Some great stuff I don’t have time to comment on right now (am putting the finishing touches on a story about a Finnish ISAF soldier wounded by friendly fire in 2006):
- In the September issue of the CTC Sentinel, Anne Stenersen examines why the Afghan Taliban are unlikely to attack targets in the West. Food for thought: “It should be noted that the Afghan Taliban leadership has not officially denounced al-Qa`ida or its activities, and they have stated that al-Qa`ida and other foreign Muslims are welcome to join their fight in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, it appears that the Afghan Taliban leaders themselves do not wish to be associated with al-Qa`ida’s global jihadist strategy.”
- “Clearly, defending Afghanistan will not eradicate a terrorist network based in Pakistan”, Bruce Hoffman writes in The National Interest. “But failing to defend Afghanistan will almost certainly give al-Qaeda new momentum and greater freedom of action.”
- “It’s disappointing to see someone with his expertise, access to resources and more importantly influence, put out factually incorrect material”, writes Leah Farrall and proceeds to tear apart Hoffman’s argument. Hoffman responds, but Farrall stands her ground. Way to go!
“but Farrall stands her ground”
Uh…she does? Because that’s not what I saw at the link. What I saw, was a bunch of excuses, and no facts.
Haqqani seems pretty interested in international Takfiri extremist activity, including in Chechnya, the Northern Stans, against Shia (he is close to Lashkar e Jhanvi and Sipah e Sahaba), and Kashmir.
“Anne Stenersen examines why the Afghan Taliban are unlikely to attack targets in the West.” Does Anne even know about Haqqani?
Haqqani is a dangerous operator whose significance is not properly understood in the West IMO.