Comments on: What If the Drones Really Did Kill Beitullah Mehsud?

By: chenlifeng0810

chenlifeng0810 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:49:49 +0000

Only One word to characterize such a great post “WOW” that was a very interesting read
a href="http://www.victoriaclassic.com">Links of London Jewellery

Everything dynamic and very positively!
a href="http://www.victoriaclassic.com">Links of London Jewellery

I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.
a href="http://www.victoriaclassic.com">Links of London Jewellery

Just wanted to say great job with the blog, today is my first visit here and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts so far
a href="http://www.victoriaclassic.com">Links of London Jewellery

Thanks for article. Everytime like to read you.
a href="http://www.victoriaclassic.com">Links of London Jewellery

By: jonathan

jonathan — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:52:28 +0000

IF beitullah mehsud is dead that would be without doubt a severe blow to the taliban considering his radicalism and extremism.that shouln't mean complaceny in the part of usa because in all earnest that would not be the end.

By: He’s The Terrorist Version of Abe Vigoda « Around The Sphere

He’s The Terrorist Version of Abe Vigoda « Around The Sphere — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 15:16:27 +0000

[...] posts from Spencer Ackerman, here, here and here. Ackerman: It’s not that Mehsud is an unimportant figure, or that movements [...]

By: spencerackerman

spencerackerman — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 01:25:36 +0000

I'm going to make this comment its own post, as it's excellent.

By: abujeeyun

abujeeyun — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:03:36 +0000

A long, dispassionate attempt to analyze the importance of AMZ's in the unraveling of AQI would be pretty fruitless. Clearly he was one of the network nodes whose elimination furthered the cause. I would argue that if he hadn't been killed, AQI's unravelling would have been impossible. His killing was of extreme symbolic significance to those who were sitting on the fence. In addition to that, he was clearly very good at organizing and enforcing discipline. So his death weakened the network in practical ways.

What I think is a more eloquent way of phrasing my earlier point is that killing the head of the snake is an important element in the elimination of the network. One single hellfire will never solve the problem in and of itself. But the Hellfire that got Mehsud (allegedly) was, I believe, the single most important Hellfire that's been fired since 9/11.

On the other hand, the Pakistani Taliban is a very different beast than AQI, al Shabab, etc. We will never "eliminate the network"--it's the clan-based network that is the way of life there. BM turned that network into a very effective killing machine that--I believe--was a legitimate threat to the government of Pakistan. He has many willing lieutenants who will try to take his place, but he was VERY good at leadership. There's a good chance that, if handled correctly by the Pakistani government, his death really will be turned into a peace pact with the Mehsud tribe and a veritable end to the Pakistani Taliban as a legitimate threat to Pakistani democracy.

Ironically, if this happens, it makes the U.S. job harder in Afghanistan. If the insurgency ends in Pakistan, the motivation for the Pakistani government to continue to police the border areas will decline dramatically. That ends the hope that the Pakistani army will somehow fix Afghanistan's problem. And the Mehsudi clan will stop fighting against itself and the Pakistani government and put all of their focus on fighting over the border.

Nevertheless, the big prize is Pakistan, not Afghanistan. And a world without BM makes Pakistan as a sovereign democracy significantly safer.

In regards to Abdullah's comments: I agree with you that BM was in a bad way at the time of his alleged death. His support was down and he was getting hurt badly by the drone strikes and the Pakistani air force strikes. But if he had survived and played his cards right, he could have quickly regained his power and then some. His power base on Wednesday was significantly diminished. But he still represented a tremendous threat while still alive.

By: Abdullah

Abdullah — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:01:54 +0000

Mehsud is/was a person who was increasingly isolated in Pakistan and even in his own Mehsud Tribe. He lost support after people saw his men blasting hotels, mass killing ordinary people and blowing up girls schools. His financial support from abroad and Indian agencies (RAW) is cut after he was encircled in a 200 mile area by security forces.
He is desperately killing any one from his tribe he view as a threat but time is running out for him anyways as he lost critical moral appeal in Pakistan. Swat's recapture also weekend him as well.

We cannot equate him with Tamil Tigers leader Parbhakarun as he had the support of Tamils till his death while Mehsud is using terror to keep himself going in his tribe. Pakistanies will not be surprized to see him dead and that will be a feel good factor at this Independence day at 14th Aug with Judiciary reversing Musharrafs actions.

By: Name

Name — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:52:03 +0000

Even better is to remove the conditions that allow such groups to flourish in the first place. And by “the conditions” I mean poverty and ignorance.

By: spencerackerman

spencerackerman — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:02:06 +0000

I want to see a real analysis of what AMZ's killing had to do with the fracturing of AQI and the Sunni Awakening. Intuition would suggest it was a contributing factor. But how much did it contribute?

And how sure are you that Beitullah's would have a fracturing impact? Be careful of that Massoud comparison. His compatriots, in his death, actually achieved what Massoud didn't deliver.

By: abujeeyun

abujeeyun — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 05:35:52 +0000

Al-Zarqawi was killed in June 2006. That's when the tide began to shift in terms of other sunni groups switching sides. You're wrong that his death had little significance in the broader fight. Mehsud is a far bigger fish than Al-Zarqawi. He is an immensely charismatic, clever and courageous leader. Much of Pakistan views him as a potential alternative to democratic rule. He is the most dynamic leader in the history of the Jihadi wars in southwest Asia (with the possible exception of Ahmed Shah Massoud) and represents a significant threat to all of the governments of the region. Killing him will have more real-world significance than killing bin Laden. Less symbolic significance, of course, but in terms of changing the situation on the ground, far more real significance.

By the way, watch for the jirga meeting tomorrow. There's a chance that reapers will blow it to bits once all the high-ups of the Mehsoud clan gather.

By: The Washington Independent » What If the Drones Really Did Kill … | kozmom news

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 00:26:51 +0000

[...] See the original post: The Washington Independent » What If the Drones Really Did Kill … [...]