The Command Post - Global War On Terror

March 21, 2004

The IMU's Last Stand

The Telegraph is reporting that the "al Qaeda leader" holed up in a fortress near Wana is Tohir Yo'ldosh with his Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan:

officials in Pakistan and Afghanistan identified Tahir Yuldash, the leader of several hundred Central Asian Islamic fundamentalist fighters, as the key figure being protected by up to 400 al-Qa'eda militants. Yuldash, a founder of the hardline Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, teamed up with bin Laden in Afghanistan but has been based in Pakistani tribal areas since the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001. His cordon of bodyguards is fighting the Pakistani onslaught with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades.

The IMU, gathering strength in Wana after it was devestated by the war in Afghanistan, may be making its final stand.

Posted by Nathan Hamm at March 21, 2004 12:19 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Good.

If we kill all the current hardcore's and the leadership, it'll be very difficult for them to try to reconstitute later.

Posted by: eric at March 21, 2004 12:24 PM

The trick is to render leadership focii/leaders combat ineffective. At the same time the work of choking off the money and support resources must go on. This means that new "leaders" popping up and recruiting will begin factional fights over scarce resources. That, in turn, will begin to render the groups less effective. This makes it easier to insert doubles and pentration agents. It's a tactic that is older than the czars' Cheka and as new as the Israeli CI.

Posted by: hungry valley at March 21, 2004 01:24 PM

The tsar's Cheka, of course, failed. Success or failure of the Israeli CI tactics remains to be seen.

Posted by: jim58 at March 21, 2004 04:18 PM

Speaking of Central Asian Islamic fundamentalists. Check this AP article that claims Al-Q has briefcase nukes.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apaa_story.asp?category=1106&slug=Al%20Qaida%20Nuclear
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: AP - Australia/Antarctica

Maybe a bluff - or maybe true?? If not true, be assured that they are trying to get this capability. Thwarting this threat needs to be our top national priority. Is there anyone who does not believe that they would use them if they can get them and somehow get them in country??

We know of course that they have access to disgruntled former Soviet atomic scientists, some of whom are Muslim and who live the bygone Soviet Republics in Central Asia. But why depend on former Soviets, when they have access to Pakistani scientists?? Dr Khan from Pakistan has sold info on how to build nuclear weapons to North Korea, Libya and who knows who else???

And we know that suitcase nukes have been around for at least 25 or 30 years. This is one of the reasons that the Star Wars program never got approved. Is it true they have downsized them to briefcase size?? What size nuclear yield (how many kilotons) do you think they could pack in a briefcase??

Posted by: jim58 at March 21, 2004 04:38 PM

From what I have seen, enough to take out a major port like Houston, New Orleans, New York or San Franscisco.

Posted by: leaddog2 at March 21, 2004 05:27 PM

jaime58---

The Cheka worked quite well. After all it turned Stalin into a double agent and survived under Iron Felix. Every time Israeli CI has gotten serious about the tactic it has worked. The problem is that it takes a sustained and co-ordinated effort which is usually lacking. The factional groups have to be continually pressured or they can mature into something like Hamas. You can't get too efficient either or you wind up with fewer groups. It is a case of letting a thousand flowers bloom and then harvesting in the bud.

That can require wet ops as well as as other methods. I'm rather fond of low velocity .22's. They're sub-sonic and don't over penetrate. They just bounce around in the crainium working like a vegamatic.

The point is, that counter terror requires its own Combined Arms methods.

Posted by: hungry valley at March 21, 2004 05:30 PM

As noted elsewhere on this site, the AP article refers to an interview from two years ago, and AP deliberately lied about not knowing when that interview took place.

For comprehensive information on the probability of existence of, yield of, servicability of, and probability of terrorist possession of, suitcase nuclear weapons, see the definitive article at:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/020923.htm

Posted by: jeffers at March 21, 2004 08:28 PM

After reading the link, one imagines the old refrain altered a bit, [in my best OZ accent] "Nuke, that's not a nuke, this is a NUKE"

Posted by: Hugo at March 21, 2004 08:50 PM

... got`a feeling some people better get their affairs in order...

Posted by: Rob..NC at March 22, 2004 05:07 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)
As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse � it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we�re sorry it didn�t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: