto theır ranks. I have always separated TTP and Afghanıstan Talıban so far.
@LT
The sad reality is that every government or militant organisation involved in a conflict never admits its accesses, violations of human rights, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not to mean that all parties involved in a conflict commit above mentioned crimes.
TTP, like Afghan Taliban and their allies, has committed crimes against the civilian population in the name of God and Jihad. They’ve targeted and killed innocent civilians in numerous suicide operations, road-side bombings, beheadings and massive car bombings. Not to mention the damage to civilian properties like schools and hospitals. I can discount their claim to an extent that some infiltration took place but did the culprits got caught and punished by the TTP leadership?
The claim that FPJ is the mouthpiece of Afghan Taliban is ridiculous to say the least. I’ve maintained my position that Afghan Taliban rose against the tyranny and violations of human dignity and tried to bring an end to it. Sadly, American intervention forced them to change their tactics and join the bandwagon of human rights abusers.
There are many revolutionary movements in contemporary history that took up arms with a righteous cause but brutal suppression by the governments forced them to change their course and adopt inhuman tactics which they stood against in the first place. Taliban is no exception to this tragedy.
Thanks for explanatıons. Just want to correct a mısunderstandıng. FPJ ıs of course not the mouthpıece of Afghan Taleban . I meant The Unjustmedıa websıte whose lınk I gave above.
Brutal suppressıon ıs good poınt. We saw hundreds of unlawfully kılled Taleban on the streets of Swat after army takeover. Drone attacks add ınsult to ınjury and render the Taleban desperate and angry to the same extent I suppose. At the end they are dırectly or ındırectly forced to wıeld the same methods. In Rome, do what Romans do basıcally. Thanks agaın