Afghanistan

Taliban Names Hard-Liners as New Leaders—Obama Hoped Killing of Previous Leader Could Bring Taliban to Peace Talks

Year fifteen of the U.S. in Afghanistan

|

via BBC

The Taliban have confirmed that a U.S. strike killed its leader, Mullah Akhtar Mansur, on Saturday, and have already named a replacement, Hibatullah Akhundzada, whose title is mawlawi, which is similar to mullah, and who ran the Taliban court system.

In confirming the killing of Mansour in Pakistan, to which the country objected for the violation of its sovereignty, President Obama indicated that he hoped the move would bringing the Taliban back to on-again off-again regional peace talks.

"The Taliban should seize the opportunity to pursue the only real path for ending this long conflict—joining the Afghan government in a reconciliation process that leads to lasting peace and stability," the president said in a statement.

After the Taliban named Akhundzada its new leader, an audio recording was released purportedly of Akhundzada insisting the Taliban would not join "any type of peace talks." Reuters said the tape was given to them by two Taliban commanders, but they could confirm its authenticity. A spokesperson for the Taliban, who announced Akhundzada's selection as leader, denied the group had released an audio recording and said they were investigation who distributed it.

Nevertheless, Akhundzada is considered a hard-liner and his appointment was joined by two other promotions, those of Muhammad Yaqoob, the 20-something son of long-time Taliban leader Mullah Omar, who died at some point in the last few years, and Sirajuddin Haqqani, of the Haqqani network, a Taliban offshoot the U.S. recognizes as its own terrorist organization. There is a $10 million bounty offered by the State Department for Haqqani.

The new leadership appointments could signal a greater focus by the Taliban on targeting Western interests in Afghanistan, as one U.S. official told NBC News. The Taliban's spring offensive, which started last month, was met by desertions from the Afghan army ranks, with some joining the Taliban instead. Gains by the Taliban have led to a more aggressive role for remaining U.S. forces, including regular airstrikes against low-level insurgents.

As for peace talks, the Taliban refused to participate in the most recent round of talks organized by Pakistan—the group has said it would not come to the table while U.S. troops were deployed in Afghanistan and while the U.S. was conducting drone strikes there.

While President Obama announced an "end" to the U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan in 2014, at least 9,000 troops will remain in the country through 2017, a deadline that has been repeatedly extended.

U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, as well as numerous other countries, fall under the jurisdiction of the authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) passed after 9/11 to purse that terrorist attack's organizers and their "associated forces." A poll conducted back in 2010 found 92 percent of Afghans saying they'd never heard of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Efforts to either rescind the post-9/11 AUMF (or the 2002 AUMF that covered the Iraq war) have repeatedly failed, and while the president has asked for an AUMF specifically for the Islamic State (ISIS), he has not gotten it and insists the post-9/11 AUMF covers actions against the former Al-Qaeda affiliate-turned-dominant foe. The issue came up briefly in the nascent phase of the presidential campaign, but the best hopes of dealing with the legal authority for U.S. military action directed unilaterally by the executive comes in the form of the 45th president likely being highly unliked.

NEXT: Donald Trump Calls Elizabeth Warren 'Pocahontas,' State Dept. Finds Hillary Clinton Broke Email Rules, Hodor Doorstoppers: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In confirming the killing of Mansour in Pakistan, to which the country objected for the violation of its sovereignty, President Obama indicated that he hoped the move would bringing the Taliban back to on-again off-again regional peace talks.

    Look, if the new leaders don’t agree to peace talks, then just keep killing people until they start acting more reasonably. That’s how good-faith negotiations work, isn’t it?

    1. Should we really be negotiating with these evil shit heads?

      1. Either commit and kill them all to the last drop or don’t get involved. None of this negotiate crap. They’re clearly evil.

        1. Yup. This retarded notion that “if we just sat down with them and talked of our values” thinking works with reasonable people, not with those who kill women for looking the wrong way at a male who’s not a relative or the “wrong” sect of Muslim.

        2. Except genocide is pretty much impossible to achieve, even in the modern day.

      2. Well, what are the alternatives? Pulling out entirely and letting the locals sort it out, or flushing another decade and few trillion dollars down the shitter in an interminable and unwinnable war. I would be fine with the former, but the US can’t seem to keep its dick out of other peoples’ business, so.

        1. The alternatives are leaving, as you cited, or going in with overwhelming force + an idea of what victory looks like so it can be recognized + a clear plan for the aftermath. We’re not even waging war; we’re sacrificing Americans for a mission no one can define.

          1. Exactly. We went in and fucked the Taliban up, chased off the rats to the caves. Other than fishing out the rats that should have been it. The nation building doesn’t work. I feel bad for the good people that live there but we can’t fix it.

            1. ^^^This^^^

              Blow them the fuck up, let them know it’s a punitive action for 9/11, and then leave. Don’t negotiate, don’t rebuild, and stay there for ever wasting trillions of dollars killing each new number 2 that pops up.

          2. There’s not enough ‘bad ass ruthless Roman’ when the U.S. decides to go to war. If you go in, you go in to fucken win or else don’t go at all. None of this ‘let’s attack and pull back negotiation’ – or some variation of ‘politics by other means’ – crap.

            War has no other computation.

            Kill or be killed.

            1. Exactly, this is why we haven’t won a war since WW2, because we treat them all like retarded police actions. We live in a time where our police act like soldiers in a war, and our soldiers act like police making an arrest. It’s all backwards. Can’t we flip it?

              1. MetalBard, didn’t we win WW2 by occupying and nation-building upon the remains?

            2. War has no other computation.

              Here you and I may disagree for quite some length, Rufus.

              I suggest that war and continual conflict appear not only calculable yet profitable as well: “War is a racket….

              It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
              international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the
              losses in lives.

              A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of
              the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
              of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge
              fortunes….”

              I think that you are more of a “Just War” type of thinking individual than otherwise, Rufus, and if I am incorrect in my reading of your international jingoism please disabuse me of my interpretation.

              1. “Out of war a few people make huge
                fortunes….”

                BROKEN WINDOWS FALLACY!

                Pulling your leg.

                War is indeed a racket at times but it’s also in our nature; perhaps even natural state. We’ve been warring as a species well before the nation-state so there’s more to it than just profit.

                My point is should a people or nation decide to go to war, they must do so with the intent to win regardless of whether it’s just or not.

                Yes, I am a ‘just war’ type but, what’s that saying? One man’s ‘just war’ is another man’s ‘unjust defense’?

                Or something like that.

          3. We can’t win by fighting. Its pretty obvious that America (and the West in general) are really shitty at fighting memes. And this is a memetic war, not a war for resources, not even a war to establish a regional pecking order.

            We won the Cold War by showing a better way until it couldn’t be denied and the times where we got into/fostered open conflict were some of the most embarrassing and unproductive years for us. Vietnam and death squads in South America.

        2. Wareagle is right. Either don’t get involved or utterly destroy them. I look at like having a hornets nest close to your house. You can either ignore them, or you can go in and completely destroy the nest. Right now we’re doing the equivalent of running up to the nest and poking it with a stick.

          1. These Taliban hornets moved “next close to your house”, did they MetalBard?

            1. Um if you’re going to try to correct something I wrote don’t misquote it.

              1. MetalBard,

                Did you or can you now understand what I possibly meant?

                Shall we save each other time and disagree on this matter?

                1. Don’t waste our time – I just read your comment at 6:34pm to AlmightyJB’s comment posted at 6:15PM.

      3. We should send progs to negotiatie with them and tell them all about tranny bathroom codes. Then they’ll see the light and utopia will appear.

  2. Time to start killing a few more #2s.

    Wow, it’s like The Prisoner, isn’t it?

  3. “Obama Hoped Killing of Previous Leader Could Bring Taliban to Peace Talks”

    That right there is why he won his Nobel Peace Prize.

    1. This should be the headline on page one of the New York Times. Absolutely perfect.

  4. “Taliban Names Hard-Liners as New Leaders”

    Wow, even the terrorists are getting their very own Trumps!

    1. We’re gonna strap bombs to so many kids. So many. You’re gonna be tired of shooting ten year old girls.

    2. By definition wouldn’t the leader of the Taliban be a hard liner? If they start recruiting from the womyns study department at Oberlin, then that would worth putting in the headline.

      1. They’re not that hardcore:)

  5. Meet the new bosses

  6. The new guys are even worse? Sounds like even more reason to kill them.

    1. “Something’s wrong. Murder isn’t working, and that’s all we’re good at.”

    2. We should send the SJW’s over there to teach them about feelings.

      1. ^THIS

        1. seconded

      2. Hey not even the Taliban deserves that.

        1. But the rest of us deserve it.

      3. Scared Straight: A Taliban Story

  7. “the only real path for ending this long conflict?joining the Afghan government in a reconciliation process that leads to lasting peace and stability”

    Unfortunately, history seems to indicate the only real path for ending this long conflict is GTFO.

  8. Damn poopyheads.

  9. gtfo. stfo.

  10. OT: I’m watching the Anaheim ‘protest’ live. The photographer/media to protestor ratio is like 20 to 1. One thing these protestors are doing is bringing the pigs out in full force. Theyre moving in big Napoleonic lines and squares. Its like we’re de-evolving.

    1. One thing these protestors are doing is bringing the pigs out in full force. Theyre moving in big Napoleonic lines and squares. Its like we’re de-evolving.

      In their defense they have to, because if they had too few people and shit got out of hand they would be blamed for not being prepared and letting it happen.

      And the media wants violence, which is not going to be helpful.

    2. so it’s better when the protestors resort to violence? Cops aren’t forcing these people to throw rocks and act like assholes. And Crusty’s right; if someone were to get hurt, then the cops would be ‘splainin that.

      1. No its not better. If the protestors start violence I want their fucking heads beat in

    3. Bring back the schiltron!

    4. I thought we were here to protest Donald Duck. What’s going on? Hey, are those zip ties? Let me out of the van!!!

  11. Taliban Names Hard-Liners as New Leaders

    As opposed to the “moderate, centrist” Taliban?

    1. meet the TINOs.

        1. Universalist Unitaliban.

          1. Oh, they’ve got the Unitarian part down, not so much the Universalist part.

            1. So they drive Volvos and want Garrison Keillor strung up.

    2. There’s a great debate going on right now about whether to chop off infidels’ heads with a scimitar or an ax.

      You have to appreciate these nuances.

      /sarc

      1. And Allah forgive you if ever ask them about Titanium Nitride blade coatings!

    3. They’re currently regrouping and looking to draft someone to run as an independent.

    4. You can tell the moderate ones, they’re the ones with American made weapons and equipment.

      1. You can tell the moderate ones….

        ….They’re willing to work across party lines when massacring minorities!

        e.g.

        Earlier this month the Taliban condemned a “horrific” video that apparently showed IS fighters blowing up bound and blindfolded [Shiite Hazara] Afghan prisoners with explosives

        Noted* = killing Hazaras in cruel and unusual ways was sort of the Taliban’s hallmark before the US invaded and drove them out of the north

        The envoys described the killings as a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing by the Islamic fundamentalist militia. Diplomats, United Nations officials and aid workers say thousands of Hazaras, mostly males, were killed in front of their families in Mazar-i-Sharif… when the Taliban captured the city last month.

        A senior diplomat who interviewed dozens of Hazara families said: “Young men over 16 were brought out of their houses into the streets and had throats slit in a ritualistic killing. Younger boys had both hands chopped off at the wrist.”

        An aid worker said Hazara bodies were left in the streets for days…”They were mutilating children and telling them, ‘You will never fight us again’.”

        The ‘hands’ thing was mentioned by US personnel when Mazar was taken; dozens of young people with no mitts.

        that whole sunni/shia thing is so *@#& stupid

  12. The bombings will continue until you become out friends

  13. Obama Hoped Killing of Previous Leader Could Bring Taliban to Peace Talks

    Uhm, wat?

    Would killing Obama bring the US to peace talks? In any case, last time I checked we were killing more of them and far faster than they are killing others – if we wanted ‘peace’ all we have to do is *refrain*.

  14. This application is really good and very easy to use because you can never get an app which streams way of the latest and even the oldest videos. showbox

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.