Top Taliban Commander Captured

[Nbadan]

By MARK MAZZETTI and DEXTER FILKINS
Score one for the good guys...


WASHINGTON — The Taliban’s top military commander was captured several days ago in Karachi, Pakistan, in a secret joint operation by Pakistani and American intelligence forces, according to American government officials.

The commander, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is an Afghan described by American officials as the most significant Taliban figure to be detained since the American-led war in Afghanistan started more than eight years ago. He ranks second in influence only to Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Taliban’s founder, and was a close associate of Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mullah Baradar has been in Pakistani custody for several days, with American and Pakistani intelligence officials both taking part in interrogations, according to the officials.

It was unclear whether he was talking, but the officials said his capture had provided a window into the Taliban and could lead to other senior officials. Most immediately, they hope he will provide the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, the one-eyed cleric who is the group’s spiritual leader.

Disclosure of Mullah Baradar’s capture came as American and Afghan forces were in the midst of a major offensive in southern Afghanistan.

His capture could cripple the Taliban’s military operations, at least in the short term, said Bruce O. Riedel, a C.I.A. veteran who last spring led the Obama administration’s Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review.

Details of the raid remain murky, but officials said that it had been carried out by Pakistan’s military spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and that C.I.A. operatives had accompanied the Pakistanis.

The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/world/asia/16intel.html?emc=na)

As long as were there, why not fight the good fight?

Baradar is essentially the man in charge of the Taliban. Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former Taliban regime's foreign minister, told Newsweek last summer that "Mullah Omar has put Baradar in charge. It is Mullah Omar's idea and his policy to stay quiet in a safe place, because he has a high price on his head, while Baradar leads."

[ElNono]

It only took us 8 1/2 years... good stuff nonetheless :tu

[Nbadan]

Obama has also had great success on the intelligence front, despite Cheney and GOP spin..


For all the baseless whining about how the Obama administration handled the Abdulmutallab case, it appears increasingly obvious that the White House's approach was not only correct, but is paying dividends that benefit all of us. Eli Lake has this important report.

U.S. and allied counterterrorism authorities have launched a global manhunt for English-speaking terrorists trained in Yemen who are planning attacks on the United States, based on intelligence provided by the suspect in the attempted Christmas Day bombing after he began cooperating.

U.S. officials told The Washington Times that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, facing charges as a would-be suicide bomber, revealed during recent cooperation with the FBI that he met with other English speakers at a terrorist training camp in Yemen. Three U.S. intelligence officials, including one senior official, disclosed on the condition of anonymity some details of the additional bomb plots. <...>

Information about the bomb plots was shared with the FBI after Mr. Abdulmutallab's family traveled from Nigeria to help coax the former student into cooperating, after a period of about five weeks when he refused to help authorities.

Let's be really clear about this. Republican criticism hasn't just strayed badly from reality in the Abdulmutallab case; the more important takeaway is that if U.S. policy followed Republican talking points, we'd be less safe as a nation right now.

On the surface, one of the key GOP attacks is the notion that making Abdulmutallab aware of his rights meant that we were denied important intelligence about possible terrorist threats. It should be painfully obvious that Republicans have no idea what they're talking about -- Abdulmutallab has provided critically important information since getting a lawyer and being Mirandized.

But we can also go one step further and realize the depths of Republicans' misguided ideas here. If, for example, we'd locked up Abdulmutallab in a military prison and/or denied him Miranda rights, he wouldn't be cooperating right now.

Washington Monthly (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022416.php)

This war could have and should have been won years ago, but the Bush/Cheney junta weren't interested in fighting terrorists....they had oil that needed manipulation...

[Ya Vez]

Did they read him his Miranda Rights?

[Winehole23]

He's in Pakistani custody. I don't know if Pakistan reads out rights to their detainees, but since we're talking about the ISI and not the regular system of justice there, I tend to doubt it.

Whenever we're done interrogating him, he'll either enter the Pakistani justice system or be "disappeared" from it most likely.

I suppose Pakistan could turn him over to us like they've done with others. In that case he'd probably fall into the legal black hole of presidentially specified indefinite detention, where again, the ordinary rules don't apply.

[ChumpDumper]

Did they read him his Miranda Rights?Had he been apprehended in the US, he probably would have them read, just like everyone under Bush read them to everyone apprehended during his term without exception.

But of course you whined about it then too, right?

Right?

[spurms]

the only success this operation had comes from making concessions to the pakistani government in expanding their influence over Afghanistan and isolating the Indian RAW activities, it's no success it's desperate concession, without the Pakistani's ISI cooperation the CIA couldn't have done shit, they are merely prostitutes whoring themselves in foreign countries, lets face that fact, surprise how the shift in USA dirty politics isn't even mentioned.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

What are you talking about?

[spurms]

:lol

What are you talking about?

USA latest policies have basically sidetrack their allies India in Afghanistan, it basically means that they are placing Pakistan in position to influence Afghanistan in the future, with the return of the Taliban in joint government with the Afghan administration, and eradicating their once CIA mossad backed RAW into nothing more than sideshow, the Indians were involve with this triad of mossad cia and mi6 to try to destabilize Baluchistan, which have failed miserably and blow back in their face culminating in the 8 CIA agents killed in Khorst. What this basically means is that the USA have conceded that their previous policies have failed, that they need Pakistan to go after the Afghan Taliban, which Pakistan is unwilling to do previously, and that also means sidelining the Indians, betraying them, pushing the Indians more and more towards the Russians and no longer trusting the USA especially after that David Headley incident. What this basically means that everything the USA have tried has failed, not surprising considering that most fantastical ideas over the past decade was in part formulated by a 2 times college dropout and 5 times war avoiding vice president, and an almost similarly pathetic President. To sum it up Afghanistan is a mess, Iraq was already a lost cause, they need to make consessions if they are going to even hope to salvage Afghanistan, bottomline no Taliban no pipeline, no Pakistani help no pipeline, no Iranian help no pipeline.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, the pipeline thing.

Always a classic.

[spurms]

Oh, the pipeline thing.

Always a classic.

well they have to have something to show for it after wasting trillions of dollars on two winless war, and making Iran a superpower in the region, they have to at least have their pipeline to prove to Europe that hey we got you an alternative route to your gas supplies that don't go through Russia, only catch it have to go through Pakistan, a pretty western weary state, and for a good reason.

[Winehole23]

Also, the *false flag* motif: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7026599.ece

[boutons_deux]

"have something to show for it after wasting trillions of dollars on two winless war"

The $Ts are "something" itself. Grabbing carbon resources is sorta irrelevant now. The momentum of war in unstoppable.

MIC enriched at very high profit margins with NO accounting or control by DoD or State Dept.

[Wild Cobra]

I suppose Pakistan could turn him over to us like they've done with others. In that case he'd probably fall into the legal black hole of presidentially specified indefinite detention, where again, the ordinary rules don't apply.
I hope they don't turn him over to us. He doesn't deserve our legal protections.

[ElNono]

I hope they don't turn him over to us. He doesn't deserve our legal protections.

But they did under Bush?

[DarrinS]

Do I understand this correctly?


Obama + war = good ?

Bush + war = bad ?

[ElNono]

Do I understand this correctly?

Obama + war = good ?

Bush + war = bad ?

No, you didn't.
This is how it works:

Bush + miranda rights = good

Obama + miranda rights = bad

See if you can find a Youtube of that...

[PixelPusher]

Do I understand this correctly?


Obama + war = good ?

Bush + war = bad ?
Google "war in Afghanistan", then Google "war in Iraq".

Take Tylenol for any headaches, Mydol for any cramps.

[PixelPusher]

It's nearly 8:30 on the west coast. Surely FOX and Fiends would have dispensed the right wing counter spin by now? After all, if Obama does anything, anytime, anywhere - there must be a way to spin it in the most negative possible light.

Me no have cable. What's the bad word?

[clambake]

It's nearly 8:30 on the west coast. Surely FOX and Fiends would have dispensed the right wing counter spin by now? After all, if Obama does anything, anytime, anywhere - there must be a way to spin it in the most negative possible light.

Me no have cable. What's the bad word?

where's the youtube, D?

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's nearly 8:30 on the west coast. Surely FOX and Fiends would have dispensed the right wing counter spin by now? After all, if Obama does anything, anytime, anywhere - there must be a way to spin it in the most negative possible light.

Me no have cable. What's the bad word?

I do find it funny that the Fox and Friends show is a 3 hr Obama trashing.. like clockwork.. The blonde today was desperate to get a guest to say something bad about Obama..you could see her frustration in trying to get the guy to say something negative about the President.. It was funny..

[Barry O'Bama]

Good job now lets keep him away from Mr Holder.

[Yonivore]

He's in Pakistani custody. I don't know if Pakistan reads out rights to their detainees, but since we're talking about the ISI and not the regular system of justice there, I tend to doubt it.

Whenever we're done interrogating him, he'll either enter the Pakistani justice system or be "disappeared" from it most likely.

I suppose Pakistan could turn him over to us like they've done with others. In that case he'd probably fall into the legal black hole of presidentially specified indefinite detention, where again, the ordinary rules don't apply.
Aren't you just describing rendition?

[Winehole23]

Maybe. I don't know. It's all pretty speculative at this point. I don't know what will happen, and the specifics of the detention are unclear. We do know it was a CIA-ISI joint op. Beyond that, not so much.

KSM, I think, was similarly detained before being bound over to us.

[ChumpDumper]

Aren't you just describing rendition?He was captured in Pakistan, so no.

[Winehole23]

Yoni might have meant in the other direction.

[Winehole23]

Hard to tell.

[DarrinS]

The New York Times learned of the operation on Thursday, but delayed reporting it at the request of White House officials, who contended that making it public would end a hugely successful intelligence-gathering effort. The officials said that the group’s leaders had been unaware of Mullah Baradar’s capture and that if it became public they might cover their tracks and become more careful about communicating with each other.

The Times is publishing the news now because White House officials acknowledged that the capture of Mullah Baradar was becoming widely known in the region.





I'm glad the New York Times is now so patriotic and sensitive to ongoing anti-extremist/overseas contingency operations. They repeatedely disclosed sensitive information during the evil Bush/Cheney years. Good to see them turn a new leaf.

[Winehole23]

So did Bush/Cheney. Remember the "gel" bomber?

[Stringer_Bell]

Baradar is essentially the man in charge of the Taliban. Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former Taliban regime's foreign minister, told Newsweek last summer that "Mullah Omar has put Baradar in charge. It is Mullah Omar's idea and his policy to stay quiet in a safe place, because he has a high price on his head, while Baradar leads."

Suuuuure.

These terrorists sound and act like fucking idiots. Battle of Algiers gave the blueprint for how to wage that kind of war, what makes anyone think the underwear bomber, some Arab looking dude kidnapped up by the Northern Alliance, or guerilla fighters in the mountains are going to know what the fuck is going on with the wider operations of a terror network?

[ElNono]

I'm glad the New York Times is now so patriotic and sensitive to ongoing anti-extremist/overseas contingency operations. They repeatedely disclosed sensitive information during the evil Bush/Cheney years. Good to see them turn a new leaf.

You mean like the clandestine NSA wiretaps?

[ElNono]

Do we get a YouTube of the 'disclosed sensitive information'?

[ChumpDumper]

Do we get a YouTube of the 'disclosed sensitive information'?If you don't already know, he won't tell you -- because he doesn't know either.

[jack sommerset]

Where are torturing this guy at? Pakistan?

[SnakeBoy]

As long as were there, why not fight the good fight?


We always fight the good fight.

[Nbadan]

Occupation is not the good fight...the Iraqi people have the right to self-determination..we are just delaying the inevitable with billions of taxpayer dollars...

[SnakeBoy]

Occupation is not the good fight...the Iraqi people have the right to self-determination..we are just delaying the inevitable with billions of taxpayer dollars...

The same can be said of Afghanistan.

The question is never are we fighting the good fight, we always do as I said. The question is always should we be fighting the fight at all?

[Nbadan]

It's Been a Good Week for the Obama Administration.

From the Associated Press:


After a day-long battle between insurgents, U.S. Marines and other NATO troups, they have captured what appears to be a Taliban headquarters. The insurgents had fled with their weapons and ammunition. One NATO soldier has died in the conflict but they have not yet released a name or force.

US Marines seize Taliban headquarters, IDs, photos
By ALFRED de MONTESQUIOU, Associated Press Writer Alfred De Montesquiou, Associated Press Writer –


MARJAH, Afghanistan – After a fierce gunfight, U.S. Marines seized a strongly defended compound Friday that appears to have been a Taliban headquarters — complete with photos of fighters posing with their weapons, dozens of Taliban-issued ID cards and graduation diplomas from a training camp in Pakistan.

Again, I can't say it enough, I love it that Dick Cheney was whining about Obama's strategies just this past Sunday. Then, as a Valentine's Day present to Dick, two days later the NYT breaks the story about the days-earlier capture of the Taliban's #2.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/world/asia/16intel.ht...

Then yesterday we hear that two more Taliban leaders have been

captured.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/world/asia/19taliban....

And now this...


...Really, I couldn't have said it better than MinistryOfTruth's Recommended diary: "President Obama has caught more Taliban Leaders in 1 month than Bush/Cheney did in 6 years..."

MORE AT:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/19/838750/-Breakin...

[Winehole23]

Pakistan refuses to hand over Baradar, limits US access to him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/pakistan-refuses-handover-taliban-afghanistan

[EVAY]

Pakistan refuses to hand over Baradar, limits US access to him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/pakistan-refuses-handover-taliban-afghanistan

Given the historical reticence of Pakistan to cooperate with the US in this area, I wonder what is really behind this move. Are the Pakistanis wanting to quiet the Talibanis in Pakistan, hoping that this says they are 'better off here (in Pakistan) than in Afghanistan or US'? Or are they saying the opposite?

Pakistan has been completely schizoid on this issue with us, even long before we invaded Iraq. They have always been so pre-occupied with India and the Casmir-border area that everything was secondary until the Taliban began blowing up parts of Pakistan itself.

[jack sommerset]

Pakistan refuses to hand over Baradar, limits US access to him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/18/pakistan-refuses-handover-taliban-afghanistan

Smart move. They have no problems peeling back fingernails to get info.

[sook]

interrogate the bastard just to the point he doesn't fall over the brink of death.

[Winehole23]

Smart move. They have no problems peeling back fingernails to get info.Jealous of Pakistan? Maybe you should move there.

[jack sommerset]

Maybe we should bring back waterboarding instead of letting other countires do it for us. You think? Maybe? Shouldn't we stop acting like a bunch of pussies?

[spursncowboys]

Occupation is not the good fight...the Iraqi people have the right to self-determination..we are just delaying the inevitable with billions of taxpayer dollars...

self de3termining with saddam in power?

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe we should bring back waterboarding instead of letting other countires do it for us. You think? Maybe? Shouldn't we stop acting like a bunch of pussies?Waterboarding didn't work.

[Winehole23]

Given the historical reticence of Pakistan to cooperate with the US in this area, I wonder what is really behind this move. Are the Pakistanis wanting to quiet the Talibanis in Pakistan, hoping that this says they are 'better off here (in Pakistan) than in Afghanistan or US'? Or are they saying the opposite?One of the strengths of MK Bhadrakumar is making the Pakistani position clearer. Their interest in Afghanistan predates ours; my sense is that the ISI and the Pakistani army, used to puppets and toadies, resented Baradar's independence and his aspirational place in the parley of Taliban with Karzai that must occur, if any cessation of hostilities is to result.


Pakistan has been completely schizoid on this issue with us, even long before we invaded Iraq.No. They are only pursuing their own perceived interests. They are incongruous with ours and provoke some bafflement on that account, but that ought to be expected. Their alliance with us, as ours with them, is purely expedient. That the Pakistanis show a decided preference for their own aims -- which for any normal American (including yours truly) are not easy to understand -- is not schizoid.

On the contrary, it demonstrates the cunning not only of self-preservation, but of self-promotion. Pakistan is seeking to find its own ends in the conflict. As we would in their place, and we do in ours.

In the interest of perspective I would point out that the Pakistani deference wrt to Predator strikes by their putative (http://www.mojolaw.com/defs/pu042) ally within their own borders, would never, never be reciprocated by us.


They have always been so pre-occupied with India and the Casmir-border area that everything was secondary until the Taliban began blowing up parts of Pakistan itself.Afghanistan is a proxy war, but tribal relations predate all that. Pakistan has its own interests in Afghanistan apart from India. It seems to me that MK Bhadrakumar's take right now is that the hand of Pakistan, politically and socially, is beating out our military tactics.

[Winehole23]

Basically, the MK Bhadrakumar gloss is that Pakistan appears to be outmaneuvering the USA strategically in Afghanistan.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I'm glad the New York Times is now so patriotic and sensitive to ongoing anti-extremist/overseas contingency operations. They repeatedely disclosed sensitive information during the evil Bush/Cheney years. Good to see them turn a new leaf.

fuck the media how they get access to sensitive information b4 a mission is carried out

[Winehole23]

Jealous of Pakistan? Maybe you should move there.I take it back, jack. I know that what you really meant is that you wish our police and our justice system were more like Pakistan's.

With all due disrespect, fuck that.

[Winehole23]

fuck the media how they get access to sensitive information b4 a mission is carried outLike what?

[EVAY]

Basically, the MK Bhadrakumar gloss is that Pakistan appears to be outmaneuvering the USA strategically in Afghanistan.

I understand that Pakistan's movements are undoubtedly in their own perceived self-interests, and that they believe that they are currently outmaneuvering the US strategically with respect to the Taliban. That acknowledgement is consistent with my question regarding what Pakistan's intent really is; what are they trying to communicate to the Taliban?

I would add, though, that the strategic value of opening talks with the Taliban would be impossible without the US' military technology vs. the same.

[EVAY]

Pakistan's resistance to the presence of drone technology was understandable from the point of view of a country that was still trying to convince the world that it could fight its own wars, and that no one ("are you listening, India?") would ever be allowed in their territory for any reason.

And you are right in that we would never tolerate the same. Of course not.

They cared far less about the Taliban and what it was doing in Afghanistan than they did about India, the Casmir province, and its own internal issues. All of that makes perfect sense.

When the Taliban began blowing up Pakistani villages however in the same way they were in Afghanistan, the Pakistanis decided that maybe India's threat wasn't quiteas immediate,at least, as the Taliban's, and so the US technology became useful. Had the Pakistani army been able to defeat the Taliban insurgency on their own, this would never have come to pass. However, they found themselves in need of help, and so were receptive to something that heretofore was unacceptable.

All of this, as you say, is eminently reasonable as self-interest.

My question, was, what is the Pakistani self-interest in refusing to let this guy go? I honesty don't know the answer to that. Do you?

[Winehole23]

That acknowledgement is consistent with my question regarding what Pakistan's intent really is; what are they trying to communicate to the Taliban?It's a good question, one I surely don't know the answer to. Could you tell me, or venture a guess? I'm not even sure what I'd give out as a guess.

How many Talibans are there?

Which one do you mean?

Who knows, maybe some of this stuff will become clearer after the Loya Jirga. But probably it just gets more complicated.

I would add, though, that the strategic value of opening talks with the Taliban would be impossible without the US' military technology vs. the same.For sure.

[jack sommerset]

I take it back, jack. I know that what you really meant is that you wish our police and our justice system were more like Pakistan's.

Nope.

[Winehole23]

My question, was, what is the Pakistani self-interest in refusing to let this guy go? I honesty don't know the answer to that. Do you?No, but I can see how handing him over to the US could be problematic for them politically.

PFA take: maybe it serves Pakistan better to neutralize or coopt Baradar, than to give him to us.

[Winehole23]

Our notorious mistreatment of terror detainees probably factored into the decision to keep him out of US hands

[EVAY]

No, but I can see how handing him over to the US could be problematic for them politically.

PFA take: maybe it serves Pakistan better to neutralize or coopt Baradar, than to give him to us.

Well, I was wondering about that, too. I wonder if they think that they can coopt him.

If they can't coopt him, maybe they can do themselves some good by reference to your last post, i.e., 'at least we didn't turn him over to the Americans. They obviously must figure it does them more good this way.

If they areable to coopt him, my assumption would be that the purpose would be to use him as a front so Pakistan could position themselves as the 'honest broker' in the process between the US, the Taliban and Karzai.
If that happens, Pakistan would be able to go back to worrying about what they would rather worry about, i.e., India and Casmir.

[Winehole23]

Well, I was wondering about that, too. I wonder if they think that they can coopt him.Why can't they? Allegiance can be very relative in that part of the world, or so I've heard.


If they are able to coopt him, my assumption would be that the purpose would be to use him as a front so Pakistan could position themselves as the 'honest broker' in the process between the US, the Taliban and Karzai.Why not? Being the weaker power they can do it more credibly than us, and they're better placed geographically, culturally and socially (relative to Afghanistan) to lend assistance.


If that happens, Pakistan would be able to go back to worrying about what they would rather worry about, i.e., India and Casmir.That's the big one. The enemy/foe distinction creeps in there a little. Your enemy is an honorable man one can do business with; the foe is ruthlessly targeted for elimination from play.

What India and Pakistan are to one another is highly changeable in tone from what little I have seen, but I am also impressed with the amount of restraint in overt military measures against the enemy. The conflict mostly simmers along, somehow -- miraculously, it seems to me, after the attack in Mumbai last year -- without war breaking out.

[Winehole23]

The Indian government didn't lose it's mind after Mumbai like ours did after 9/11.

In this case, nuclear deterrence on both sides would seem to make the confrontation with the *terrorist state* essentially different from ours.

[Winehole23]

At the same time we seek to suppress the possibility of Iranian nuclear deterrence, we are giving India a leg up against Pakistan. As least, that is how I read the recent US-India nuclear accords.

[Winehole23]

(burp)

[EVAY]

The Indian government didn't lose it's mind after Mumbai like ours did after 9/11.

In this case, nuclear deterrence on both sides would seem to make the confrontation with the *terrorist state* essentially different from ours.

This.

[Winehole23]

But U.S. officials now believe that even as Pakistan's security forces worked with their American counterparts to detain Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and other insurgents, the country's Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI, quietly freed at least two senior Afghan Taliban figures it had captured on its own.



U.S. military and intelligence officials said the releases, detected by American spy agencies but not publicly disclosed, are evidence that parts of Pakistan's security establishment continue to support the Afghan Taliban. This assistance underscores how complicated the CIA-ISI relationship remains at a time when the United States and Pakistan are battling insurgencies that straddle the Afghanistan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/countries/afghanistan.html?nav=el) border and are increasingly anxious about how the war in that country will end.



The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity and declined to identify the Taliban figures who were released, citing the secrecy surrounding U.S. monitoring of the ISI. But officials said the freed captives were high-ranking Taliban members and would have been recognizable as insurgents the United States would want in custody.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/10/AR2010041002111.html?hpid=topnews

[LnGrrrR]

Two points.



Abdulmutallab has provided critically important information since getting a lawyer and being Mirandized.


From the original article/OP, showing that he was Mirandized.

Second, I don't see why everyone gets mad at the media for discovering and releasing information. Shouldn't you be mad at the people trying to safeguard the data in the first place? If the media can get ahold of it, there's a good chance enemies could as well.