Pakistani Spies May Have Funded 2009 Suicide Bombing Targeting CIA Outpost

Pakistani Spies May Have Funded 2009 Suicide Bombing Targeting CIA Outpost     BY ELIAS GROLL     APRIL 13, 2016

Pakistan’s powerful spy agency may have provided the funding for a deadly 2009 suicide attack on a CIA base in Afghanistan that ranks as one of the deadliest days in the agency’s history, according to a newly declassified State Department cable.

The heavily redacted cable, sent about two weeks after the attack on Dec. 30, 2009, reports on a meeting between operatives belonging to the Haqqani network, a highly capable al Qaeda-linked terror group, and unidentified officers with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. According to the cable, which was released Wednesday, the ISI was suspected of giving the Haqqani network $200,000 to “enable” the attack on Forward Operating Base Chapman in Afghanistan’s Khost province.

The Chapman attack killed seven CIA officers and a Jordanian intelligence operative. It was carried out by a double agent, a Jordanian named Hammam Khalil Mohammed, who was invited onto the base to help the agency track down senior al Qaeda operatives. When he blew himself up during a meeting with senior CIA officials responsible for hunting al Qaeda, he greatly hindered Langley’s effort to dismantle the terror network. 

While Pakistan’s ISI has a well-known record of supporting Islamist militant groups, its funding of the Chapman attack remains unconfirmed. The cable notes that it is an “information report” and “not finally evaluated intelligence.” The CIA did not answer questions Wednesday about the report’s veracity, or whether stronger intelligence proves that the ISI funded the Chapman bombing.

The National Security Archive at George Washington University published the cable, which was part of a trove of documents received under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Another State Department cable, also published Wednesday, reported that leaders of the Haqqani network were suspected of meeting monthly with the ISI in Islamabad as of late December 2009 — around the time of the Chapman bombing. The ISI provided the Haqqani network during these meetings with an “unknown amount of funding” for “unspecified operations,” the cable reported.

In December 2009, the ISI and Haqqani network met twice, according to thatcable. During the first meeting, they “discussed funding for operations” in Khost province. During the second, ISI provided “direction to the Haqqanis to expedite attack preparations and lethality in Afghanistan.”

Other documents published by the National Security Archive give new insights into the Haqqani funding sources.

The ISI has a long history of playing both sides in America’s long war against radical Islamist groups in the tribal areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Anticipating an eventual American withdrawal from Afghanistan, Islamabad has cultivated close ties with Afghan militants, providing them with funds and arms.

Pakistani intelligence officials believe their relationship with Afghan militants, such as the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban, provides Islamabad with a decisive advantage in its contest with India, Pakistan’s historic enemy, for influence in Afghanistan.

At the same time, Pakistan has accepted billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid from the United States after helping Washington combat Islamist terror groups following the 9/11 terror attacks.

Pakistani armed forces are carrying out an offensive in the country’s tribal areas against the Pakistani Taliban, which has been responsible for a spate of recent deadly bombings. Just last month, a splinter group of the Pakistani Taliban killed more than 70 people in an Easter bombing targeting Christians celebrating in Lahore.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/13/pakistani-spies-may-have-funded-2009-suicide-bombing-targeting-cia-outpost/

The war of ideology, by Nighat Kamal Aziz

Life was so simple when wars were fought with bravery and chivalry; when the enemy was across the border. There was a time when the brunt of the battle was taken by armies facing each other, not by children in schools or playing in parks accompanied by their mothers.

Those fighting prided themselves on giving their enemies an equal chance to defend themselves. Shooting someone in the back was an act of cowardice. There was a code of honour, which protected children and unarmed people because it was considered disgraceful to harm them.

But the war game has changed. The enemy is within now. The white and black have merged into grey. It is a war of ideologies, fought in the minds. The enemy can be anyone; it is difficult to decipher who is in which camp. The conventional code of conduct in war is misplaced and conventional weapons are inadequate. We are pitted against those who do not play by the rules. For them, striking where it hurts most is important – code of honour be damned.

There was a time when being religious made a person magnanimous, kind and humane; when religion broadened the mind, instead of making people blood thirsty and intolerant. Those who were well-versed in religion had the grace and patience to listen to differing points of view. They won people over with sound arguments, instead of acting as judge, jury and executioner, killing those who dared to disagree.

It was not a very distant past when everyone gave alms with open hearts for religious reasons. Now, people are wary, wondering if their donations will be used to harbour or train potential suicide bombers. There was a time when the soft-spoken clergy commanded respect and admiration instead of fear; when religion was not used as a garb for the lust for power. The clergy have become rigid, their sermons increasingly harsh and intolerant. Can they command respect when they spring into action against domestic violence bills or in support of child marriages, but remain silent when children get blown up?

Where has the era gone, when Christians, Parsees, Sikhs and Hindus coexisted peacefully as equal citizens in this land, contributing positively to our nation? They lent essence to life and justified the white in our flag. Of course, the Shias and Sunnis argued heatedly about their viewpoints, but they did not silence each other with guns.

People lived in their own spheres when religion was not predominant. Faith was an inner glow, not to be thrust down the other’s throat. People believed all religions were like rivulets, basically flowing down to the same ocean. Everyone had the right to choose which river to float in. They could consider their river better, but not force others to join in. Religion was like a halo, making people tolerant and not heartless barbarians.

It is unclear when and how things changed so drastically for the worse. How has so much intolerance, hatred and violence crept into our lives? The transformation was swift and we remained silent and helpless spectators. Silence and inaction appears harmless but causes the worst damage over time. Brushing problems under the carpet, hoping that they will disappear and not upholding what is right create worse complications.

Christians have been killed in churches, Parsees have quietly left the country, the Ahmadis’ houses have been burnt, Hazaras have been killed, innocent people have been blown up, hospitals and funerals have been targeted and people have been lynched by mobs. All in the name of religion.

And our silence has been deafening.

When justice is not dispensed indiscriminately and quickly, the repercussions are far-reaching. The war of ideology can only won when people are not judgmental, with pre-conceived views. Perhaps we have lost our will to listen. Perhaps we have become so rigid in our self-righteousness that we cannot tolerate anyone who does not agree with us. Perhaps we are terrified to stand up and defend what is right because we fear dangerous repercussions.

And perhaps we are not wrong.

But does closing our eyes solve our problems? Does it make our children safe when they venture out for ice cream?

The dreaded Third World War is upon us. The war of ideology is enveloping the world. Conventional forces can delay it, but cannot eradicate it. Each person needs to stand by what is right, to overcome their fear and speak their mind.

We need to protect innocent victims, regardless of their religion. We need to isolate those fanning the flames of hatred.

Our people have turned into mindless robots, following any Pied Piper’s frenzied speeches. Have they lost their power of reasoning, or do they lack anything substantial to do?

Differing points of view should be expressed in a civilised manner. Resorting to violence and destroying public and private property is counterproductive. The moral high ground can only be achieved with intelligent reasoning, not pressure tactics.

Intelligent reasoning needs to be cultivated by our scholars, politicians, clergy and media. It needs to be imbibed in our students and our people. The first step is to be a good listener, because people are entitled to their views.

Email: nigiaziz7@hotmail.com

http://www.thenews.com.pk/print/112015-The-war-of-ideology

How the Army generals nixed India Pakistan peace, once again

How the Army generals nixed India Pakistan peace, once again

The truth behind Basit’s comments is depressing: Pakistan’s army has staged what can only be described as a foreign policy coup, rejecting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to seek normalisation with India.

Last week, in remarks unlikely to endear him to political leaders on either side of the border, Islamabad’s envoy to New Delhi, Abdul Basit, announced that the “peace process with India has been suspended”.

The truth behind Basit’s comments is depressing: Pakistan’s army has staged what can only be described as a foreign policy coup, rejecting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s efforts to seek normalisation with India. Sharif’s promise to act against the Jaish-e-Muhammad after it staged the attack on the IAF base in Pathankot appears to have been the decisive moment of rupture.

Ever since 2014, Sharif’s foreign policy has been drawning sustained fire from Pakistan’s all-powerful army, who have cast India as an existential threat. The generals’ polemical weapons have included Kashmir, purported Indian backing for terrorism in Pakistan and, most recently, the bizarre case of alleged Indian intelligence operative Kulbhushan Jadhav — a former naval officer whose rambling confession was played on Pakistani television, but against whom no criminal charges have yet been filed.

The underlying message is simple: though the army will countenance accommodation with India in order to avoid crises that are not in its interest, it is unwilling to move forward on actual normalisation.

In part, this decision is pragmatic. Faced with threats from anti-state jihadists, the Pakistan army sees anti-India jihadists as necessary sources of legitimacy and support. The generals believe Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government is just as unwilling to risk war as its predecessors, fearful of undoing its wider strategic goal of high growth. Thus, anti-India jihadist operations, like those in Gurdaspur or Pathankot, can be permitted at little or no risk to Pakistan’s military.

For Indian policymakers, though, there is a larger challenge. The army, as C Christine Fair has argued, is an epistemic community, whose decision making is shaped by inherited knowledge. For the Pakistan army, normalisation with India is indeed an existential threat — because the battle against the bigger neighbour is a core part of its founding myth that casts it as the defender of an Islamic Pakistan against a predatory, Hindu India.

The roots of this thinking lie in the late 1940s, when Pakistan army officers fought alongside tribal irregulars in an effort to seize Kashmir. Brigadier Akbar Khan, who led the campaign, believed the war for Kashmir had been betrayed by an effete political leadership.

Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan found himself ceding a growing share of power to General Ayub Khan. In 1953, during anti-Ahmadiyya riots in Punjab, the army established itself as the principal source of state authority. It cast itself as a modernising institution, but did not resist the Islamist tide. Pakistan’s first Constitution, passed in 1956, declared Pakistan an Islamic republic — a notion unknown to classical theology — and mandated no laws repugnant to the Koran and Hadith be passed.

Gen Khan’s military coup was widely hailed in the West, and many saw him as a moderniser determined to rein in both the rowdy mullahs and the communists. Samuel Huntington saw the general’s idea of Basic Democracy — a project to radically limit democracy — as a “prerequisite of political stability in a modernising country”. He cast Ayub as “a Solon or Lycurgus or Great Legislator on the Platonic or Rousseauian model”.

For all his secular-modernising claims, Ayub’s conception of Pakistan had a specific Islamist impulse. In an article for Foreign Policy, he approvingly quoted the rightwing ideologue and poet Muhammad Iqbal’s observation that “the State, from the Islamic standpoint is an endeavour to transform these [religious] ideals into space-time forces, an aspiration to realize them in a definite human organisation.

“It is this sort of human organisation,” Ayub said, “that Pakistan aspires to become”.

Pakistani secularism, such as it was, disintegrated in 1973 — the Constitution brought into force that year decreed that “sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone”. The state was, among other things, enjoined to promote “observance of the Islamic moral standards”. The army did not resist — and in 1977, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq set about entrenching these tendencies.

Zia commended to his officers Brigadier S K Malik’s The Quranic Conception of War, noting its contribution to the “understanding that we jointly seek as citizens of an Islamic state”. “The term jihad,” Malik wrote, “so often confused with military strategy is, in fact, the near-equivalent of total or grand strategy or policy in-execution”. Thus, jihad “aims at attaining the overall mission assigned to the Islamic state”.

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto chose not to roll back the religious legislation; in 1998, her successor, Nawaz Sharif, even considered legislation that would have declared him the ‘Amir ul-momineen’, or Commander of the Faithful — a title used by the medieval Caliphs, and the Taliban commander Mullah Muhammad Omar.

In the army, Zia’s ideas shaped official discourse all the way to General Raheel Sharif, on whose watch jihadists have been attacked not for what they are, but as agents of India.

For India, the truth is that there are no good options. The last major gains in the India-Pakistan relationship were won through war, not dialogue. The LoC ceasefire, and the post-2003 reduction of violence in Kashmir, came about as a consequence of the war of 1999 and the near-war of 2001-2002 — a crisis that India could barely afford, but which almost broke Pakistan. These are not templates, however, for securing India’s ends: the potential risks are simply too high.

In New Delhi, strategists argue that the only alternative is talking. Engagement, the argument goes, ensures that the complex elements of Pakistan’s polity — Islamists hostile to the state, politicians seeking to undermine military primacy, a fledgling industrial bourgeoisie seeking regional economic opportunity — do not ally against an existential threat from India. Then, they argue, it makes sense for India to not subvert its own overarching strategic aim of high growth to be derailed by war.

But it is for these precise reasons that Pakistan’s generals are certain to ensure that any process of India-Pakistan normalisation goes nowhere — and to ratchet up the pain when it serves their interests, secure in their belief that India will not retaliate.

praveen.swami@expressindia.com

http://indianexpress.com/article/explained/india-pakistan-talks-abdul-basit-india-pak-peace-in-fact-how-the-generals-nixed-india-pak-peace-once-again/

Panama Papers Leave Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif in a Jam, Umair Jamal

Panama Papers Leave Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif in a Jam, Umair Jamal

April 10, 2016

With the Panama Papers, Nawaz Sharif’s legitimacy on matters of national security will continue to decline.

The scale of tax avoidance and money laundering revealed in the Panama Paper leaks run into the several hundreds of billions of dollars and contains the details and names of hundreds of powerful and influential people from across the world. The impact of these revelations is already visible: mass protests in Iceland have forced the country’s prime minister into resignationafter disclosures about his offshore dealings became public through these leaks.

The names of over 200 Pakistanis, including the current prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, have also figured in these leaks. Allegations of tax evasion, fraud, and money laundering have marred Sharif’s political career since the beginning. The Independent in 1998 published a piece which stated, “The investigation into Mr. Sharif and his family was originally commissioned in 1993 by an interim government, after Mr. Sharif’s dismissal as prime minister, which asked the agency to investigate 13 separate allegations of corruption and money laundering through overseas bank accounts.”

According to these leaks, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s close family has made millions of dollars of investments in a number of offshore companies. Just hours after these revelations, Sharif addressed the nationand promised appropriate review while denying that any of his family members were involved in any kind of corruption.

Even after coming to power with a heavy mandate, Sharif has not been able to rule successfully. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Isnaaf party’s four-month long protests in Islamabad in 2014, which ended only after the military’s intervention as a mediator, took away any semblance of civilian supremacy over the army. A few weeks ago, the former military chief, Pervez Musharraf, who was put on an historic trial for treason by Sharif, silently left the country.

For the prime minister, the timing of these allegations could not have been worse. The PTI again has promised to launch another wave of protests against the federal government if it fails to form an independent commission to prosecute the allegations made in Panama leaks. Meanwhile, the army has unilaterally launched a military operation in Punjab without even asking for consent from the provincial government, which is run by the prime minister’s younger brother, Shahbaz Sharif.

The prime minister has proved to be an ordinary politician: one who has has neither courage nor the political will to provide leadership to the country. “Nawaz Sharif has frittered away his opportunities. He has proved to be a hopelessly incompetent leader, neither strong enough to initiate badly needed reforms nor sophisticated enough to deal with the country’s well-oiled military machine,” said Ahmad Rashid.

For the most part, Sharif’s third tenure as prime minister has been marred by allegations of mass corruption. Moreover, Sharif has been soft on extremists. Consequently, the leadership space left by the prime minister has been filled by the chief of army staff, General Raheel Sharif, who has been tough on extremism. While the military chief ordered the execution of Mumtaz Qadri, who in 2011 murdered Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer, the federal government a week ago could not clear the capital of a handful of Islamist protesters celebrating Qadri. Instead, the government gave in to many of their demands related to Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws. One of the demands which the government agreed to was the execution of Asia Bibi, whose case is pending in the courts in a blasphemy-related offense.

These revelations, regardless of their merit, will further limit the prime minister’s say in matters related to national security and foreign policy. For the remaining two years of his tenure, Nawaz Sharif is likely to serve as a ceremonial head of government, with actual power residing in the hands of the military and opposition parties.

http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/panama-papers-leave-pakistani-pm-nawaz-sharif-in-a-jam/?utm_content=buffere7d9b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Dr Shabir Choudhry files a writ in Islamabad High Court on ID Card Issue

Dr Shabir Choudhry files a writ in Islamabad High Court on ID Card Issue

Islamabad      08 April 2016

Dr Shabir Choudhry a Kashmiri political and human rights activist and author of many books was not provided with an Identity Card known as NICOP, due to his political work and writings which expose Pakistan’s Kashmir policy.

Dr Shabir Choudhry applied to renew his ID Card in June 2015 in Pakistani High Commission in London; and to date he has not officially heard from them. Normally the ID Card is issued within six weeks. His wife who applied at the same time was issued a card within six weeks.

Many phone calls, letters and even appeal from Asian Human Rights Commission fell on deaf ears; and officials of Islamic Republic of Pakistan chose to ignore all the pleas to punish Dr Choudhry for his political work.

Attorney for the claimant Nisar Ahmed Shah Advocate asserted that it was ‘basic Fundamental rights of the petitioner, which is being violated, abrogated by the Respondent No 1 and 2.’ He also said; ‘That the petitioner is entitled to be issued NICOP by the Respondent No. 1 & 2 in pursuance of above enumerate expired NICOP, instead Respondents No. 1 & 2 are delaying the matter without any lawful objection and refusing a legitimate right of the petitioner which is a clear violation of the settled principles of registration authority as well as the fundamental Rights of the petitioner granted by the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.’

In Pakistani Administered Kashmir and Pakistan NICOP or Identity Card is must, as that is required to buy or sell property, open bank accounts and many other things strictly depend on producing the ID Card.

Dr Shabir Choudhry said denial of ID Card means curbing my fundamental rights, which include a right to travel to my homeland, a right to sell my property, a right to inherit, a right to banking, a right to visit my relatives and right to visit a grave of my late father.

Dr Choudhry said not only I will fight to protect my fundamental rights but I will also continue to speak about rights of others who suffer at the hands of these officials.

END

drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

0044 (0) 7790942471

Some Hurriyat leaders sell MBBS engineering seats in Pakistan colleges meant for kin of Kashmiri martyrs

Some Hurriyat leaders sell MBBS engineering seats in Pakistan colleges meant for kin of Kashmiri martyrs

SRINAGAR: Since the early 1990s, Pakistan government has been allotting about 100 seats annually in MBBS and other professional courses in its institutions for Kashmiri students whose kin have been martyred or those who have been associated with the resistance movement. Do the deserving candidates get their due? Resistance leaders say they do but a significant share of these seats is also either “sold” to those who do not meet the criteria.

Apart from MBBS course, which is the major chunk of the quota, admissions are given to Kashmiri students in engineering, BTech, dentistry and veterinary sciences.

Hurriyat Conference (G) spokesman Ayaz Akbar said the undivided Hurriyat Conference had set up a body exclusively for processing such admissions. No leader of any constituent organisation of the Hurriyat had a say in the admissions, he added.

Children of police officers and bureaucrats were recommended by none other than Hurriyat leaders. I think hardly five to ten per cent of the seats have gone to the kin of martyrs

“Initially, the quota reached the deserving candidates, but that did not last long. If there were five seats, there were hundreds of claimants. The standard of the selection process declined,” Akbar said.

He said that Hurriyat (G) chairman Syed Ali Geelani has never had anything to do with the admissions ever since he formed his own resistance group, Tehreek-e-Hurriyat.

“These days there is no fair distribution. I have heard that many lower-rung leaders who are allotted one or two seats every year might have taken small donations from people,” said another Hurriyat leader on condition of anonymity.

He added that in the absence of a system, there is ample scope for nepotism and corruption.

“Ideally the resistance leaders should hunt for the deserving students than wait for them to come because not many people are aware of the quotas,” he said.

This year, a Pakistani official dealing with these admissions said, 70 Kashmiri students have been provided admissions to MBBS and engineering courses. Some of these admissions are funded through scholarships provided by Pakistan government and ‘Azad Kashmir’ government, he said.

“Preference is given to the kin of martyrs,” he said.

However, a senior Hurriyat leader told Kashmir Reader that “it is common knowledge that there is rampant nepotism in these admissions”.

“Children of police officers and bureaucrats were recommended by none other than Hurriyat leaders. I think hardly five to ten per cent of the seats have gone to the kin of martyrs,” he said.

A veteran Hurriyat leader, however, said that by and large only the meritorious and deserving students are recommended by the resistance leaders.
“The letter of recommendation mentions the contribution of the kin of the student. Students’ academic merit is the key criterion. Contribution towards the freedom struggle only adds to the eligibility of a candidate. Leaders’ recommendations only ease visa process and other formalities,” he said.

Resistance leaders, he said, are sometimes faced with a dilemma of recommending a less bright student whose kin have contributed towards the struggle over an academically brilliant student whose family may not have contributed as much.

Hurriyat Conference (M) chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Democratic Freedom Party (DFP) chairman Shabir Ahmad Shah are among also recommends the students.

An official in one of the Hurriyats said that in the past, lower rung leaders would often bring the parents of non-deserving candidates to the top leadership and seek recommendations for their wards.

“Once the recommendation letter was signed by the top leader, the lower rung leader would then seek money from the parents. Some of them got exposed and over the time the top leadership became cautious. These days, I would say, the process is by and large fair,” he added.

http://kashmirreader.com/2016/04/some-hurriyat-leaders-sell-mbbs-engineering-seats-in-pakistan-colleges-meant-for-kin-of-kashmiri-martyrs/

Taliban appoints Mullah Omar’s brother, son to key leadership positions

Taliban appoints Mullah Omar’s brother, son to key leadership positions

BY BILL ROGGIO | April 5, 2016 | admin@longwarjournal.org | @billroggio

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the official name of the Taliban, appointed Mullah Omar’s brother and eldest son to key leadership positions in the jihadist group’s executive council. Mullah Omar’s kin had previously opposed the appointment of Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour as emir of the Taliban after Omar’s death was disclosed in the summer of 2015, but quickly changed their mind and swore allegiance to Mansour.

The Taliban announced yesterday that Mullah Abdul Manan Akhund, a brother of Mullah Omar, was named “the head of Dawat wal Irshad,” or the Preaching and Guidance Commission. Mullah Mohammad Yaqoub, Omar’s eldest son, was given a seat on the executive council, which is better known as the Quetta Shura, “as well as the military chief of 15 provinces” within the structure of the Taliban’s Military Commission.

The Taliban made the announcement in an English-language statement on Voice of Jihad, its official website.

“Both of the new officials of Islamic Emirate were given advise [sic] by the Amir ul Mumineen [the Commander of the Faithful, the title for Mullah Mansour] who later prayed to Allah Almighty for their success in their current duties,” the statement concluded.

According to the Taliban, Manan and Yacoub received their new positions at “a special meeting” that “was convened by the Islamic Emirate in which the leader, council members, high ranking officials and military heads participated.”

While the statement did not indicate where the meeting was held, it likely took place in Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Taliban’s top leaders are known to be based.

Both Manan and Yacoub accepted senior level positions within the Taliban. The Preaching and Guidance Commission is considered by the Taliban to be one of its most important committees, as it is tasked with spreading “the goals of Islamic Emirate and illegality and aims of the invaders and their stooges,” or the Afghan government. The Military Commission is the Taliban’s largest and most influential structure, and Yacoub now assumes control of military operations in 15 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces.

The appointment of Manan and Yacoub to high level positions within the Taliban’s leadership hierarchy may indicate that they are in line to succeed Mansour. However, they would face stiff competition fromSirajuddin Haqqani, one of Mansour’s two deputies. Siraj is the Taliban’s overall military commander and also leads the Haqqani Network, which is closely linked to al Qaeda and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate and military.

Manan and Yacoub initially opposed Mansour’s appointment as Amir ul Mumineen after Mullah Omar’s death was announced on July 31, 2015. Omar died at a hospital in Karachi in April 2013, and the Taliban and Omar’s family concealed his death as they feared it would cause divisions at a crucial time, when US forces began to withdraw from Afghanistan.

Reports from the region indicated that Manan and Yacoub initially did not approve of the way that Mansour was chosen to lead the Taliban. Yacoub is rumored to have sought to replace his father as the emir of the group.

But by mid-September 2015, Manan and Yacoub reconciled with Mansour and swore allegiance to him. This closed a major rift that existed within the Taliban’s ranks, but others still exist.

Mansour still faces a challenge from Mullah Rasul, who leads a breakaway Taliban faction. Clashes between supporters of the two groups break out occasionally, but there are some indications that the factions wish to reconcile. The Islamic State also has a small presence in Afghanistan, however it does not pose a direct threat to Mansour’s leadership.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of The Long War Journal.

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/content/taliban-appoints-mullah-omar%E2%80%99s-brother-son-key-leadership-positions