March 21, 2007

Taliban And Al-Qaeda At War In Wana?

It's getting to the point where people need a scorecard in Waziristan to keep all of the players straight. A battle broke out today between Taliban elements in Waziristan and Uzbeki terrorists from al-Qaeda who overstayed their welcome in the Pakistani mountains:

Nearly 50 people have been killed after rising tension between local tribesmen and foreign militants in north-west Pakistan erupted into fierce fighting.

Heavy shelling has raged since Monday near Wana in the South Waziristan tribal area close to Afghanistan.

Most of those killed were militants from Uzbekistan suspected of links with al-Qaeda, officials said. At least two children also died in the crossfire. ...

Uzbek militants had largely kept themselves to themselves and were not linked to al-Qaeda's anti-Western agenda, but in recent months they are reported to have become more involved in local disputes, says the BBC's Aamer Ahmed Khan in Islamabad.

Reports suggested that Taleban and local tribesmen had demanded the Uzbeks leave, or disarm, and that fighting broke out when they refused.

The Pakistani government, which has signed agreements with the tribesmen, has been urging them to kick out al-Qaeda-linked fighters.

Once again, we return to the underlying role of tribalism in the Afghanistan-Pakistan conflict. Six months ago, I wrote about how some of the terrorist conflicts in this region could get traced back to simple tribal politics. This battle springs from the same conflict.

The region of Waziristan sits in the middle of Pashtun territory, which straddles the border between the two nations. The tribes in Wana and Waziristan are all Pashtun, whereas most of the rest of Pakistan gets split between Baluchis and Punjabis. On the other side of Pashtun territory in Afghanistan, the Tajiks and the Hazaras form a buffer between the Pashtuns and the Uzbeks.

If Uzbeks found themselves in Wana, they were a long way from home. The Pakistani government wants the tribes to eject outsiders, not al-Qaeda as an organization. After all, the Taliban have an association with AQ, but the Taliban are primarily Pashtun. Uzbeks would be seen as an easy target, and attacking them would help demonstrate their supposed commitment to fighting terrorists.

That's why the BBC reports this as a Taliban attack on al-Qaeda, but that's not quite correct. It looks more like a Pashtun attack on Uzbeks who made the mistake of thinking that everyone was enjoying one big happy jihad. It might make Pervez Musharraf look good and serve to fool some people into thinking that his agreements with the Waziristan tribal leaders still could produce some effort against terrorism, when it just means that the Pashtuns have a free hand to eject any outsiders.

Still, it's not a bad thing to see competing Islamist terrorists attacking each other. It seems like a distraction from the Taliban's upcoming spring offensive, and that's something to cheer.

UPDATE: The indispensable Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail agrees, and has more detail about what started the fight in the first place.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/9457

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taliban And Al-Qaeda At War In Wana?:

» Al Queda fighting each other. from Stix Blog
There are some interesting developments going on in Pakistan. Elements of Al Queda and the Taliban are fighting amongst themselves. IT mainly involves tribes from then Pashtun area and some Uzbeki tribes. This has been going on for centuries. The [Read More]

» Bill's Nibbles // Open Post -- 2007.03.21 from Old War Dogs
Please feel free to use this post for comments and trackbacks not related to other posts on the site. If you leave a trackback your post has to include a link to this one and, as always, comments claiming the [Read More]

» Taliban And Al-Qaeda At War In Wana? from Bill's Bites
Taliban And Al-Qaeda At War In Wana? Ed Morrissey: It's getting to the point where people need a scorecard in Waziristan to keep all of the players straight. A battle broke out today between Taliban elements in Waziristan and Uzbeki [Read More]

Comments (12)

Posted by reddog [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 5:17 AM

The fact that these are inter tribal conflicts proves the point that we have no business involving ourselves over there. Not in Afganistan or Iraq.

Posted by LunenburgLibertarian [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 5:48 AM

Captain Ed, great line: " . . . who made the mistake of thinking that everyone was enjoying one big happy jihad."


Red, I think what the Capt'n is pointing out is that not every skirmish is al-Qaeda related. This is also a reminder how MSM (BBC) telescopes a story to the point of inaccuracy. Keep in mind that al-Qaeda does play a role at other times in the region. That is why the U.S., Canada, and other countries are there.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 9:15 AM

reddog is either a lefty troll or a brain dead libertarian, I favor the former over the latter, but I applaud him for his honesty. Unlike the rest of the trolls who call for surrender in Iraq while proclaiming their undying support for the "right" war in Afghanistan he comes out for surrender in both. After we surrender to Al Qaida in Irag, SF Dude et al, will discover that the war in Afghanistan is unwinnable as well and we should immediately withdraw from that fight as well.

I don't think this thread will have lively debate because of the obsession with faux scandal over at DOJ.

Posted by reddog [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 9:31 AM

There is no right war in the Middle East. If we want to kill Islamic Fundamentalists who wish us harm, we should do it here. It's not like there's any shortage we have to go half way around the World to find some. It's easier, cheaper, provides a better object lesson and will give you chickenhawk guys something to do on Saturday nights.

I never understood that whole " better to fight them over there" rationale. Just another untrue " Bushism ", I guess.

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 9:34 AM

I always love the archaic notion that "we have no business involving ourselves over there." just because the situation is complex and doesn't lend itself easily to the simplistic Western notions of conflict between secular nation-states.

The world is too small now for us to indulge the outdated fantasy that we have a choice in the matter. We are involved because of the implications brought about by the fact that we exist at all. Because of our cultural and economic and political and military mass in the world of today. We are like Everest to a mountain climber; he is drawn to us because we are here. When an Afghan or Pakistani or Iranian can sit in his local hangout and see MTV and CNN and he knows who Madonna is, we are involved far beyond any mere deciding we may wish we could do.

The only real choice we have is what we are going to do with our involvement. Are we going to tolerate terrorist sponsors or not? If the answer is "Yes", then we'd better get used to domestic civilian casualties. If the answer is "No", then we'd better get used to military casualties. Pick your poison. "None of the above" ain't on the menu!

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 9:45 AM

reddog:

I see that I was right about you being a lefty troll. There you go with the Chickenhawk meme.

Given that I served in the Navy in Gulf of Tonkin and was at the Pentagon on 9-11 shall I assume you don't mean me and will consider my arguments to be valid?

BTW, since you offer opinions on the War, wht is your military service like?

Posted by reddog [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:11 AM

One of Uncle Sam's fighting bluejackets too. Served on USS Seawolf SSN 575, '76 thru '78, under Capt Charlie MacVean. Qm3 goin in, Qm3/SS goin out. Bit of a steamer, I'm afraid. Captain's Mast a couple of times. Too many all-niters at the " Horse and Cow" in Vallejo.

We got up close and personal with the Commie Menace a few times.

Posted by jerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:20 AM

Reddog, another (diesel) bubblehead here but a zero. USS Trout (SS-566)

Posted by reddog [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:33 AM

Ahouy, Shipmate!

Posted by Lew [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 10:48 AM

Lotta Navy guys on this blog. Something spooky about that. I wonder if Karl Rove arranged it?

Posted by rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 12:08 PM

Pssst, Uzbekis, I heard the Taliban making "Yo mama" jokes about your mama.

Hey, Taliban, Uzbekis are talking smack about your sisters.


---gets popcorn and his comfy chair.---

Posted by SwabJockey05 [TypeKey Profile Page] | March 21, 2007 3:33 PM

Shipmates,

Forgive me for raining on your Steel Beach Picnic...but just because someone says he's been in the military all that "proves" is that he says he's been in the military. Don't forget, your favorite troll TommyNoNut says he was a "war hero Snipe" on some rusty tin can...so what? Depending on the topic, that piece of information is usually irrelevant.