Our Friend Pakistan

[big bad john]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5320116.stm

Pakistan denies Bin Laden 'gaffe' 

Bin Laden is blamed for attacks across the world
Pakistan's top army spokesman has insisted government forces will arrest al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden if they find him in the country.
Maj-Gen Shaukat Sultan's comments came after a US network broadcast remarks by him saying Bin Laden would remain free if he was "a peaceful citizen".

ABC News recorded the interview after Pakistan struck a deal with pro-Taleban militants on the Afghan border.

Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders are thought to be hiding in the area.

"Pakistan is committed to its policy on war on terror, and Osama caught anywhere in Pakistan would be brought to justice," Gen Sultan told the Associated Press news agency on Wednesday.

He rejected suggestions that the deal meant that Taleban and al-Qaeda leaders had in effect carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan.

  As long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody

Military spokesman Shaukat Sultan in the ABC interview


Pakistan's deal with militants
Who is Osama Bin Laden? 

Maj-Gen Sultan's interview with ABC was broadcast hours after the controversial deal was signed in the tribal region of North Waziristan.

Under the accord, tribesmen promise to expel foreign militants and end cross-border attacks in return for a reduced military presence.

Tribesmen have agreed that foreigners who do not leave will have to respect the peace agreement.

But many observers doubt the accord can be enforced, pointing to similar deals in neighbouring South Waziristan which strengthened the hand of Taleban supporters.

Transcript

ABC News is carrying carried a transcript of part of the interview, in which Gen Sultan appears to contradict himself, on its website:

Q. ABC News: If Bin Laden or [Ayman al-] Zawahri were there, they could stay?

A. Gen Sultan: No-one of that kind can stay. If someone is there he will have to surrender, he will have to live like a good citizen, his whereabouts, exit travel would be known to the authorities.

Q. ABC News: So, he wouldn't be taken into custody? He would stay there?

A. Gen Sultan: No, as long as one is staying like a peaceful citizen, one would not be taken into custody. One has to stay like a peaceful citizen and not allowed to participate in any kind of terrorist activity.

Maj-Gen Sultan's latest comments were followed up by a statement from the Pakistani embassy in Washington.

It said he had been "grossly misquoted" and that Pakistan was as committed as ever to apprehending Bin Laden.

"If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice."

 

[BEN 621]

Have a read of "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From The Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001" by Steve Cool. A long read, but very objective & informative.
It sheds a lot of light on Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan and their very real interests in seeing the Taliban succeed. It doesn't cover post 9-11 history, but one can see how Pakistan can still be playing both sides. It is dry at first, and very detailed & complicated, but once you get into it you can't stop reading.

 

[couchcommander]

A different, and scary take on this news:

Pakistan's "truce with the Taliban is an abject surrender, and al-Qaeda has an untouchable base of operations in Western Pakistan which will only expand if not checked

NWFP-Waziristan.gifThe news of the Pakistani government signing a truce agreement with the Taliban in North Waziristan is far worse than being reported. We raised the alarm early morning on September 4, and newly uncovered information on the terms of the agreement indicate Pakistan has been roundly defeated by the Taliban in North Waziristan. The “truce” is in fact a surrender. According to an anonymous intelligence source, the terms of the truce includes:

    - The Pakistani Army is abandoning its garrisons in North and South Waziristan.
    - The Pakistani Military will not operate in North Waziristan, nor will it monitor actions the region.
    - Pakistan will turn over weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani Army operations.
    - The Taliban and al-Qaeda have set up a Mujahideen Shura (or council) to administer the agency.
    - The truce refers to the region as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.”
    - An unknown quantity of money was transferred from Pakistani government coffers to the Taliban. The Pakistani government has essentially paid a tribute or ransom to end the fighting.
    - “Foreigners” (a euphemism for al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis) are allowed to remain in the region.
    - Over 130 mid-level al-Qaeda commanders and foot soldiers were released from Pakistani custody.
    - The Taliban is required to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not stipulate refraining from violence in Afghanistan.

Al Rayah - the flag of al-Qaeda. Click image to view.

The truce meeting was essentially an event designed to humiliate the Pakistani government and military. Government negotiators were searched for weapons by Taliban fighters prior to entering the meeting. Heavily armed Taliban were posted as guards around the ceremony. The al Rayah – al-Qaeda's black flag – was hung over the scoreboard at the soccer stadium where the ceremony was held. After the Pakistani delegation left, al-Qaeda's black flag was run up the flagpole of military checkpoints and the Taliban began looting the leftover small arms. The Taliban also held a 'parade' in the streets of Miranshah. They openly view the 'truce' as a victory, and the facts support this view.
Yuldashev.jpg

Tahir Yuldashev

While this is not reported in the media, the “Taliban commanders” in attendance include none other than Jalaluddin Haqqani, military commander of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and Tahir Yuldashev, the commander of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. The New York Times does place Haqqani and Yuldashev in the Waziristan region. Both men are deeply in bed with al-Qaeda, and it is useless at this point in time to make distinctions between al-Qaeda, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan , the Taliban and Pakistan jihadi groups like Lashkar-Toiba. Syed Saleem Shahzad indicates other known Taliban commanders were present at the meeting; "At the gathering, mujahideen leader Maulana Sadiq Noor and a representative of Gul Badar (chief of the Pakistani Taliban in North Waziristan), as well as other members of the mujahideen shura (council), were seated on a stage while the leaders of the JUI-F [the political party of Pakistani opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman and only party in North and South Waziristan, which was not always the case] delivered the speeches." Note that while unstated, Haqqani and Yuldashev also sit on the Mujahideen Shura.

To add insult to the defeat of the Waziristan truce, Pakistan has openly admitted that it would let Osama bin Laden remain a free man if committed to living a peaceful existance in the region. “If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden 'would not be taken into custody,' Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, 'as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen,” reports ABC News' The Blotter. An independent intelligence source confirms Maj. Gen. Shaukat Sultan Khan's position is an accurate reflection of Pakistani policy. [Note: Pakistan has since retracted its statements on bin Laden and immunity, but the Blotter transcript of teh interview refutes this.]

The Pakistani government has ceded a region the size of New Jersey, with a population of about 800,000 to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. The establishment of the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan is not the end of the Taliban's expansion, however. An intelligence source indicates similar negotiations between the Taliban and the Pakistani government are being held in the agencies of Khyber, Tank, Dera Ishmal Khan and Bajaur. The jihadi dreams of al-Qaeda's safe havens in western Pakistan have become a reality. And the gains made by the Coalition in Afghanistan have now officially been wiped away with the peace agreement in the newly established Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.

By Bill Roggio on September 5, 2006 11:24 PM | Link | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (32)

Reproduced here under the auspices of the fair dealings provision of the Canadian Copyright Act

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/09/talibanistan_the_est.php

 

[a_majoor]

This news is reported over at Chaos Manor as well:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail430.html

And indeed, Pakistan has given up control of "The Emirate of Waziristan" to the Taliban.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/005864.htm 

The good: I suppose that we do not have to deal with the Pakistani government if we want to pursue terrorists into Waziristan. In fact, after this humiliation they might be quite happy and pleased if we did.

The bad: Pakistan will turn over weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani Army operations.

The Ugly: Over 130 mid-level al-Qaeda commanders and foot soldiers were released from Pakistani custody.

The REALLY ugly: Musharraf will not allow US troops in Waziristan. (And if we have any sense we'll recognize Waziristan and declare it an enemy state as we go to war on it.)

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/06/breaking-
musharraf-will-not-allow-us-troops-in-tribal-areas/ 

{^_^} At least Pakistan says, "No amnesty for bin Laden." Or do they really? He is exempt if he lives peacefully and obeys the law. But, of course, the Taliban has setup its own Sura council as "The Law" in the area. And we KNOW what that means.

If Pakistan is suggesting that Waziristan is now an independent nation (as details of the surrender of territory and authority would seem to suggest), then under international Law, the United States, NATO or indeed Afghanistan can declare war on Waziristan and deal with the problem that way. A tight containment policy over a period of years should do some good (NATO can invade and place piquets inside Wairistan at crossing points into Pakistan to protect their "friend and allied partner" from further depridations by the AQ, Taliban and foreign fighters).

 

[couchcommander]

A tight containment policy over a period of years should do some good (NATO can invade and place piquets inside Wairistan at crossing points into Pakistan to protect their "friend and allied partner" from further depridations by the AQ, Taliban and foreign fighters).

Indeed, unfortunately NATO and the US don't have the troops to adequately control Afghanistan itself, much less expand their mission. Michael Yon made an excellent point of this in one of his dispatches this summer - the countryside is effectively out of our control despite our best efforts.

It's too bad the focus of the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished.

In the end, this is a very appropriate time for some "tough love" diplomacy from the US towards Pakistan, and possible a repeat of the "you're either with us, or against us" speech back from November, 2001.

 

[tomahawk6]

The reason we can operate at all in Afghanistan is that we arent seen as occupiers as we might with a Russian style presence. If we did have 100,000 troops in country with the population opposing us our casualties would look more like Iraq. Our mission is not to occupy Afghanistan. We are there to assist the government as it stands up a national army and police. We also provide civil action programs through the PRT's. Finally we are after AQ and taliban that seek to destablize the government. Alot of progress is being made despite the taliban effort aimed at disrupting coalition efforts. In the process they are losing the hearts and minds campaign. The taliban are looking more and more desperate as they see their objectives denied.

 

[couchcommander]

Indeed, I can't agree more T6.

What you are saying about the benefits of a small footprint are absolutely true, we keep out of the average Afghan's way, support their ability to control their own destiny, while having as much as a positive influence in the way of Afghan directed/western financed development as possible; that is the way to win this conflict, indeed.

However, I don't think you can deny that more troops would be useful in trying to control the border area with Pakistan, as well as having a larger presence in the south in the countryside where there is no effective government presence.

It is of course better to leave interaction with the local population to the ANA and Afghan Police as much as possible (for not so positive things), but in support of these assets we need more FOB's, way more development, and far more effective control over the flow of men and material from Pakistan.

.02 anywho

 

[couchcommander]

More of the same:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/11/musharrif-taliban.html

Musharraf lets Taliban attack Canadian troops: security expert
Last Updated Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:13:41 EDT
CBC News

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has refused to clamp down on pro-Taliban elements in his own country and is allowing the militants to launch attacks on Canadian troops, a security expert says.

Canadian officers stationed in southern Afghanistan increasingly find young Pakistani men among the ranks of Taliban fighters who have trained in the radical mosques of Pakistan.

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Musharraf was declared a key ally in the "war on terror."

But Sunil Ram, a former officer in the Canadian Armed Forces who teaches at an American military university, said Musharraf has reneged on a promise to shut down hundreds of extremist religious schools preaching hatred against the West.

Ram says that Pakistan is not willing to purge Taliban supporters from the Pakistani military and intelligence services, despite claims to the contrary.

"Why hasn't he shut down the madrassas [Islamic religious schools]? Why hasn't he sealed the border?"

"Ultimately the situation in Pakistan is feeding the situation in Afghanistan," Ram said.

On a visit to Kabul to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai last week, Musharraf admitted for the first time that the Taliban are using Pakistan as a base.

"There are al-Qaeda and Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan," Musharraf said. "Clearly they are crossing from the Pakistan side and causing bomb blasts in Afghanistan.’"

But Musharraf denied that his government or his intelligence agency support the incursions.

Musharraf said he's put 75,000 troops on the border to stop the flow of arms and recruits, but insists it's impossible to seal the border.

Ram said it's a question of priorities.

"It can be done … he has a half million troops on the border with Indian Kashmir," he said.

Pakistan was a strong supporter of Afghanistan's former Taliban regime, but switched sides after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Since then, Islamabad has arrested more than 700 al-Qaeda suspects, including some close associates of Osama bin Laden.

Some Afghan and U.S. officials think top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders like bin Laden are hiding either in Pakistan or near the Pakistan-Afghan border.

With files from the Associated Press

 

[George Wallace]

I wonder if their tune would change if NATO called on Indian Troops to come in and patrol the Afghan/Pakistan Borders?

 

[Tolstoyevsky]

you mean, our "friend" Pakistan...

 

[-Marauder-]

It's too bad the focus of the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished.

Well said.  Perhaps, had the US not invaded Iraq and diverted them from..well the enemy, things might be different.  Alas they did and here we are, with what is likely but impossible to prove as a tougher nut to crack.  Hopefully the resolve of our democracy won't crack first.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[a_majoor]

It's too bad the focus of the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished.

I see two problems with that analysis:

1: The assessments that were made AT THAT TIME by many western intelligence agencies suggested that there really was a clear and present danger outside of Afghanistan. There are lots of threads about that very subject, look them up since I don't intend to reopen that.

2: A functioning State is a far more formidable opponent than a failed state or a terrorist movement. (Consider who is the more dangerous opponent today, Hezbollah, or their Iranian paymasters?) The actions taken by the United States were a result of intelligence assessments and a desire to break out of an essentially flawed (or at least outdated) Realpolitik system which had guided US policy in SW Asia since the post WWII period.

Given that, we see the same problem which vexed commanders fighting insurgencies through the ages; fighting against an opposing state (or states) who attack via proxy, but who are considered off limits for various reasons, inability to develop reliable intelligence, and difficulty engaging the local population to come to your side.

It would seem that Pakistan is, or should be considered the center of gravity in Afghanistan, and various strategies need to be developed to develop intelligence, apply pressure to hostile elements inside Pakistan to end their support to the Taiban without causing the state to collapse (or limiting the damage and fallout of such a collapse), and reconstitute Pakistan or any successor state(s) in a fashion that minimizes any damage or danger to us.

 

[couchcommander]

I see two problems with that analysis:

1: The assessments that were made AT THAT TIME by many western intelligence agencies suggested that there really was a clear and present danger outside of Afghanistan. There are lots of threads about that very subject, look them up since I don't intend to reopen that.

lol, I think we've been going at this particular point for what? two years now? I'm temped to say lets just agree to disagree... but what fun would that be?

In my opinion (which you are well versed in by now) the case for going into Iraq as the US presented it was weak, at best, and certainly nothing to justify the current mess. But yea, review old threads for this argument.

2: A functioning State is a far more formidable opponent than a failed state or a terrorist movement.

I do believe it was a "non-state actor" that caused the US to invoke chapter 5. Conventionally, yes you are of course right, but you know as well as I that 4GW is all about unconventional, baby.

IMHO it would have been prudent to deal with the threat that had just demonstrated an ability to kill thousands of civillians on your home soil, from tens of thousands of kilometres away, and had the capability to continue to do so, before moving onto another target that hadn't recently attacked, was *at worst* regionaly destablizing, and that furthermore had been mostly contained.

Regardless of all this, in the end the point is simply that the threat which caused the US to call on her NATO allies to help her is still existant, however the US has the majority of it's force directed at a target which, according to their own senate, had nothing to do with 9/11 or the original call for help.

Thus I feel that it is indeed too bad that the US effort has been fettered away on a secondary threat, meanwhile leaving the primary and original objective unaccomplished.

I would like to add that no, that does not mean the current situation in Afghanistan is the US's fault, or anything of the such. Rather that it seems as though things could be going smoother if the situation had been handled differently.  Yes, hindsight 20/20, but that doesn't mean foresight needs to be 20/400. 

 

[-Marauder-]

2: A functioning State is a far more formidable opponent than a failed state or a terrorist movement. (Consider who is the more dangerous opponent today, Hezbollah, or their Iranian paymasters?) The actions taken by the United States were a result of intelligence assessments and a desire to break out of an essentially flawed (or at least outdated) Realpolitik system which had guided US policy in SW Asia since the post WWII period.

Actually a goodly amount of academics of the realist school(s) (as well as many of academic of other international relations/economic/development paradigms) argued against the invasion of Iraq.  While I am in no way a proponent, nor defender of this school of thought, the decisions that led to the invasion of Iraq may have been couched in terms that bear the hallmarks of realism but when you dig a little deeper it moves away from the traditional realist advice/policies for the region and when dealing with states/leaders like Iraq/Saddam.  I believe this was an administration initiative that seized upon the momentum and appetite for war/vengeance post 9-11.

I also believe your assessment of what is more dangerous (failed or functioning state) to be a dated analysis.  Unless the functional state has access to nuclear weapons they pose far less of a threat than a failed state, particularly one that shelters sophisticated and accomplished hostile non-state actors (of the criminal and terrorist variety).  Thus I believe Hezbollah is a far more dangerous opponent today than is Iran for the following reasons:

1 - Given the state-oriented nature of the international stage particularly concerning relations and politics, it is almost impossible to bring about sanctions against a non-state actor unless they are foolishly endorsed by the government of that state (failed or not, like the Taliban regime and its support of Al-Queada which led to the 'statizing' of the threat and the eventual invasion of that country).

2 - It is far more difficult to strike at these organizations without the permission of the host nation and if one does so, they face the risk of reinforcing that organization by creating a new generation of recruits and hatred and anti-<insert subject> propaganda (say like Hezbollah today, the only victors of the most recent campaign).

3 - By their very nature they are transient and therefor far more difficult to fix and ultimately destroy.  Where as a state (in the current world order) is more 'easily' identified and as a result the current mechanisms of world politics can be brought to bear. 

I have no doubts that any coalition could defeat the Iranian military in combat, topple the government and as a result set the conditions for groups like Hezbollah, AQ and others to move in an wreak havoc, a la Iraq.  To reduce the likelihood of this outcome any action needs to be thought out well beyond the military sphere to include, regional politics, religion, economics, history and other subjects before ever committing forces.

Given that, we see the same problem which vexed commanders fighting insurgencies through the ages; fighting against an opposing state (or states) who attack via proxy, but who are considered off limits for various reasons, inability to develop reliable intelligence, and difficulty engaging the local population to come to your side.

It would seem that Pakistan is, or should be considered the center of gravity in Afghanistan, and various strategies need to be developed to develop intelligence, apply pressure to hostile elements inside Pakistan to end their support to the Taliban without causing the state to collapse (or limiting the damage and fallout of such a collapse), and reconstitute Pakistan or any successor state(s) in a fashion that minimizes any damage or danger to us.

The trick would be to do this with the permission of Pakistan, without undermining the legitimacy of the government.  Which would be a remarkable feat of diplomatic (and military, humanitarian and econmic...) skill, for you could not pull it off without a truly combined approach.  Quite frankly Pakistan is ripe for an overt civil war and I fear that any overt Western intervention in their country would cause it to fester to the surface.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[a_majoor]

The point about an organized state being the most formidable opponent is based on logistics; Iran can supply money, equipment, communications and even manpower to their non state proxies like Hezbollah; the ISI can supply the same to the Taliban but the relationship is not two way. Remove Iran or the ISI from the equation and suddenly there is no new money to buy off politicians, no new weapons to replace the ones expended, no up to date intelligence outside of your own resources....The Hezbollah or Taliban would be reduced to feudal warlords with limited areas of control, which could be contained, blockaded or reduced without having to look over your shoulder to see what sort of adventure/distraction is being set up for you half way around the world.

In another thread I pointed out the Islamic "insurgency" is currently in an arc stretching from Somalia to Indonesia, but if the major state actors like Iran, Syria and Pakistan were to be removed form the equation, the problem becomes regional and can be dealt with through a series of regional initiatives. To use WWII as an analogy, we could have spent all our time and energy attacking Quisling Norway, Vichy France, Roumania and all the other countires which had fallen or converted to Fascism; or we could focus our attention on Nazi Germany.
In the end. although the Western alliance did carry out actions along the periphery, by focusing on the main powers, the smaller ones fell apart on their own.

 

[Jason E]

Hey, i've been reading a lot of the posts on here and have found it very interesting.

With respect to Pakistan I would just like to point out that the area of the country that the Government has been having trouble controlling was also never properly controlled by the British during there time in India.  I would also venture to suggest that Musharraf is doing as much as he can at the moment.  There are fundamentalist groups in Pakistan which already have enough of a problem with him as it is, this is shown by the numerous assassination attempts on him.  I won't deny that the ISI was instrumental in the rise of the Taliban, and that there are still elements in the Pakistani government and military who would like to see the Taliban back in power, however I do not believe Musharraf is one of them.  My take on the situation is from having lived in Pakistan for 10 years, as well as spending some time in Afghanistan.

 

[-Marauder-]

These groups have (and continue) proven to be remarkably resilient and flexible when their previous source is removed and rarely are successfuly relegated to be fuedal warlords.  There is no reason to believe that they would not do so again - unless our intelligence was so good that once the tap was turned off to a trickle we could strike with such ferocity and accuracy that they would lack the leadership, organization and most importantly the will to carry on.  Such intelligence and subsequent speed and action would be almost impossible to achieve.  Of course their relationship never needs to be two ways logistically, it is enough that they are proxies, but I'd wager that it is two ways in many other facets.  

We should not use WWII in any way as a reference to this war, not even figuratively.  We need to reexamine how we approach this at virtually every level and subject if we want to succeed.

 

[a_majoor]

Hey, i've been reading a lot of the posts on here and have found it very interesting.

With respect to Pakistan I would just like to point out that the area of the country that the Government has been having trouble controlling was also never properly controlled by the British during there time in India.  I would also venture to suggest that Musharraf is doing as much as he can at the moment.  There are fundamentalist groups in Pakistan which already have enough of a problem with him as it is, this is shown by the numerous assassination attempts on him.  I won't deny that the ISI was instrumental in the rise of the Taliban, and that there are still elements in the Pakistani government and military who would like to see the Taliban back in power, however I do not believe Musharraf is one of them.  My take on the situation is from having lived in Pakistan for 10 years, as well as spending some time in Afghanistan.

You will note that I am not suggesting the government of Pakistan is totally complicit with the Taliban the way Iran is with Hezbollah, but once we have a means of dealing with the hostile elements in Pakistani government/society then the problem of the Taliban is easier to come to grips with.

WWII is a good analogy, actually. The main players on the Axis side did not have a great deal in common, and it is quite possible that should the  Axis have won in the 1940's, they would have been at war a decade or so later. Similarly you could say that Ba'athist Syria, Theocratic Iran, "secular Pakistan" or to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi's are generally working together, or at least not at cross puroposes since they all recognize the Anglosphere, and especially the United States stands between them and their dreams of regional hegemony. Should the West be forced out of SW Asia, or loose the will to continue, then there will be more and bloodier wars as each State attempts to assert themselves. The Iran Iraq war lasted longer than WW I and consumed vast quantities of resources; one of the fallouts was the Iraqi Ba'athist government turned on it's benefactors in an attempt to seize regional dominance, with results that are well known today.

 

[GAP]

Should the West be forced out of SW Asia, or loose the will to continue, then there will be more and bloodier wars as each State attempts to assert themselves

Maybe that's not such a bad idea....back off, let them fight it out over the next couple of decades, get on with life. Oil is the main focus in the ME, but with the recent finds down around Mexico way (offshore), Canada, etc. maybe the US can afford to back off and let the EU sweat it a little.

 

[-Marauder-]

WWII is a good analogy, actually. The main players on the Axis side did not have a great deal in common, and it is quite possible that should the  Axis have won in the 1940's, they would have been at war a decade or so later. Similarly you could say that Ba'athist Syria, Theocratic Iran, "secular Pakistan" or to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia's Wahhabi's are generally working together, or at least not at cross puroposes since they all recognize the Anglosphere, and especially the United States stands between them and their dreams of regional hegemony. Should the West be forced out of SW Asia, or loose the will to continue, then there will be more and bloodier wars as each State attempts to assert themselves. The Iran Iraq war lasted longer than WW I and consumed vast quantities of resources; one of the fallouts was the Iraqi Ba'athist government turned on it's benefactors in an attempt to seize regional dominance, with results that are well known today.

This sounds like propaganda.  Show me evidence of a new axis of Islam. Who defines their 'hegemonic' dreams - western academic sources and 'intelligence'? Is hegemony such a bad thing?  Could it not bring stability to the region.  What good has western interference brought the region but more strife?  Do not ignore the fact that the West very much had their hand in the Iran Iraq war.  So then, is western interference even required?  Who/What empowers the 'Anglosphere' to act or police the world?  Are there not other ways to impose our will other than armed force - I think so, but even that must be done with great thought and care.   

We should take care of the representations we use lest we blind ourselves and stop questioning those things we consider as factual and the verbage that frames them. 

Cheers,

Mike