Over 10 suspected Taliban militants killed, wounded in N. Afghanistan

BAGHLAN, Afghanistan, Dec. 23 (Xinhua) -- In a joint operation carried out by Afghan National Army (ANA) and police in northern Baghlan province, over 10 Taliban militants were killed and wounded, provincial governor Mohammad Akbar Barikzai said on Wednesday.

"ANA and Afghan National Police killed and wounded more than 10 suspected Taliban militants in a cleanup operation conducted in Baghlan-e-Markazi district on Tuesday," Barikzai told reporters at a press conference.

A local Taliban commander Mullah Zulmai was among the injured militants, he added.

He did not give the exact figure of Taliban causalities, but admitted four police officers were also killed in the firefight.

Moreover, at the same press briefing, Mohammad Kabir Andarabi, police chief of Baghlan, confirmed that some civilians were also hurt in the operation, but did not give more details.

Baghlan, a relatively peaceful province until early this year, has been the scene of Taliban-led insurgency over the past several months.

Source:news.xinhuanet.com/

Taliban kill 12 in suicide attack at mosque in Pakistan's northwest

A Taliban suicide bomber killed 12 Pakistanis and wounded 28 more in an attack at a mosque in the northwestern district of Dir.

The suicide bomber detonated at a mosque frequented by police in the main town of Timergara. The attack took place as people gathered at the mosque for Friday prayers.

Two children were reported to be among those killed. The mosque was heavily damaged in the suicide attack.

The Taliban maintain a strong presence in Lower Dir despite the military operation launched there in late April to oust them. Sufi Mohammed, the leader of the radical, pro-Taliban Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammed [TNSM, or the Movement for the Enforcement of Mohammed's Law], was based in Madain in Dir before he was arrested last summer. Sufi engineered the notorious Malakand Accord, the agreement with the government that ceded vast areas of northwestern Pakistan to the Taliban.

Today's attack is the latest in the Taliban's terror campaign, which was ramped up after Hakeemullah Mehsud's announcement that he would avenge the death of his predecessor Baitullah Mehsud at the hands of the US. Hakeemullah also demanded the military end its operations in the tribal areas and the wider northwest.

The Taliban have had no reservations about striking inside mosques and other religious sites. There have been 20 such attacks in mosques and other Islamic institutions in Pakistan since December 2007, according to information compiled by The Long War Journal.

The last such attack took place on Dec. 4, when a suicide assault team stormed a mosque frequented by military officers in Rawalpindi. Two senior generals were among the 40 people killed.


Major attacks at mosques, religious events, and Islamic institutions in Pakistan since December 2007:

Dec. 18, 2009: A suicide detonated inside a mosque frequented by policemen in Lower Dir, killing 12.

Dec. 4, 2009: A suicide assault team stormed a mosque in Rawalpindi that is frequented by Army officers, killing 40.

Oct. 20, 2009: A pair of suicide bombers detonated their vests at Islamabad's International Islamic University, killing five.

June 12, 2009: A suicide bomber killed five Pakistanis, including anti-Taliban cleric Dr. Sarfraz Naeemi, in an attack on a mosque in Lahore during Friday prayers.

June 12, 2009: A suicide bomber killed six worshipers and wounded more than 90 in an attack inside a mosque in Nowshera. The attack collapsed the dome of the mosque.

June 5, 2009: A suicide bomber killed 49 worshipers in an attack on a mosque in a remote village in Dir.

April 5, 2009: A suicide bomber killed 24 worshipers and wounded more than 100 in an attack outside a Shia religious center in the Chakwal district in Punjab province.

March 27, 2009: A Taliban suicide bomber killed more than 70 worshipers and wounded more than 125 in an attack at a mosque in the Khyber tribal agency.

March 5, 2009: An attacker threw a hand grenade into the middle of a mosque in Dera Ismail Khan, wounding 25 worshipers.

March 2, 2009: A suicide bomber killed six people during an attack at a gathering in a mosque in the Pishin district in Baluchistan.

Feb. 20, 2008: A suicide bomber killed 32 Pakistanis and wounded more than 85 in an attack on a funeral procession for a Shia elder who was murdered in Dera Ismail Khan.

Feb. 5, 2009: A suicide attack outside a mosque killed more than 30 Shia worshipers and wounded more than 50.

Nov. 22, 2008: A bombing at a mosque in Hangu killed five civilians and wounded seven.

Nov. 21, 2008: A suicide attack on a funeral procession in Dera Ismail Khan killed 10 mourners and wounded more than 25.

Sept. 10, 2008: The Taliban attacked a mosque filled with Ramadan worshipers in the district of Dir in northwestern Pakistan. More than 25 worshipers were killed and more than 50 were wounded.

Aug. 19, 2008: A suicide bomber killed 29 Shia mourners and wounded 35 after detonating in the emergency ward of a hospital.

June 17, 2008: Four Pakistanis were killed and three wounded in a bombing at a Shia mosque in Dera Ismail Khan.

May 19, 2008: Four Pakistanis were killed in a bombing outside a mosque in Bajaur.

Jan. 17, 2008: A suicide bomber killed 10 and wounded 25 in an attack on a Shia mosque in Peshawar.

Dec. 28, 2007: A suicide bomber detonated in the middle of a mosque in Charsadda in an attempt to kill former Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao as he conducted Eid prayers. More than 50 were killed and more than 200 were wounded.

Source:longwarjournal.org/

Afghanistan: the clock is ticking for Obama as the Taliban bides its time

Now we know what the American President intends to do about Afghanistan, it is worth reflecting for a moment on what the enemy's strategy is likely to be. This is best summed up by a remark recently made by a Taliban sympathiser to a senior American official in Kabul: "You might have all the watches, but we have all the time." By this he meant that, for all the technological wonders available to Nato forces, from unmanned Predator drones to satellite imagery, the Taliban enjoys one great advantage against which the West simply cannot compete. Our leaders are subject to the fickle support of their electorate, while the Taliban are under no such constraints.

For the average tribesman on Afghanistan's wilder frontiers, waging war is the family business, and they have been profitably engaged in it for most of the past three decades. And in a region that prides itself on being the graveyard of empires, there is a widely held view that you need only fight on until your adversary realises he can never win and beats a hasty retreat.

So setting a deadline for withdrawal, as President Obama appeared to do in his speech to the US Military Academy earlier this week, is a grave mistake. I acknowledge the counter-argument made by Louis Susman, the US Ambassador to London, to this newspaper, and by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to the Senate armed services committee, that such a withdrawal will only be undertaken if a review shows there has been a tangible improvement in the security situation. But the fact that the President felt it necessary to mention a deadline in the first place is indicative of the pressure he is under, particularly from his own supporters, to pay as much attention to formulating an exit strategy as to winning the war.

After eight years of non-stop military conflict in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the American public has – understandably – grown war-weary and is keen to see its troops brought home. If Mr Obama can do that by the start of 2012, in time for the start of the next presidential campaign, so much the better. And so far as the Taliban are concerned, the clock is already ticking.

But before Washington can even start to give serious consideration to bringing its troops home, it must ensure that an effective security structure has been established, and that the Afghan government is actually capable of running the country. And for that to happen, there needs to be a far greater military commitment from other Nato member states. By the time the extra 30,000 troops Mr Obama has announced arrive in Afghanistan next year, the number of American troops will have risen to around 100,000. Yet the contribution from Nato's 27 other members is struggling to reach the 40,000 mark, of which 10,000 come from Britain alone.

Following Mr Obama's speech, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato's secretary-general, promised that other members would do "substantially more" to boost the Afghan force, and that European member states would provide an extra 5,000 troops. While the numbers might be small, this is – as Mrs Clinton writes in The Daily Telegraph today – a crucial test for Nato. Yet what really concerns American policymakers is not the total sent but the refusal of so many European states to commit troops that are actually willing and able to conduct combat operations, rather than just peacekeeping work.

Yesterday's boast by the Italians that they are prepared to send an extra 1,000 troops is a case in point. Italy is one of several European powers that will send men to Afghanistan only on the understanding that they are deployed to relatively safe areas, where they are unlikely to get involved in the messy business of fighting the Taliban. The Italians, who patrol the relatively peaceful western region of Afghanistan, were so ill-prepared for combat that, when two of their soldiers were kidnapped in 2007, Nato had to send British Special Forces to rescue them.

This reluctance to commit is surprising, given that the current Afghan mission originates from the alliance's decision, in the immediate aftermath of September 11, to invoke Article Five, under which any country that has been attacked is entitled to Nato's protection.

Since then the major European powers, with the exception of Britain, have been unwilling to follow through on their obligations, leaving many in Washington to question whether the alliance will actually survive the Afghan conflict. Republicans increasingly believe that, rather than relying on Nato's complex processes, it is better to assemble what Donald Rumsfeld once termed a "coalition of the willing": namely, an alliance of those countries that are actually prepared to fight. The Democrats, on the other hand, are moving more towards the concept of a European defence force, whereby European governments will be responsible for their own security, rather than relying on the Americans.

But these are arguments for another day. The immediate priority is to assemble a Nato force that has the capacity to inflict a crushing defeat on the Taliban, without which any talk of an early withdrawal of American, or any other, troops is premature. For as every Taliban commander knows, time is not on Nato's side.

Source: telegraph.co.uk/