New Afghan Taliban leader promises to continue insurgency

[Lite Beer]

New Afghan Taliban leader promises to continue insurgency
LYNNE O'DONNELL, Associated Press
RAHIM FAIEZ, Associated Press

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — Political uncertainty inside the Taliban has cast doubt on the prospects for an end to the war in Afghanistan. On Saturday the Taliban's controversial new leader vowed to continue fighting while urging unity among his followers in a message aimed at preventing a split in the group between those who want peace and those who still believe they can win.

An audio message purportedly from newly elected Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor came as cracks in the Taliban's previously united front widened, two days after the group confirmed an Afghan government report that reclusive longtime leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, had died. The 30-minute speech attributed to Mansoor was emailed to The Associated Press by the Taliban's spokesman. It could not be independently verified.

In it, the man purported to be Mansoor seemed to be carefully parsing his words to calm internal dissent and solidify his political base inside the Taliban, urging his fighters to remain unified and continue the jihad, or holy war, to establish an Islamic state in Afghanistan. He did not endorse or reject the nascent peace talks with the Afghan government despite the fact that, according to the government, Mansoor has been effectively running the Taliban for more than two years and the group's decision to participate in landmark face-to-face talks in Pakistan last month took place under his leadership. A second round of talks, which has been scheduled to begin Friday in Pakistan, has been indefinitely postponed.

"We have to continue our jihad, we shouldn't be suspicious of each other. We should accept each other. Whatever happens must comply with Sharia law, whether that be jihad, or talks, or an invitation to either. Our decisions all must be based on Sharia law," he said.

Mansoor took over the Taliban after the group on Thursday confirmed that Mullah Omar had died and said they elected Mansoor as his successor. The Afghan government announced Wednesday that the reclusive mullah had been dead since April 2013; the Taliban has remained vague on exactly when Mullah Omar died.

Mansoor's first priority seems to be quelling internal opposition to his election. Mullah Omar's son Yacoob has publicly rejected Mansoor's election, which was held in the Pakistani city of Quetta. He said the vote took place among a small clique of Mansoor's supporters and demanded a re-election that includes all Taliban commanders, including those fighting in Afghanistan.

"We should keep our unity, we must be united, our enemy will be happy in our separation," Mansoor purportedly said in the message. "This is a big responsibility for us. This is not the work of one, two or three people. This is all our responsibility to carry on jihad until we establish the Islamic state."

Observers said the coming days should reveal how the Taliban leadership crisis plays out — a process which could have a seismic effect on Afghanistan's political landscape.

"There's a lot of unknowns right now, but hopefully within the next few days we would know more about what will be the intentions of the new leadership and if the new leader would be able to keep unity within the Taliban," said Haroun Mir, a political analyst.

If Mansoor fails to appease his fighters and field commanders on the ground, the ultimate beneficiary could be the Islamic State group. The rival Islamic extremist group, which already controls about a third of Syria and Iraq with affiliates in Egypt and Libya, has established a small foothold in Afghanistan and is actively recruiting disillusioned Taliban fighters, according to Afghan government and U.S. military officials.

The position of the Afghan government was also unclear, he said, as President Ashraf Ghani — who has made peace a priority of his administration — is in Germany for medical treatment. "We are hopeful that when President Ghani returns to Kabul, he will make a statement about this new event and about the future of the peace process," Mir said.

Mullah Omar was the one-eyed, secretive head of the Taliban, who hosted Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaida in the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. He had not been seen in public since fleeing over the border into Pakistan after the 2001 U.S.-led invasion that ousted the Taliban from power.

Under Mansoor's shadow leadership, the Taliban has participated in a series of indirect meetings with government representatives, culminating in last month's landmark meeting. But the Taliban has simultaneously intensified its attacks on Afghan security forces, expanding its footprint into the previously peaceful northern provinces after NATO and U.S. troops ended their combat mission and handed over security to local forces at the end of last year.

Officials said on Saturday that Taliban gunmen had surrounded a police station in southern Uruzgan province and were holding 70 police officers hostage. The head of the police in Khas Uruzgan district said that five police officers had been killed and four wounded in fighting so far.

"If we don't get support then all 70 police will be either dead or captured," he said.

In a separate statement on Saturday, the Taliban refuted media reports that the leader of the Haqqani Network, Jalaluddin Haqqani, had died in eastern Afghanistan a year ago.

"These claims have no basis," the statement said. It said the leader of one of the country's most brutal insurgent groups, based in Pakistan's tribal belt with links to al-Qaeda, "has been blessed with good health for a long time now and has no troubles currently."

Like Mullah Omar, Haqqani has been reported dead on a number of occasions, but the reports have not been independently verified. Jalaluddin's son Sirajuddin was elected as the Taliban's deputy to Mansoor — a move possibly aimed at ensuring a steady cash flow from the Haqqani's wealthy backers and appeasing hardliners.

The Haqqani Network is considered one of the country's most vicious militant organizations, responsible for complex and well-planned attacks that often involve large numbers of suicide bombers and produce heavy casualties.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-02

[thaibeachlovers]

US ?intelligence services can see a frying pan from a zillion miles above the surface of the world, and listen to everything anyone says on a phone ( probably reading this right now ), but they are pretty useless at tracking the actual bad guys, or this guy would have had a drone missile in his lap by now.

[Lissos]

Jihad is not about deals, compromise and power 'sharing', I would say.

In history, if it ever made pacts it was 'after' the fact of victory and clarifying to the conquered just how things are going to 'be' from now on.

It gets spun as doing 'only' what needs to be done in order to stave off opponents, and nothing more, but that was not the prophet's model certainly 'within' an area of competing factions. It was to end in either total annhilation of opponents or their defeat followed by humiliating removal of power and submission to Islamic political dominance. It is 'realistic' for power sharing to be a solution in Afghanistan but historically it never seemed to work out there and it generally goes against the usual drive of Talibs who see the Pathan as the 'true' elite ruling Afghan and all the other Afghans such as Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara as inferior peoples.

Add the Shi'ism of Hazara into things and they were seen as dogs.

In the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, I think all the above is to be considered because even 'if' this guy is interested in a deal he knows he could be viewed as a sell out, a traitor, the weakling successor in history of the mysterious mythical strong man Omar. Nobody wants to be 'that' successor. Yesterday a 'supreme council' disputed the appointment of Mansour anyway and said they will elect the successor. Even if Mansour is 'Jihad-Lite', I suspect the emergence of a new strain called - "The 'real' Taliban"

[simple1]

Apparently a fairly well informed article on the prospects for the ANSF holding ground until 2017 below, subject to Afghan government political cohesion. Prospects for beyond 2017, a number of concerns have been raised.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/can-the-afghan-army-prevail-on-the-battlefield/

[JockPieandBeans]

Apparently a fairly well informed article on the prospects for the ANSF holding ground until 2017 below, subject to Afghan government political cohesion. Prospects for beyond 2017, a number of concerns have been raised.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/can-the-afghan-army-prevail-on-the-battlefield/

Is there any chance that you could provide practical experience ?

The Taliban are already running large parts of Afghanistan.

Many of the ANSF are already Taliban members.

And when the really hits, guess where they are going to side ? I will give you a clue. It ain't going to be with the Government and Government Forces

[Travelman868]

Jihad is not about deals, compromise and power 'sharing', I would say.

In history, if it ever made pacts it was 'after' the fact of victory and clarifying to the conquered just how things are going to 'be' from now on.

It gets spun as doing 'only' what needs to be done in order to stave off opponents, and nothing more, but that was not the prophet's model certainly 'within' an area of competing factions. It was to end in either total annhilation of opponents or their defeat followed by humiliating removal of power and submission to Islamic political dominance. It is 'realistic' for power sharing to be a solution in Afghanistan but historically it never seemed to work out there and it generally goes against the usual drive of Talibs who see the Pathan as the 'true' elite ruling Afghan and all the other Afghans such as Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara as inferior peoples.

Add the Shi'ism of Hazara into things and they were seen as dogs.

In the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, I think all the above is to be considered because even 'if' this guy is interested in a deal he knows he could be viewed as a sell out, a traitor, the weakling successor in history of the mysterious mythical strong man Omar. Nobody wants to be 'that' successor. Yesterday a 'supreme council' disputed the appointment of Mansour anyway and said they will elect the successor. Even if Mansour is 'Jihad-Lite', I suspect the emergence of a new strain called - "The 'real' Taliban"

You are correct when you say that Mohammed was only interested in annihilation of opponents, mind you it also has to be remembered that the "prophet" never made a prophesy. One would have thought that he would have seen the problems with the Shia and Sunni's.

Shiria Law :- If Muslims think it is a good idea maybe we could bring back some of our older UK laws, just for them.

[Lissos]

One would have thought that he would have seen the problems with the Shia and Sunni's.

I guess he was too confident in his 'unity', but a lifetime of knowing tribal ways inside and out surely would have shown him how fragile things are. Just after his death, several tribes saw the show as over when Muhammad died and began going back into older rituals because they saw Islam without Muhammad as like a camel without a rider. It was his political leadership they'd bought into, and now he was gone. Close friends of Muhammad had something to say about that (to put it lightly). Jihad was about to expand massively, and 'nobody' was going to revert as far as they were concerned.

[lap82]

US ?intelligence services can see a frying pan from a zillion miles above the surface of the world, and listen to everything anyone says on a phone ( probably reading this right now ), but they are pretty useless at tracking the actual bad guys, or this guy would have had a drone missile in his lap by now.

I agree. I just think they don't want to find the bad guys. So, they can keep on spending money on the infamous "War on Terror".

[simple1]

Apparently a fairly well informed article on the prospects for the ANSF holding ground until 2017 below, subject to Afghan government political cohesion. Prospects for beyond 2017, a number of concerns have been raised.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/can-the-afghan-army-prevail-on-the-battlefield/

So far this year 4,100 Afghan soldiers and police officers have been killed and about 7,800 wounded with months of heavy fighting still ahead. In comparison, in all of 2014 around 5,000 members of the Afghan security forces were killed battling the ongoing insurgency.

http://thediplomat.com/2015/07/is-the-afghan-army-losing-the-war-in-afghanistan/

[Lissos]

This part stood out :

According to a retired Afghan general interviewed by the New York Times, the current casualty rates are, among other things, caused by the lack of an offensive spirit among troops. We are in a passive defense mode we are not chasing the enemy. Units get surrounded, and we dont send them support, so they are killed, he says.

Jihad is a powerfull motivator, but a monthly pay cheque? Less so, I suspect. We have a member here who I recall was involved in checking out the suitability of new recruits in the ANA and he was not optimistic about the future to put it mildly. Perhaps it may also be that a lack of aggression is down to them suspecting that this is a token resistance in the face of a tsunami and that the Taliban will ultimately prevail? Lastly, the possibility that the ANA has been hugely infiltrated.

[thaibeachlovers]

US ?intelligence services can see a frying pan from a zillion miles above the surface of the world, and listen to everything anyone says on a phone ( probably reading this right now ), but they are pretty useless at tracking the actual bad guys, or this guy would have had a drone missile in his lap by now.

I agree. I just think they don't want to find the bad guys. So, they can keep on spending money on the infamous "War on Terror".

Agreed. If the so called and impotent 'war on terror' ever ends, a lots of war profiteers will be losing money big time and a lot of pompous idiots will be losing thei power and prestige. That's a lot of influence to upset.