Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
I missed this, but my eagle-eyed readers did not:
DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan — A new Islamic militia leader has emerged in Pakistan to openly challenge al Qaida-affiliated warlord Baitullah Mehsud for the first time from within his own tribe, marking the start of a bloody confrontation in the wild Waziristan region that could have profound consequences for both Pakistan and the West.
In his first interview with a Western news organization, Qari Zainuddin told McClatchy this week that he'd wipe out Mehsud and rescue Pakistan from a reign of terror that has pushed the nuclear-armed U.S. ally toward collapse.
Zainuddin charged that Mehsud, who is the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, had betrayed both his Muslim religion and the Mehsud tribe of his native South Waziristan, which borders Afghanistan.
"To fight our own country is wrong," said Zainuddin, in an interview given in a hideout on the edge of South Waziristan, surrounded by masked Kalashnikov-totting followers. "Islam doesn't give permission to fight against a Muslim country. This is where we differ. What we're seeing these days, these bombings in mosques, in markets, in hospitals; these are not allowed in Islam. We don't agree with them."
If i am not wrong this Qari Zainuddin is cousin of Abdullah Mehsud and now leads his group. The same Abdullah Mehsud who was caught in Afghanistan and managed to come out of Guantanmo bay some how alive before being killed by Pakistan Army :)
You would think that if someone was caught fighting US forces in Afghanistan, that person wouldn't be let go so easily especially if he was known entity and popular taliban fighter.
Eh, not to piss in your cheerios, but you cut the quote off a line too soon:
But victory will not mean any lessening of efforts to expel Westerners from neighboring Afghanistan, Zainuddin said. He pledged to send his forces into Afghanistan once Mehsud is vanquished.
This jibes with what we're seeing elsewhere, like this piece from the LA Times.
"My father was a religious man, but he believed in the writ of the state, he believed in the army, he believed in a stable Pakistan," the younger Naeemi said. "The Taliban only want to bring anarchy and disturbance. My father was against that, and he gave his life for his beliefs. Now it is my duty to carry on his mission."
A moment later, however, he veered into a diatribe against the American, Israeli and Indian intelligence services, accusing them of supporting the Taliban in order to destabilize Pakistan and seize control of its nuclear arsenal. It was an argument his father, who was once jailed for opposing Pakistani cooperation with the U.S. military, made as often as he condemned the Taliban.
In other interviews this week, a cross section of the city's residents expressed remarkably similar opinions, as if reading from a script that portrayed the United States as conspiring against Pakistani Muslims, despite the huge quantities of U.S. economic aid being sent here and the thousands of U.S. troops fighting the Taliban in next-door Afghanistan.
"The problem is that for years, the Pakistani state has promoted Islamic religious orthodoxy and the idea that the West is out to destroy us. This mind-set has been inculcated in an entire generation," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a political analyst. "Taliban thinking, more than physical presence, is the greater danger to Pakistan."
Between breaks in their memorization, a cluster of students at the Naeemia seminary spoke of their wish to become clerics and spread Islam. Asked how they felt about other boys being trained to commit suicide bombings, they shook their heads in disapproval, saying it was un-Islamic. But then several spoke up, saying they also hoped to die for Islam.
"We have no fear of martyrdom. It is an honor," said one slender boy of 18.
"Both the Taliban and the Americans want to destroy our country," he added firmly. "Whether we live or die defending our faith, we will be blessed."
And as Roggio wrote about today, there's still Nazir, Badahar, Haqqani, etc to worry about, even if they're not concerned with fighting the Pakistani government.
What's Pashtu for "awakening".... not that I am on "buy" yet...or even close....
And to think it all began with drone strikes.
Absolute ditto on what Chris said. I understand that one can't be too picky about allies, but isn't the whole "the enemy(ies) of my enemy is my friend" thing what gave us Zia's madrassahs, Hekmatyar and the Taliban in the first place?
This seems to be the uncertain legacy of the surge in Iraq - what eventually happens to the insurgents turned anti-AQI fighters. Wildly celebrating the development of a guy who describes his movement as "the REAL Taliban" just because he's also anti-Mehsud strikes me as just slightly premature.
Yeah, seriously the word of the day is "don't count your chickens before they're hatched."
Okay, that's a phrase, but remember: this is like the fourth campaign through South Waziristan since 2002. So optimism is great, but it's also great not to get too carried away.
MattC86 is right on. Zainuddin is more openly anti-West than the mujahidin in Afghanistan ever were, and look how that turned out.
Reading even further down the article, I really don't like the implications of backing a guy who is determined to see Mehsud dethroned because of a "personal score to settle." I'm not sure that this is indicative of any sort of sea change in the frontier provinces as much as it is a testament to the depth of the feuds there.
Well, so much for that idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/asia/24pstan.html?hp
Add your comment