Pakistani Taliban rule out peace talks after U.S. drone killing of its leader

[News_Editor]

PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN (BNO NEWS) -- The Pakistani Taliban is no longer willing to start peace talks with the Pakistani government, holding the government responsible for the U.S. killing of its leader, a spokesperson said on Sunday as the group appointed an interim leader until a permanent replacement is found.

Shahidullah Shahid, a spokesman for the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which is better known as the Pakistani Taliban, told Geo TV that talks with the "U.S. slaves" were no longer possible. "The [Pakistani] government has given us the present of Hakimullah Mehsud's dead body," Shahid was quoted as saying, referring to the group's leader who died in a U.S. drone strike on Friday.

The Pakistani government has strongly condemned the U.S. drone strike that killed Mehsud, summoning U.S. Ambassador Richard Olson to the Foreign Ministry on Saturday to formally convey the government's stance. Mehsud had served as the militant group's leader since August 2009, making him one of the most wanted terrorists in the world.

"The latest drone strike will have a negative impact on the Government's initiative to undertake a dialogue with the TTP," the foreign ministry said in a statement on Saturday. "The Government, however, is determined to continue with these efforts to engage with the TTP, to bring an end to the ongoing violence and make them a part of mainstream politics within the parameters of our constitution."

But speaking to CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers defended the drone strike, calling Mehsud a "bad guy" whose militants attacked Pakistani soldiers, threatened to carry out operations in the United States, and had ties to other groups such as the Afghan Taliban.

"There was some information recently that concerned us about the safety of our troops. I feel a little better for our troops today than I did before this event happened," Rogers said. "We deal with these threats every single day, and they're big, they are real, [and] they affect real people."

Also on Sunday, a 42-member advisory council of the Pakistani Taliban appointed Asmatullah Shaheen Bhittani as the group's interim leader until a permanent replacement has been found. The selection came only a day after Mehsud was buried at an unknown location in Pakistan's volatile tribal region.

Mehsud was among at least four people killed on Friday when an unmanned U.S. drone fired four missiles at a residential building and a nearby vehicle in the village of Dandey Darpakhel, which is located about 7 kilometers (4 miles) north of Miranshah, the main town in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area. The region is near the border with Afghanistan and is frequently the target of U.S. drone strikes.

Mehsud was a spokesman for the militant group under the command of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike in August 2009. Initially known as Zulfiqar Mehsud, he became known by his birth name Hakimullah Mehsud when he was appointed the new leader of the Pakistani Taliban in August 2009.

The leader, believed to have been in his 30s, was charged in U.S. federal court in August 2010 for his alleged involvement in an attack against Camp Chapman near the Afghan town of Khost in December 2009. The attack involved a suicide bomber posing as an intelligence asset who walked through the front gates of the base before detonating his explosives, killing 7 CIA employees in the deadliest attack on U.S. intelligence officials since 1983.

In September 2010, the U.S. State Department designated the Pakistani Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and its top two leaders as Specially Designated Global Terrorists. In addition, the U.S. offered a $5 million reward for any information leading to Mehsud's arrest.

Earlier this year, the militant group's second-in-command, Wali-ur-Rehman, was killed when a U.S. drone fired missiles against a compound and a vehicle also in Dandey Darpakhel. As Rehman would have been Mehsud's successor if he had been alive, it was not immediately known who will now become the group's top leader.

U.S. drone strikes have become relatively common during President Barack Obama's tenure in which the unmanned aircraft have targeted suspected militants, their hideouts, and training facilities. However, the number of civilians killed along with militants during such attacks has remained uncertain.

The total number of deaths caused by drone strikes in 2012 stood well over 300, according to the Washington-based think tank New America Foundation, and as many as 3,239 individuals have been killed as a result of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan alone between 2004 and January 2013.

In January 2012, President Obama, for the first time during his presidency, publicly acknowledged that U.S. drones regularly strike suspected militants along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. He confirmed that many of these strikes are carried out in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, targeting al-Qaeda and Taliban suspects in tough terrain.

Pakistan's government has been public in its stance against the drone strikes, as local residents and officials have blamed them for killing innocent civilians and motivating young men to join the Taliban. Details about the alleged militants are almost never provided, and the U.S. government does not comment publicly on the strikes.

However, the U.S. has used drones as an important tool in their fight against terrorism. In June 2012, al-Qaeda deputy leader Abu Yahya al-Libi was killed when a U.S. drone fired two missiles at a compound and a nearby pickup truck in the village of Hesokhel, located in the Mir Ali district just east of Miranshah. It was the most serious blow to al-Qaeda since U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden during a secret military operation in the Pakistani city of Abbotabad in May 2011.

(Copyright 2013 by BNO News B.V. All rights reserved. Info: [email protected].)

[Credo]

So, if the drone strikes stop, then they will stop killing? Somehow the Taliban just doesn't inspire much credibility on that front.

[boomerangutang]

When two sides negotiate, they assess each others' strengths - to see what, if anything to concede to the other side.

Taking out their leader (with or without a drone) weakens the Taliban side, so they have a weaker bargaining position.

Regardless, it's doubtful the Taliban would be negotiating in good faith. The US has a standing policy to not negotiate with terrorists. The Pakistani authorities seemed willing to negotiate, but it was somewhat like two buddies getting together. The US drone spoiled the comraderie between the Pakis and the Taliban. So it goes. ...on to the next chess table.

[simple1]

So, if the drone strikes stop, then they will stop killing? Somehow the Taliban just doesn't inspire much credibility on that front.

Pakistan has suffered 40,000 deaths by Islamic extremists so you would think that the US needs to give consideration to the wishes of the Pakistani government on how to deal with the peace process.

It is reported that the Pakistan Taliban leadership, after seven weeks of negotiation, had agreed to a meeting to commence mapping out a peace process, with the killing of Masoud they have now withdrawn from the talks. In public, the government has criticised the US inference and I assume also in their minds the potential outcome for the Pakistan Taliban to intensify attacks with even more deaths of Pakistani civilians and security forces

[Credo]

Your making an assumption that the US isn't giving consideration to the Pakistanis on the matter. Pakistan is hardly a unified country on many issues and they would probably be more than happy to have the Taliban wiped out, at least some factions would.

[simple1]

Your making an assumption that the US isn't giving consideration to the Pakistanis on the matter. Pakistan is hardly a unified country on many issues and they would probably be more than happy to have the Taliban wiped out, at least some factions would.

As said after repeated requests the US has ignored the government wishes to cease drone attacks and interference in their internal affairs. Whether these requests truly reflect the ruling party wishes or purely for domestic consumption is the question.

For sure members of the Pakistani government and others would be wishing for the eventual elimination of the Islamic extremists threat; just look at the number of deaths and general destablisation of society.

[Sing_Sling]

Hmm . . . the Taliban won't talk with the US unless the US stops killings its leaders.

Th US keeps killing Taliban leaders . . .

No discussions . . .

Is that a simplistic analogy?

[Credo]

Yes, it is simplistic enough to be moronic.

[boomerangutang]

It would interesting to hear what US authorities (who are directly involved with attack drones) say about continuing to use them on the Paki border region. I'd venture they say something like:

"We've made it clear, to the bad guys, that if they continue to raid and kill, - that Uncle Sam will hunt them down and kill them. There is no statute of limitations. They can run and hide for awhile, but we will find them and inflict pain."

[simple1]

It would interesting to hear what US authorities (who are directly involved with attack drones) say about continuing to use them on the Paki border region. I'd venture they say something like:

"We've made it clear, to the bad guys, that if they continue to raid and kill, - that Uncle Sam will hunt them down and kill them. There is no statute of limitations. They can run and hide for awhile, but we will find them and inflict pain."

If that's the case & there is no statute of limitation, please advise why the US is encouraging the Taliban to enter peace talks in Afghanistan. For talks to be successful there would have to be an amnesty for crimes committed and some form of power sharing, a process for which there are precedents.

Edited November 4, 2013 by simple1

[Loptr]

Hmm . . . the Taliban won't talk with the US unless the US stops killings its leaders.

Th US keeps killing Taliban leaders . . .

No discussions . . .

Is that a simplistic analogy?

Drone strikes won't be stopping anytime soon as it appears that Obama enjoys the practice.

Book Alleges Obama Told Aides About Drone Strikes: I’m ‘Really Good At Killing People’

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/03/book-alleges-obama-told-aides-about-drone-strikes-im-really-good-at-killing-people/

[Sing_Sling]

Yes, it is simplistic enough to be moronic.

. . . and accurate

[Credo]

It's inaccurate. The Taliban were killing people long before there were drone strikes and they will be doing so long after the drones are gone.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted.

[Sing_Sling]

It's inaccurate. The Taliban were killing people long before there were drone strikes and they will be doing so long after the drones are gone.

That is completely irrelevant - the US want talks with the Taliban.

The Taliban won't talk to the US unless they stop killing their leaders.

Here's an idea - stop killing their leaders long enough for talks to commence.

If the talks are fruitless then keep bombing them even further back in to the stone-age.

This way there are no talks - which seems like the US goal anyway.

The US were killing people long before the talks and will be doing so long into the future . . . likewise the Taliban

[Credo]

Once the killing stops, so will the drone strikes. The knife cuts both ways.

[Sing_Sling]

Once the killing stops, so will the drone strikes. The knife cuts both ways.

Hardly . . . killing by the US has been there before drone strikes.

The point, however, is that the US wants talks, but keeps killing Taliban leaders whose principal demand to start talks is for the US to stop killing Taliban leaders.

Here's a suggestion to the US:

Stop killing Taliban leaders long enough for the talks to start and continue - if they are fruitful, keep this strategy going - if not fruitful then continue with the killing

I know this is akin to examining theories in nuclear physics, but there you go . . .

Edited November 6, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[simple1]

I know this is akin to examining theories in nuclear physics, but there you go . . .

You have great written communication skills - laughed out loud

[Steely Dan]

I know this is akin to examining theories in nuclear physics, but there you go . . .

You have great written communication skills - laughed out loud

Indeed, why not think of the drones as airborne particle accelerators used to accelerate particles of Taliban rapidly across the Swat valley.

[Chicog]

It would interesting to hear what US authorities (who are directly involved with attack drones) say about continuing to use them on the Paki border region. I'd venture they say something like:

"We've made it clear, to the bad guys, that if they continue to raid and kill, - that Uncle Sam will hunt them down and kill them. There is no statute of limitations. They can run and hide for awhile, but we will find them and inflict pain."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhnUgAaea4M

[boomerangutang]

Once the killing stops, so will the drone strikes. The knife cuts both ways.

Hardly . . . killing by the US has been there before drone strikes.

The point, however, is that the US wants talks, but keeps killing Taliban leaders whose principal demand to start talks is for the US to stop killing Taliban leaders.

Here's a suggestion to the US:

Stop killing Taliban leaders long enough for the talks to start and continue - if they are fruitful, keep this strategy going - if not fruitful then continue with the killing

I know this is akin to examining theories in nuclear physics, but there you go . . .

Taliban are mentioning 'peace talks' because they want a respite in the drone attacks. However, concurrently, the Taliban are carrying out harmful missions. It's like a vicious circle. However, the US has superior weaponry. The Taliban want to negotiate from a position of strength, but they're not in a strong position. Indeed, their people are splintered, and often act independently.

Even if one group of Taliban put aside their weapons and deign to join society, other cabals will sprout up. It's like trying to get rid of crabgrass in a motley lawn. Let the bad guys figure it out, either individually or in groups: put down their weapons, and come in to get assimilated. Yet another BIG problem: even if Taliban come in to say they want to start being decent people, there's the ever-worrying problem that some of them will go berserk and kill as many as possible - as has happened several times prior.

Any Taliban who come in from the cold, should not be allowed to have or carry any weapons for the ensuing 6 years - regardless of whether they become police or army or security guards or whatever.

[boomerangutang]

I've seen some documentary videos showing little windows on what it's like to interact with Taliban or former Taliban. It's like trying to deal with rowdy boys. They don't have influences or examples of decency while growing up, so they simply don't know how to be decent, caring, protective humans. Magnanimity? foggedabowdit. They know all about revenge, and sneaking around clandestinely. While growing up, no one tells them that telling lies is wrong (similar to Thailand in that way). Their alliances shift like the desert sands.

[simple1]

Currently the main emphasis for US sponsored peace talks is focussed on Afghanistan, not Pakistan. From reports the US was motivated by a statement from the Afghan Taliban that they oppose use of Afghan soil to threaten other countries such as the US. I understand that the Afghan Taliban have never launched attacks outside of their country.

As previously said, with the exception of India, the Pakistani Taliban only operate within their terrirtory, we know elements within Pakistani security are sponsoring these attacks. The identification and elimination of those within Pakistan government & security forces supporting the Taliban would be essential to reducing sectarian killings & mitigate attempts to gain power by the ultra conservative Islamists.

With regard to Afghanistan one of the main issues will be on how to agree some form of power sharing and inclusion of non Pashtun ethnic tribes ruled by the provincial warlords. Many Afghan non Pashtun ethnic people are still sitting in refugee camps within Pakistan & Iran (total refugee population estimated at approx 2.5 million) and will need to have sufficient security to move back to Afghanistan & to reintegrate them back into Afghan society.

Edited November 7, 2013 by simple1