Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘Taliban’ Category

>Jihadists Are Murderers, Looters, Die Hard Villains Of The World – Much Like Moammar Gadhafi


By Scott Stewart
As George Friedman noted in his geopolitical weekly “Revolution and the Muslim World,” one aspect of the recent wave of revolutions we have been carefully monitoring is the involvement of militant Islamists, and their reaction to these events.
Militant Islamists, and specifically the subset of militant Islamists we refer to as jihadists, have long sought to overthrow regimes in the Muslim world. With the sole exception of Afghanistan, they have failed, and even the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan was really more a matter of establishing a polity amid a power vacuum than the true overthrow of a coherent regime. The brief rule of the Supreme Islamic Courts Council in Somalia also occurred amid a similarly chaotic environment and a vacuum of authority.
However, even though jihadists have not been successful in overthrowing governments, they are still viewed as a threat by regimes in countries like Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. In response to this threat, these regimes have dealt quite harshly with the jihadists, and strong crackdowns combined with other programs have served to keep the jihadists largely in check.
As we watch the situation unfold in Libya, there are concerns that unlike Tunisia and Egypt, the uprising in Libya might result not only in a change of ruler but also in a change of regime and perhaps even a collapse of the state. In Egypt and Tunisia, strong military regimes were able to ensure stability after the departure of a long-reigning president. By contrast, in Libya, longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi has deliberately kept his military and security forces fractured and weak and thereby dependent on him. Consequently, there may not be an institution to step in and replace Gadhafi should he fall. This means energy-rich Libya could spiral into chaos, the ideal environment for jihadists to flourish, as demonstrated by Somalia and Afghanistan.
Because of this, it seems an appropriate time to once again examine the dynamic of jihadism in Libya.

A Long History

Libyans have long participated in militant operations in places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and Iraq. After leaving Afghanistan in the early 1990s, a sizable group of Libyan jihadists returned home and launched a militant campaign aimed at toppling Gadhafi, whom they considered an infidel. The group began calling itself the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in 1995, and carried out a low-level insurgency that included assassination attempts against Gadhafi and attacks against military and police patrols.
Gadhafi responded with an iron fist, essentially imposing martial law in the Islamist militant strongholds of Darnah and Benghazi and the towns of Ras al-Helal and al-Qubbah in the Jabal al-Akhdar region. After a series of military crackdowns, Gadhafi gained the upper hand in dealing with his Islamist militant opponents, and the insurgency tapered off by the end of the 1990s. Many LIFG members fled the country in the face of the government crackdown and a number of them ended up finding refuge with groups like al Qaeda in places such as Afghanistan.
While the continued participation of Libyan men in fighting on far-flung battlefields was not expressly encouraged by the Libyan government, it was tacitly permitted. The Gadhafi regime, like other countries in the region, saw exporting jihadists as a way to rid itself of potential problems. Every jihadist who died overseas was one less the government had to worry about. This policy did not take into account the concept of “tactical Darwinism,” which means that while the United States and its coalition partners will kill many fighters, those who survive are apt to be strong and cunning. The weak and incompetent have been weeded out, leaving a core of hardened, competent militants. These survivors have learned tactics for survival in the face of superior firepower and have learned to manufacture and effectively employ new types of highly effective improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
In a Nov. 3, 2007, audio message, al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri reported that the LIFG had formally joined the al Qaeda network. This statement came as no real surprise, given that members of the group have long been close to al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the core al Qaeda group has long had a large number of Libyan cadre in its senior ranks, including men such as Abu Yahya al-Libi, Anas al-Libi, Abu Faraj al-Libi (who reportedly is being held by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay) and Abu Laith al-Libi, who was killed in a January 2008 unmanned aerial vehicle strike in Pakistan.
The scope of Libyan participation in jihadist efforts in Iraq became readily apparent with the September 2007 seizure of a large batch of personnel files from an al Qaeda safe house in the Iraqi city of Sinjar. The Sinjar files were only a small cross-section of all the fighters traveling to Iraq to fight with the jihadists, but they did provide a very interesting snapshot. Of the 595 personnel files recovered, 112 of them were of Libyans. This number is smaller than the 244 Saudi citizens represented in the cache, but when one considers the overall size of the population of the two countries, the Libyan contingent represented a far larger percentage on a per capita basis. The Sinjar files suggested that a proportionally higher percentage of Libyans was engaged in the fighting in Iraq than their brethren from other countries in the region.
Another interesting difference was noted in the job-description section of the Sinjar files. Of those Libyan men who listed their intended occupation in Iraq, 85 percent of them listed it as suicide bomber and only 13 percent listed fighter. By way of comparison, only 50 percent of the Saudis listed their occupation as suicide bomber. This indicates that the Libyans tended to be more radical than their Saudi counterparts. Moroccans appeared to be the most radical, with more than 91 percent of them apparently desiring to become suicide bombers.
The Libyan government’s security apparatus carefully monitored those Libyans who passed through the crucible of fighting on the battlefield in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and then returned to Libya. Tripoli took a carrot-and-stick approach to the group similar to that implemented by the Saudi regime. As a result, the LIFG and other jihadists were unable to pose a serious threat to the Gadhafi regime, and have remained very quiet in recent years. In fact, they were for the most part demobilized and rehabilitated.
Gadhafi’s son, Seif al-Islam, oversaw the program to rehabilitate LIFG militants, which his personal charity managed. The regime’s continued concern over the LIFG was clearly demonstrated early on in the unrest when it announced that it would continue the scheduled release from custody of LIFG fighters.
The Sinjar reports also reflected that more than 60 percent of the Libyan fighters had listed their home city as Darnah and almost 24 percent had come from Benghazi. These two cities are in Libya’s east and happen to be places where some of the most intense anti-Gadhafi protests have occurred in recent days. Arms depots have been looted in both cities, and we have seen reports that at least some of those doing the looting appeared to have been organized Islamists.
A U.S. State Department cable drafted in Tripoli in June 2008 made available by WikiLeaks talked about this strain of radicalism in Libya’s east. The cable, titled “Die Hard in Derna,” was written several months after the release of the report on the Sinjar files. Derna is an alternative transliteration of Darnah, and “Die Hard” was a reference to the Bruce Willis character in the Die Hard movie series, who always proved hard for the villains to kill. The author of the cable, the U.S. Embassy’s political and economic officer, noted that many of the Libyan fighters who returned from fighting in transnational jihad battlefields liked to settle in places like Darnah due to the relative weakness of the security apparatus there. The author of the cable also noted his belief that the presence of these older fighters was having an influence on the younger men of the region who were becoming radicalized, and the result was that Darnah had become “a wellspring of foreign fighters in Iraq.” He also noted that some 60-70 percent of the young men in the region were unemployed or underemployed.
Finally, the author opined that many of these men were viewing the fight in Iraq as a way to attack the United States, which they saw as supporting the Libyan regime in recent years. This is a concept jihadists refer to as attacking the far enemy and seems to indicate an acceptance of the transnational version of jihadist ideology — as does the travel of men to Iraq to fight and the apparent willingness of Libyans to serve as suicide bombers.

Trouble on the Horizon?

This deep streak of radicalism in eastern Libya brings us back to the beginning. While it seems unlikely at this point that the jihadists could somehow gain control of Libya, if Gadhafi falls and there is a period of chaos in Libya, these militants may find themselves with far more operating space inside the country than they have experienced in decades. If the regime does not fall and there is civil war between the eastern and western parts of the country, they could likewise find a great deal of operational space amid the chaos. Even if Gadhafi, or an entity that replaces him, is able to restore order, due to the opportunity the jihadists have had to loot military arms depots, they have suddenly found themselves more heavily armed than they have ever been inside their home country. And these heavily armed jihadists could pose a substantial threat of the kind that Libya has avoided in recent years.
Given this window of opportunity, the LIFG could decide to become operational again, especially if the regime they have made their deal with unexpectedly disappears. However, even should the LIFG decide to remain out of the jihad business as an organization, there is a distinct possibility that it could splinter and that the more radical individuals could cluster together to create a new group or groups that would seek to take advantage of this suddenly more permissive operational environment. Of course, there are also jihadists in Libya unaffiliated with LIFG and not bound by the organization’s agreements with the regime.
The looting of the arms depots in Libya is also reminiscent of the looting witnessed in Iraq following the dissolution of the Iraqi army in the face of the U.S. invasion in 2003. That ordnance not only was used in thousands of armed assaults and indirect fire attacks with rockets and mortars, but many of the mortar and artillery rounds were used to fashion powerful IEDs. This concept of making and employing IEDs from military ordnance will not be foreign to the Libyans who have returned from Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter).
This bodes ill for foreign interests in Libya, where they have not had the same security concerns in recent years that they have had in Algeria or Yemen. If the Libyans truly buy into the concept of targeting the far enemy that supports the state, it would not be out of the realm of possibility for them to begin to attack multinational oil companies, foreign diplomatic facilities and even foreign companies and hotels.
While Seif al-Islam, who certainly has political motives to hype such a threat, has mentioned this possibility, so have the governments of Egypt and Italy. Should Libya become chaotic and the jihadists become able to establish an operational base amid the chaos, Egypt and Italy will have to be concerned about not only refugee problems but also the potential spillover of jihadists. Certainly, at the very least the weapons looted in Libya could easily be sold or given to jihadists in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria, turning militancy in Libya into a larger regional problem. In a worst-case scenario, if Libya experiences a vacuum of power, it could become the next Iraq or Pakistan, a gathering place for jihadists from around the region and the world. The country did serve as such a base for a wide array of Marxist and rejectionist terrorists and militants in the 1970s and 1980s.
It will be very important to keep a focus on Libya in the coming days and weeks — not just to see what happens to the regime but also to look for indicators of the jihadists testing their wings.
Give us your thoughts on this report

Read comments on other reports
Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to STRATFOR, at the beginning or end of the report.

Jihadist Opportunities in Libya is republished with permission of STRATFOR.”

Simply copy and paste this code:


>China Would Have Liked Bush To Stay On As President


Text Version
RSS Feeds
Home China Tibet Online Forum Photos Features Newsletter Archive
About US Help Site Map languages Chinese Japanese French Spanish Russian Arabic


Site News
About China
China at a glance
Chinese history
Laws & regulations
CPC & state organs
Ethnic minorities
Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping
13:11 Jan 24 2009

var _width = 322

var _height = 204

var text_height = 70

var flash_height = _height + text_height

var pic_arr = new Array();

var link_arr = new Array();

var text_arr = new Array();

var i = 0;

pic_arr[0] = "/mediafile/200901/24/F200901241125272576531910.jpg";
link_arr[0] = "/90001/90776/90883/6580562.html";
text_arr[0] = "UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Friday sent a message to the Chinese people and the ethnic Chinese across the world to wish them happy new year as the traditional Chinese Spring Festival draws near.";

pic_arr[1] = "/mediafile/200901/24/F200901240919223238029112.jpg";
link_arr[1] = "/90001/90783/91300/6580654.html";
text_arr[1] = "The crew members of the Chinese cargo ship Zhenhua 4 are greeted during a commendation ceremony at Changxing Island Port in Shanghai, east China, Jan. 23, 2009.";

pic_arr[2] = "/mediafile/200901/24/F200901240927232726718025.jpg";
link_arr[2] = "/90001/90783/91300/6580524.html";
text_arr[2] = "Chinese Lunar New Year celebrated worldwide " ;

pic_arr[3] =
link_arr[3] = "/90001/90783/91321/6580345.html";
text_arr[3] = "Homeless Palestinian Muhammed Abdu-Rabi sits at his temporary shelter in Gaza, Jan. 22, 2009. Muhammed lost two daughters and his house in the conflict.";


var p = pic_arr.join("|");

var l = link_arr.join("|");

var t = text_arr.join("|");

//var f = "/img/2006english/focus.swf";
var f = "/img/2006english/focusforeign.swf";


CPC urges applying scientific outlook on development
90% of tainted milk victims compensated
Premier Wen’s visit highlights good Swiss-China ties: envoy
Chinese FM, U.S. Secretary of State talk relations on phone
Currency manipulation claim fans Sino-U.S. trade fears
On U.S.'”smart power”
In Today’s People’s Daily
• CPC Poliburo urges applying scientific outlook on development
• Li Changchun visits performers, producers of New Year TV gala
• Chinese leaders extend new year greetings to veteran leaders
• China’s economy grows 9% in 2008
• Hu calls for nationwide efforts to maintain economic stability
• Senior Chinese leader visits noted figures in culture circle
• Rights for development in Tibet respected
• New instruments needed to meet new challenges
• President Hu visits army officers ahead of Lunar New Year
• China confident in its ability for earliest recovery
News Features
Spring Festival 2009 – the Year of the Ox
China Navy’s Escorting Missions off the Somali Coast
News Keywords
3G, Bird flu, Financial crisis, milk powder, Shenzhou VII, anti-monopoly law, Beijing Olympics, Taliban,


Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan

function getSharePasskey() { return ‘ex=1378872000&en=bcb45afd964f57c7&ei=5124’;} function getShareURL() { return encodeURIComponent(‘;); } function getShareHeadline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan’); } function getShareDescription() { return encodeURIComponent(‘The order allowing Special Operations forces to act without the prior approval of the Pakistani government underscores U.S. concerns over Pakistan’s ability and will to combat militants.’); } function getShareKeywords() { return encodeURIComponent(‘United States Armament and Defense,Afghanistan War (2001- ),United States International Relations,Intelligence Services,Pakistan,Taliban,Al Qaeda,George W Bush’); } function getShareSection() { return encodeURIComponent(‘washington’); } function getShareSectionDisplay() { return encodeURIComponent(‘Washington’); } function getShareSubSection() { return encodeURIComponent(”); } function getShareByline() { return encodeURIComponent(‘By ERIC SCHMITT and MARK MAZZETTI’); } function getSharePubdate() { return encodeURIComponent(‘September 11, 2008’); }

September 11, 2008

WASHINGTON — A New York Times story by Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti published yesterday said President Bush secretly approved orders in July that for the first time allow American Special Operations forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani government, according to senior American officials.

There is always going to be criticism of any order like this, to go after the enemy in an enemy country. But this country, Pakistan, has openly supported our desires to wipe out Al Qaeda and the Taliban–even in their country, but did not want their administrations to topple because of criticism of their own people who like the enemy. After all, they are Pakistanis and other Arabs, perhaps funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia.

I believe this kind of action is long overdue. We have been far to cautious, far to desirous to do the politically and diplomatically correct thing. This action by Bush is right and correct. I hope we get all of them.

I thought you might want to see some of the comments posted in the Times, then you can click over and read the entire story if you have time:

Readers’ Comments

1) Good–we should chase terrorists around the world so that they do not arrive here.Hank, Warwick

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


2) It’s about time. We should not be in Iraq, but should be going after the true culprits behind 9/11.— Dave, New York City

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


3) It took 7 years for him to sign off on this?

— Kevinusma, Washington, DC Recommend Recommended by 21 Readers

Link September 11, 2008 6:45 am

4) Does anyone smell an October surprise here? Alan

— Alan, Rockville, Md Recommend Recommended by 27 Readers

5) This is completely unacceptable. It is clear that Pakistan has sold itself to the USA. A Taliban leader once said correctly, ‘It is better if Pakistan give itself to Indian than sell itself to the USA.’

6) I hope the US looses this so-called ‘War on Terror,’ in which the USA is the actual terrorist.

7) These raids will only fuel more anti-US, anti-Pakistan, pro-Taliban sentiment.

— John, India Recommend Recommended by 28 Readers

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


8) This should have been done a long, LONG time ago.— curliquedan, Phoenix, Arizona

9) Clearly another foreign policy, strategic, lives lost failure of Bush/McCain.

10) Supporting former Pres. Musharraf and feeding him dollars while being played for fools has been official US policy in Pakistan since 9/11. We can all now clearly see the results.

11) Bush/McCain at War Recap;
Afganistan > Not Won > 7 years

Iraq > Not Won > 5 1/2 years

Pakistan > Taliban regrouped and planning attacks

Osama Bin Laden > Still free and leading Al-Qaeda

Failure for all to see! Casey Jonesed, Charlotte, NC

September 11, 2008 6:45 am


12) If they could track down these terrorists to the villages they sleep in, why couldn’t the US set up ambushes on these guys when they crossed back into Afghanistan? It certainly would have avoided embarrassing blunders like these. Instead I guess razing an entire Pakistani village to the ground, while undermining the power of the Pakistani government is the White Houses recipe for stabilization in the region

13) I guess more unilateral arm flexing is what does it for Mr. Bush. I mean it certainly hasn’t undermined any of our other international positions thus far…— CAV, VT

if (acm.rc) acm.rc.write();

The classified orders signal a watershed for the Bush administration after nearly seven years of trying to work with Pakistan to combat the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and after months of high-level stalemate about how to challenge the militants’ increasingly secure base in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

American officials say that they will notify Pakistan when they conduct limited ground attacks like the Special Operations raid last Wednesday in a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border, but that they will not ask for its permission.

“The situation in the tribal areas is not tolerable,” said a senior American official who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the missions. “We have to be more assertive. Orders have been issued.”

The new orders reflect concern about safe havens for Al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan, as well as an American view that Pakistan lacks the will and ability to combat militants. They also illustrate lingering distrust of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies and a belief that some American operations had been compromised once Pakistanis were advised of the details.

The Central Intelligence Agency has for several years fired missiles at militants inside Pakistan from remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But the new orders for the military’s Special Operations forces relax firm restrictions on conducting raids on the soil of an important ally without its permission.

Pakistan’s top army officer said Wednesday that his forces would not tolerate American incursions like the one that took place last week and that the army would defend the country’s sovereignty “at all costs.”

It is unclear precisely what legal authorities the United States has invoked to conduct even limited ground raids in a friendly country. A second senior American official said that the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission.

The official did not say which members of the government gave their approval.

Any new ground operations in Pakistan raise the prospect of American forces being killed or captured in the restive tribal areas — and a propaganda coup for Al Qaeda. Last week’s raid also presents a major test for Pakistan’s new president, Asif Ali Zardari, who supports more aggressive action by his army against the militants but cannot risk being viewed as an American lap dog, as was his predecessor, Pervez Musharraf.

The new orders were issued after months of debate inside the Bush administration about whether to authorize a ground campaign inside Pakistan. The debate, first reported by The New York Times in late June, at times pitted some officials at the State Department against parts of the Pentagon that advocated aggressive action against Qaeda and Taliban targets inside the tribal areas.

Details about last week’s commando operation have emerged that indicate the mission was more intrusive than had previously been known.

According to two American officials briefed on the raid, it involved more than two dozen members of the Navy Seals who spent several hours on the ground and killed about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters in what now appeared to have been a planned attack against militants who had been conducting attacks against an American forward operating base across the border in Afghanistan.

Supported by an AC-130 gunship, the Special Operations forces were whisked away by helicopters after completing the mission.

Although the senior American official who provided the most detailed description of the new presidential order would discuss it only on condition of anonymity, his account was corroborated by three other senior American officials from several government agencies, all of whom made clear that they supported the more aggressive approach.

Pakistan’s government has asserted that last week’s raid achieved little except killing civilians and stoking anti-Americanism in the tribal areas.