Pakistan will be taken over by Islamic Fundamentalism

[Kratos]

Shaky Pakistan seen as target of Al Qaeda plots
Intel officials: Foreign jihadists ‘smell blood,’ seek to strengthen Islamists

WASHINGTON - As Taliban militants push deeper into Pakistan’s settled areas, foreign operatives of Al Qaeda who had focused on plotting attacks against the West are seizing on the turmoil to sow chaos in Pakistan and strengthen the hand of the militant Islamist groups there, according to American and Pakistani intelligence officials.

One indication came April 19, when a truck parked inside a Qaeda compound in South Waziristan, in Pakistan’s tribal areas, erupted in a fireball when it was struck by a C.I.A. missile. American intelligence officials say that the truck had been loaded with high explosives, apparently to be used as a bomb, and that while its ultimate target remains unclear, the bomb would have been more devastating than the suicide bombing that killed more than 50 people at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad in September.

Al Qaeda’s leaders — a predominantly Arab group of Egyptians, Saudis and Yemenis, as well as other nationalities like Uzbeks — for years have nurtured ties to Pakistani militant groups like the Taliban operating in the mountains of Pakistan. The foreign operatives have historically set their sights on targets loftier than those selected by the local militant groups, aiming for spectacular attacks against the West, but they may see new opportunity in the recent violence.

Terror leaders ‘smell blood’
Intelligence officials say the Taliban advances in Swat and Buner, which are closer to Islamabad than to the tribal areas, have already helped Al Qaeda in its recruiting efforts. The officials say the group’s recruiting campaign is currently aimed at young fighters across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia who are less inclined to plan and carry out far-reaching global attacks and who have focused their energies on more immediate targets.

“They smell blood, and they are intoxicated by the idea of a jihadist takeover in Pakistan,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former analyst for the C.I.A. who recently led the Obama administration’s policy review of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

It remains unlikely that Islamic militants could seize power in Pakistan, given the strength of Pakistan’s military, according to American intelligence analysts. But a senior American intelligence official expressed concern that recent successes by the Taliban in extending territorial gains could foreshadow the creation of “mini-Afghanistans” around Pakistan that would allow militants even more freedom to plot attacks.

American government officials and terrorism experts said that Al Qaeda’s increasing focus on a local strategy was partly born from necessity, as the C.I.A.’s intensifying airstrikes have reduced the group’s ability to hit targets in the West. The United States has conducted 16 drone strikes so far this year, according to American officials, compared with 36 strikes in all of 2008.

According to a Pakistani intelligence assessment provided to The New York Times in February, Al Qaeda has adapted to the deaths of its leaders by shifting “to conduct decentralized operations under small but well-organized regional groups” within Pakistan and Afghanistan. At the same time, the group has intensified its recruiting, to replace its airstrike casualties.

One of Al Qaeda’s main goals in Pakistan, the assessment said, was to “stage major terrorist attacks to create a feeling of insecurity, embarrass the government and retard economic development and political progress.”

The Qaeda operatives are foreigners inside Pakistan, and experts say that the group’s leaders, like Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, appear to be wary of claiming credit for the violence in the country, possibly creating popular backlash against the group.


“They are trying to take an Arab face off this,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.

“If you look at Al Qaeda as a brand, they know when to broadcast the brand, as the group has done in North Africa,” Mr. Hoffman said. “And they know when to cloak the brand, as it has done in Pakistan.”
As a result, it is difficult for American officials to assess exactly which recent attacks in Pakistan are the work of Qaeda operatives. But intelligence officials say they believe that the Marriott Hotel bombing was partly planned by Usama al-Kini, a Kenyan Qaeda operative who was killed in Pakistan by a C.I.A. drone on New Year’s Day.

According to Mr. Hoffman, Al Qaeda may be trying to achieve a separate goal: getting the C.I.A. to call off its campaign of airstrikes in the tribal areas. A wave of terrorist violence could foment so much popular discontent with the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, he said, that Pakistan might then try to pressure the Obama administration to scale back its drone campaign.

For now, however, Obama administration officials say they believe that the covert airstrikes are the best tool at their disposal to strike at Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, which remains the group’s most important haven, but where large numbers of American combat forces would never be welcome.


The April 19 strike that hit what appeared to have been a truck bomb in a compound used by Al Qaeda set off an enormous secondary explosion, intelligence officials say. A second, empty truck destroyed in the same attack may also have been there to be outfitted with explosives, they say.

In another significant attack, on April 29, missiles fired from a C.I.A. Predator killed Abu Sulayman al-Jazairi, an Algerian Qaeda planner who American intelligence officials say they believe helped train operatives for attacks in Europe and the United States.

‘Opportunistic’
Still, officials caution that Al Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of “spectacular” attacks in the United States and Europe. According to one American counterterrorism official, the group continues to plan attacks outside its sanctuary in the tribal areas, aiming at targets in the West and elsewhere in Pakistan.

“They are opportunistic to the extent they perceive vulnerabilities with the uncertain nature of Pakistani politics and the security situation in Swat and Buner,” said the American counterterrorism official, who like other officials interviewed for this article was not authorized to speak publicly on intelligence issues. “They’re trying to exploit it.”

In meetings this past week in Washington, American and Pakistani officials discussed the possibility of limited joint operations with American Predator and Reaper drones.

Under one proposal, the United States would retain control over the firing of missiles, but it would share with the Pakistani security forces some sophisticated imagery and communications intercepts that could be relayed to Pakistani combat forces on the ground.

C.I.A. officials for months have resisted requests by Mr. Zardari to share the drone technology. In a television interview broadcast Sunday, the Pakistani leader said he would keep pressing to get his own Predator fleet.

“I’ve been asking for them, but I haven’t got a positive answer as yet,” Mr. Zardari said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“But I’m not giving up.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30677684/page/2/

[Kratos]

Gotta love that they're burning an Obama doll.

US will not be welcome in Pakistan, and can't go in to provide any real help. The gvmt is powerless there, and corrupted by Al Queda.

Even if the US could go in, it wouldn't help. Afghanistan will most likely go right back the way it was before the US invasion.

[Matt]

It will be interesting to see what difference is made with the extra troops the US is sending to Afganistan...

[Kratos]

It will be interesting to see what difference is made with the extra troops the US is sending to Afganistan...

Long term, I think none...some dead Afgans and Americans.
Uneducated Heroin farmers don't want to live as we do. They'll reject any regime change eventually backed by America. The American troops are creating more confusion. Eventually when America leaves militants will take over once again.

[jfalco]

This is the scariest thing in the news today. A radical muslim nuclear power could actually bring about the end of the world as we know it. First time in history someone actually crazy enough to launch nukes at the US has been anywhere near close to getting them.

I agree with Kratos that troops in Afghanistan will not do much good. It seems like it is too late to stop this from happening.

[Kratos]

This is the scariest thing in the news today. A radical muslim nuclear power could actually bring about the end of the world as we know it. First time in history someone actually crazy enough to launch nukes at the US has been anywhere near close to getting them.
.

Well, the good news is they don't have a very good delivery system. All the missile systems are pretty much limited to around 300km, and were designed with a fight with india in mind.

Their only hope for delivering a nulear device to the US would be the Agosta 90B submarines aquired from France. With our attack sub arsenal? I'm not really qualified to answer the question of if one could easily slip by our defenses. But I would imagine they could hide a missle or two on a merchant ship and get within range of our coastline or some other method of delivery. They're creative bastards, who saw ever passanger jets being used as weapons?

[Bio-boosted]

The moment the Pakistan gov falls there should be a blanket bombing of all their missile silos, and or a joint invasion by India, Russia, the US and the UK, to go in and destroy any weapons.
Those ****ing militant islamist have been after Pakistan since 2001, they are tough to stop but their prize need blowing up.
To hell with leaving the place a smoking fox-hole

[jfalco]

Well, the good news is they don't have a very good delivery system. All the missile systems are pretty much limited to around 300km, and were designed with a fight with india in mind.

Their only hope for delivering a nulear device to the US would be the Agosta 90B submarines aquired from France. With our attack sub arsenal? I'm not really qualified to answer the question of if one could easily slip by our defenses. But I would imagine they could hide a missle or two on a merchant ship and get within range of our coastline or some other method of delivery. They're creative bastards, who saw ever passanger jets being used as weapons?

That's good news.

[Flagg]

This is pretty serious stuff. These crack pots are a serious threat to ALL LIFE on this planet and the thought of them launching nukes can only lead to nuclear retaliation, aka Nuclear Armageddon.

And I don't see how they can be stopped or reasoned with either. Very scary stuff. Sooner or later, one of these maniacs are going to launch or threaten to launch a nuke.

[Flagg]

The moment the Pakistan gov falls there should be a blanket bombing of all their missile silos, and or a joint invasion by India, Russia, the US and the UK, to go in and destroy any weapons.
Those ****ing militant islamist have been after Pakistan since 2001, they are tough to stop but their prize need blowing up.
To hell with leaving the place a smoking fox-hole

Im sorry to say but I agree with this. Can you imagine living in India at the moment knowing what is going on next door? I would be terrified. If the Pakistani government falls there can only be one solution. This isn't Iran that may or may not be trying to build nuclear facilities for good or bad purposes or reports that Iraq may have WMD's; these are fanatical maniacs that want to end life on earth because they aren't concerened with dying and are after taking over a Nuclear Super Power.

[Kratos]

I think this is now their longest range missle with some even longer range ones in development but nothing ICBM. It puts all of India in range and a good part of China too. It's most likely looking pretty stupid in China that they sold the Paks bluprints to Nuclear warheads, and doing so much to aid their nuclear program.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1561478.shtml

[Bio-boosted]

What would you suggest Flagg? I'd at least take out their silos

[Flagg]

What would you suggest Flagg? I'd at least take out their silos

I would think that the Pakistan government would want to work with the rest of the world on this. I mean like you say, the risk to them is considerable. No one is going to allow Al Quaida access to nuclear weapons. If not by the US or the UK, matters would be taken into by others hands like India, China or even Russia. Pakistan either fix this problem with or without the help of outsiders or face the risk of having their silos or worse, populated areas bombed to ****. Because I don't see any other alternative.

[Kratos]

I would think that the Pakistan government would want to work with the rest of the world on this. I mean like you say, the risk to them is considerable.

Because the military is on the verge of collapse and the only thing holding the country together. Inviting the West in is not popular.

Taking a stance against militants gets you this.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090503/...tan_violence_1

[Bio-boosted]

Sorry Flagg, i missread, thought you said - disagree.
Cool

[Kratos]

Pakistan either fix this problem with or without the help of outsiders or face the risk of having their silos or worse, populated areas bombed to ****. Because I don't see any other alternative.

U.S. has strongly supported efforts to secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, giving roughly $100 million over the past several years in order train Pakistani personnel and improve site defenses. Predictably, however, Pakistani cooperation has been limited. The Pakistanis remain reluctant to detail their nuclear locations for the U.S., out of concern that the U.S. would seize or attack the nuclear weapons in order to prevent Taliban takeover. Basically, we don't know where they are, and are widely dispersed for first strike security. Because of the Indo-Pak problem they aren't going to destroy of give them up, or even the locations.

[Kratos]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...e-retreat.html

"Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zardari officially handed Swat and other districts in the Malakand Division to the Taliban last week after two years of clashes between militants and security forces.

The government had hoped that the peace deal would calm the region where hundreds have been killed and up to a third of the one-time tourist haven's 1.5million residents had been displaced.
However, the Taliban leadership now seem intent on pushing the boundaries of their regime."

now control is only 60 miles from the capitol city

[Kratos]

quotes from below article for any Americans wondering where there tax dollars go.

"The United States since 2001 has deposited more than $5 billion in reimbursements into the Pakistani government’s general budget account, the largest single portion of some $10 billion in aid to Islamabad in that time. Also included in that larger amount is $1.9 billion in security assistance, which Pakistan has used in part to buy new radios for troops, night-vision goggles and refurbished Cobra attack helicopters."

Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee who visited Pakistan in fall 2006. “Just pouring the money in and asking them to do this is not producing the results that we need.”

For years, how money from the Coalition Support Funds was disbursed to the Pakistani government was veiled in secrecy. The size and scope of the payments to Pakistan was held so closely that one senior American military officer in Afghanistan said that he did not know that the administration was spending $1 billion a year until he attended a meeting in Islamabad in 2006....But by mid-2007, the $1 billion-a-year figure became public, largely because of the objections of some military officials and defense experts who said that during an ill-fated peace treaty between the military and militants in the tribal areas in 2005 and 2006, the money kept flowing. Pakistan continued to submit receipts for reimbursement, even though Pakistani troops had stopped fighting.

“I don’t forecast any noticeable impact,” a Defense Department official said. “It’s pretty bleak.”


Pakistan’s military relies on Washington for roughly a quarter of its entire $4 billion budget."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/wo...ewanted=1&_r=1

[Kratos]

durring the campain Obama was interested in cutting this aid to Pakistan

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...s-obama29.stng

But hmm what happens when he is president...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...-aid-pakistan/
http://www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=1044&Sid=1

[Kratos]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30572929//

"Taliban move into key town; government says exodus could reach 500,000

"I do not have any destination. I only have an aim — to escape from here," said Afzal Khan, 65, who was waiting for a bus with his wife and nine children. "It is like doomsday here. It is like hell."

Shafi Ullah, a student, said the whole town was fleeing. "Can you hear the explosions? Can you hear the gunshots?" he said, pointing to a part of town where fighting was continuing.

Hussain said authorities were releasing emergency funds and preparing six new refugee camps to house them.

Most have ended inconclusively or with peace deals amid public anger over civilian casualties and distaste for taking on fellow Muslims."


Muslims need to start looking at their own kind as the true Muslim opressors.

[spywizard]

and what do you think will happen to the nukes Paki has??

[Kratos]

"Yet the Taliban manage to retain the sympathy of many Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A major reason for this is the presence of foreign troops that do not appear to understand the dynamics of local tribal politics. Another is the insecurity that most civilians exposed to the conflict face. When foreign forces kill civilians, the Taliban are able to avoid responsibility for the atrocities they commit.

Pakistan's political and religious leadership, while routinely condemning their violence, has generally avoided challenging the Taliban's credentials as a Muslim movement. Many leaders, like the Jamiat-Ulema-Islami's Maulana Fazal Rehman, prefer to focus on deaths caused by Western forces in Pakistan's North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Afghanistan. The inescapable message is that the Taliban may not be loved, but the real criminals are foreign interlopers.

This double standard is partially explained by popular antipathy toward the involvement of Western armies in Afghanistan and Pakistan

Some Pakistanis believe the Taliban insurgency is the latest in a long line of anti-colonial militancy stretching back to the mid-19th century uprisings against British rule. The Pakistan army, in contrast, is seen as an agent of the United States. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf exacerbated this perception with his unquestioning support for US intervention in the region.

Nor have people forgotten that Pakistan was the conduit for America's proxy war with the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s. That war developed the infrastructure that the Taliban now uses to prosecute its war. Moreover, Pakistan's war with the Taliban in the NWFP has displaced up to 300,000 citizens. (that's in addition to the 500k I mentioned above making this number greater than the number Israel displaced)

As a result, many in Pakistan live in denial of the existence and motives of Tehrek-e-Taliban-Pakistan. "There is no Tehrek-e-Taliban-Pakistan," says Asif, a musician from Lahore. "This is a civil war [but] they don't want to tell people that."

Others like Mahmoud, a Karachi rickshaw driver, are openly supportive of the Taliban. "They are holy warriors, true Muslims," he said. To people like Mahmoud, the Wah suicide attacks were justified. The people killed or injured "deserved their fate for serving the interests of America and the Jews. The [Pakistan] army has killed so many in [NWFP] and in the Red Mosque [during a Pakistan army siege that killed many hundreds including women and children] ... according to our faith, those who do not obey Islam are no longer Muslim and it is lawful to kill them."

Without adequate political leadership, eradicating sympathy for the Taliban may prove more difficult than eradicating their hideouts in frontier Pakistan. But as long as NATO and the United States continue unilateral strikes in Pakistan that kill civilians, the real battle - for hearts and minds - will be lost."

quotes from
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JI17Df03.html
The Paks don't really care to get rid of the Taliban, it's looked at as a Western goal.

[jfalco]

I would think that the Pakistan government would want to work with the rest of the world on this. I mean like you say, the risk to them is considerable. No one is going to allow Al Quaida access to nuclear weapons. If not by the US or the UK, matters would be taken into by others hands like India, China or even Russia. Pakistan either fix this problem with or without the help of outsiders or face the risk of having their silos or worse, populated areas bombed to ****. Because I don't see any other alternative.

Big difference between Al Quaida and the Taliban. While it is commonly believed that these two groups work together, the only connection that has ever been show is that Al Quaida opperated in the mountains of Afghanistan while the country was controlled by the Taliban.

The Taliban has just as scary an ideology as Al Quaida, but traditionally their ambitions have been regional not global. I'm still scared as fvck of them and I bassically agree with what you are saying.

OTOH, the Taliban's next target in all likelihood will be india, a country whose isolationist polocies have not earned them many alis. It scares me that global support for India might not be what it should be, and the Taliban will be able to sieze more power. India has a verry large muslim population that may be somewhat sympathetic to the taliban. If Pakistan does fall, I don't think the Kashmir region will be far behind. This is the kind of thing that could easily snowball into world war III.

[Kratos]

and what do you think will happen to the nukes Paki has??

many possilble outcomes
I think we can only hope there are instructions to destroy them should a takeover become reality.

[Kratos]

While Obama's missile strikes may have achieved their military objectives, they've apparently inflamed the local populace. I don't see how any interference from the US would aid matters. It would simply add fuel to the fire, increasing the odds of the Taliban achieving power. The US will be unsuccessful and can't control or force our type of gvmt in Pakistan or Afghanistan. I don't know what the answer is. Until Muslims stop teaching and focusing on their own martydom the future is not good.

[jfalco]

While Obama's missile strikes may have achieved their military objectives, they've apparently inflamed the local populace. I don't see how any interference from the US would aid matters. It would simply add fuel to the fire, increasing the odds of the Taliban achieving power. The US will be unsuccessful and can't control or force our type of gvmt in Pakistan or Afghanistan. I don't know what the answer is. Until Muslims stop teaching and focusing on their own martydom the future is not good.

Very true. Reminds me of a book called "Infidel" by Ayana Hirsi

[Prada]

The western media has it all made out. They have been misleading you about Afghanistan and the media campaign has now started for Pakistan. A group of uncivilized nomads living in a little corner probably 1/100 of the size of Pakistan do not pose an "existential" threat. Especially not maybe a few thousand Taliban against 1.5 million man army. To understand, Pakistan has its own strategic interests in having ties with formerly known as the Mujahideen, which they are now being forced to cut. Needless to say they are reluctant to do so. One would have to understand the history of the Taliban, India, Pakistan the ISI and America's role in all this.
Ask any commander or politician of these articles for their pov, for the other side of the story. If Im not mistaken, there is a specially trained and equipped army of 10,000 soliders guarding the nukes a taliban on a camel and a Kalashnikov is not going to scare them but the media will not tell you this, they paint as though you just walk in like walmart and press a button and voila a nuke is launched.

[Prada]

What is a greater threat is the economy and political opposition. So its in the west interest to strengthen the economy and political apparatus.

[Kratos]

You usually have a good idea what's going on in the world prada. No doubt I think the nuclear threat is for rating only. There must be safe gaurds in place.

I think the use of Jihadists for military strategy may be biting them back. I'm not sure the problem is as small as you are making it out.

[Prada]

There are safeguards in place Kratos. Actually when Musharraf was in power the US actually secretly helped Pakistan secure its Nukes. They have a 10,000 specialized army just for its nukes. You know with tanks,advanced automatic weapons, rocket launchers, etc? Anyone who believes the Taliban with their circa 1970s Kalashnikovs and Molotov cocktails are going to get them are well... misinformed on the subject. I'm not saying you Kratos but its always good to read both versions, hence Ive actually read articles from Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. Written by local journalists. Often times they contradict the US media. When Clinton proclaimed the "existential" threat of Pakistan, top cabinet ministers in Pakistan were laughing at her comment saying she doesnt know what she is talking about. I believe somewhere less then 10% of the population in Pak elections actually voted for "extremist" parties. Anyways this not what the media portrays here does it? It portrays a backward, terrorist laden, extremist ideology country. Again Pak is in more danger of going bankrupt then losing its nukes. Dont forget the Taliban was the creation of Pakistan and the USA. Pakistan still uses the Taliban for its own purposes and strategic interests, Afghanistan and India. Again a few thousand nomads with guns aren't going to defeat 1.5 million army. The Pak army believe it or not is one of the most disciplined in the world. Hence the reason many in the army are reluctant to attack the Taliban. Pak has its army stationed on its eastern order to guard the border against India its arch enemy. They have no interest, zero in retracting forces from the east and move them to the west to fight Americas war. America is forcing Pak to fight a war it doesnt want to fight but since it is near bankruptcy and has shaky democratic govt, the US rolls in with $$ and promise to back Zardari. I mean seriously why did Pak not do anything for the past 5 years against Talib if they were such a so called threat? Because they arent. Talib are interested in fighting America not there muslim "bothers" as they call them. If you know the history of Zardari, he is a very elusive man. Some even claim that he killed his own wife. From being incarcerated for so many years he was power hungry. Anyways I can go on but one needs to again know the history and study the region. There is much more then the facade that you see.

[Kratos]

very interesting post prada
hmmmmm

I was never too concerned about the nukes, more the politics of the country.
I'd hate to see America try to go into another nation, it would be another Iraq war in casualties. Terrorist training camps aimed at the US would be the biggest problem and if the country were under rule that would allow and or support them.

So, why is the US firing missiles...Pakistan should be advising them not to if it can handle the fight...it looks bad for them and us.

I see the Pak gvmt as week and corrupt, the military may be strong, but it seems like a mess.

[Prada]

very interesting post prada
hmmmmm

I was never too concerned about the nukes, more the politics of the country.
I'd hate to see America try to go into another nation, it would be another Iraq war in casualties. Terrorist training camps aimed at the US would be the biggest problem and if the country were under rule that would allow and or support them.

So, why is the US firing missiles...Pakistan should be advising them not to if it can handle the fight...it looks bad for them and us.

I see the Pak gvmt as week and corrupt, the military may be strong, but it seems like a mess.

Yup, agreed with the last sentence. In its over 50 years of history the military has taken over and ruled for most of the time. Funny thing is Sharif and Bhutto(former wife of Zardari) have been altering power with the military for decades. They get dismissed and replaced due to corruption and then they are back in power, like a turnstile. In Pakistan you have a fragmented society. The two main ones are the Punjabis who support Sharif and the Sindis who constantly support Bhutto/Zardari. So yes I do think it is in the US' interest to have a strong democratic govt but also apparatus in place. IMO the biggest obstacle in the fight against terrorism is....poverty. Here is the thing, impoverished Pakistanis send their kids to orphanges or dump them in Madrassas(religious schools) which are NOT controlled by the govt. In the outskirts of the major cities these schools are "farms" to incite hate and propaganda. Imagine a kid with no access to books, tv, internet, newspaper and all he learns for 10-15 years is the voice of extremists. What happens? He grows up to hate the west and is even willing to sacrifice himself to kill these "demons". The Govt attempted to control the Madrassas under Musharraf and failed, just this week Zardari claimed that he will bring them under control of the govt but I doubt theyll succeed. They just don't have the money and resources to do so. If the US is really interested in eradicating extremism from the root, then this is what they need to do. So as long as they don't support the reform of the educational system and eliminate poverty, then extremism will continue to flourish. Interestingly enough, in the recent flogging of a young girl in eastern Pakistan AND the killing of civilains but the Talib have turned local sentiment strongly against the Talib. Its a great window of opportunity to get public support if they play their cards right. The greatest mistake the US made was after have literally used Pak against the Russkies successfully (back then today Talib were referred to the Mujahideen) the US packed their bags and left them. Bin Laden flourished and so did the Talib. They shouldn't make the same mistake again.