Gulbuddin Hekmatyar Reported Captured

The Fourth Rail ^ | September 11, 2006 | Bill Roggio

[No Truce With Kings]

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar Reported Captured

The commander of Hezb-i-Islami and al-Qaeda ally detained during a raid in eastern Afghanistan

On the day of the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attack, Coalition forces score a high value target in Afghanistan. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the commander of Hezb-i-Islami and ally of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, has been captured during a joint U.S. and Afghan Army raid in “eastern Afghanistan.” Hekmatyar, contrary to his rhetoric gave up to the Coalition forces without a fight. Hekmatyar's arrest is said to be part of an 'ongoing operation.'

Hekmatyar has been designated by the U.S. Department of State as a “Specially Designated Global Terrorist “ and “has participated in and supported terrorist acts committed by al-Qa’ida and the Taliban.” The 9-11 Commision report indicates Osama bin Laden kept lines of communication open with Hekmatyar. “bin Laden apparently kept his option open, maintaining contacts with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who, though an Islamic extremist, was also one of the Taliban's most militant opponents,” states the report.

Hekmatyar fought against the Soviets, was prime minister of Afghanistan in the mid 1990s, and became an anti-Taliban fighter until the collapse of Afghanistan's Taliban government in December of 2001. After the U.S. operation, Hekmatyar threw in his lot with the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and brought Hezb-i-Islami into battle against the government of Hamid Karzai. Hezb-i-Islami split in two, with a section loyal to Hekmatyar (know as Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin or HIG). HIG has influence particularly with Afghan refugees in western Pakistan.

The capture of Hekmatyar is a major blow to al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as it provides an opportu nity to split his organization. HIG is considered one of the major Anti-Government Elements (or AGEs) in Afghanistan. And Hekmatyar may be privy to valuable information about the location of high level al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

[Valin]

For more on Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and the Soviet Afghan war

Charlie Wilson's War (Paperback)
by George Crile

http://www.amazon.com/Charlie-Wilson-War-George-Crile/dp/0802141242/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/102-7476739-9931316?ie=UTF8

[ChadGore]

Wooohoooo

[Dustbunny]

Excellent !!!!

Uplifting !!!!!!

[Velveeta]

Ah, well next time you'll have to stay and visit our fair city. :-)

[pissant]

I've been to your fair city a couple of times. Unfortunately it was for jobs in Cicero. LOL

[SuziQ]

They prefer leaving the dying for the young, stupid or brainwashed.......

The cannon fodder.

[Prost1]

"Hekmatyar...time for your circumsion!

"We are only going to take about .001 inch off. In a week we will be back for another .001 inch. We have lots of weeks.

"Enjoy your stay."

[lentulusgracchus]

Gulbuddin, in a story I once read, is one of the worst of the Afghan warlords, doesn't matter whose side he is on. He was portrayed in one description of him that I read four or five years ago as a real Cadmus-soldier type, loves to kill people, esp. inventively and cruelly. His opportunism in switching sides is a longstanding Afghan characteristic going back to the time of Alexander -- Alexander had to marry Roxana partly to tie down one of the Afghan factions that he knew would really hurt him, the minute he left Bactria. The ploy worked, and Bactria stayed Greek for >200 years.

Maybe Condi Rice ought to marry General Dostum and take the veil.

Or not.

Point is, Gulbuddin needs to be handled intelligently -- not to suck up to him, but to handle his followers. Rendering him to Camp X-Ray would be one obvious option, but maybe the coalition needs to put on a show of peacemaking and get Gulbuddin to sign off on things and show compromise, before whisking him away for an extended Caribbean vacation at the Sheraton Gitmo.

[lentulusgracchus]

Any updates? Bet the MSM are waiting for confirmation, too.

Hope it's true. The killer Gulbuddin is one of the worst.

[silverleaf]

Let us hope he is in the hands of Afghan interrogators. Preferably some who have lost loved ones to taliban extremism.

[katyusha]

"Of the half that was left, about a million were needed to keep an eye on the Chinese, maybe 750,000 to keep Eastern Europe as "allies" (can you say occupation troops?) and maybe half a million to keep the restive people in the Soviet Union under control. That left about 250,000 for active deployment in foreign adventures. They committed about half of that to Afghanistan (and maybe another tenth as advisors, world-wide)."

If that is true (and I grant you 500,000 MVD and/or uniformed KGB were used for "internal security") then why did a US Army Captain (field artillery) tell me in Dec. 1978 that if the balloon went up that we'd lose half our people in Europe and Ivan would reach the Ruhr no problem. Pretty hard to do that with a couple-hundred-thousand guys who can't suppress a bunch of goat-humping bandits.

[kinghorse]

Gulbuddin Gulbuddin Gulbuddin..That's all Folks!

[kinghorse]

Good enough thread to post this I spose. Here's my puzzle for the day. Solve it and solve world strife.

Is decadence the word for liberty in the Islamic world?
Is anarchy the word for Freedom in the Islamic world?
Is it a stretch to say both are correct for the asia minor experience? They seem to be doing a good job of proving their points in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[slowhand520]

This report seems to be incorrect. He was not captured

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

[kinghorse]

I'm shocked, SHOCKED to discover they tell tall tales in Afghanistan. I bet he wasn't captured. I bet he was eaten by the half man half monkey feller that wanders the kyber pass.

/rolls eyes

[wordsofearnest]

They all look alike.

[No Truce With Kings]

Saw the report, and was coming here to add it, but you beat me to it. Oh well.

[No Truce With Kings]

"If that is true (and I grant you 500,000 MVD and/or uniformed KGB were used for "internal security") then why did a US Army Captain (field artillery) tell me in Dec. 1978 that if the balloon went up that we'd lose half our people in Europe and Ivan would reach the Ruhr no problem. Pretty hard to do that with a couple-hundred-thousand guys who can't suppress a bunch of goat-humping bandits."

There were a few reasons why many of our military personnel believed that back then.

1. They did have those 750,000-odd troops plus another 500-750K Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe. That's a lot of force, especially if you get to choose the time of the attack. If half your tanks break down due to mechanical failure in the first week you still outnumber your enemy.

2. The fact that they could choose the time of attack. That gives you a big edge. Remember that in Afghanistan the Russians occupied the whole country in less than a month, and got worn down by the guerilla warfare that followed. Similarly, the Soviets had the capability to occupy Germany (which is what your artillery-officer friend believed), but not necessarily keep it.

3. We probably overestimated the Soviet threat. We subconsciously believed that their soldiers were as good as our soldiers -- that they would demonstrate the same degree of initiative, competence and motivation. In actuality, *every* time a Soviet-style army has come up against a western-style army it has been either (a) stopped butt-cold (Korea, Vietnam), or collapsed in short order (Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War) (And yes, we won militarily in Vietnam. The NVA did not achieve military victory until the ARVN ran out of ammunition after a Democrat-controlled Congress took it away from them.)

[attiladhun2]

Think about this. The Communist victory in 'Nam emboldened them to invade Afghanistan. That nation became a sanctuary for the Taliban and its Al Qaeda benefactors after the Clinton administration refused to support Masood and the Northern Alliance. So that the current war on terror has its genesis in Democrat fecklessness is not the opinion of partisan hacks, but is firmly nested in historical fact. That is why a loss in the WOT will lead to consequences of such disasterous proportions that I shudder to think of it. Ergo, the Dems must be defeated this Nov. and in '08.

[katyusha]

--The NVA did not achieve military victory until the ARVN ran out of ammunition after a Democrat-controlled Congress took it away from them.)--

It would have just slowed the PAVN invasion, not stopped it- even with Linebacker II levels of bombing. The South Vietnam Government had already starting falling apart at the seams. The problems of vast institutional corruption and inefficiency, had gotten even worse after the US bugged out. Much of the 2 *Billion$$$* in aid from Operation Enhance Plus in '72 sat rotting or skimmed off by blackmarketeers in the major Ports like Da Nang- ports the South was unable/unwilling to defend properly.
ARVN troops didn't get paid enough to keep thier families from going hungry, morale sank to all time low levels. The South had very few reliable units. Without US ground backup, they were doomed. ARVN simply lacked the "fire in the belly" (and the caliber of officers the North had) to keep up the struggle without--at the very least--massive US air strikes against PAVN supply lines, and the Americans were simply not going to do that. New Soviet SAMS like the SAM-6 were devastating against the Israelis in Oct. 1973, the US was not going to risk more US pilots in the Hanoi Hilton.

--1. They did have those 750,000-odd troops plus another 500-750K Warsaw Pact allies in Eastern Europe. That's a lot of force, especially if you get to choose the time of the attack. If half your tanks break down due to mechanical failure in the first week you still outnumber your enemy--

What makes you sure half would break down in the first week?

--Similarly, the Soviets had the capability to occupy Germany (which is what your artillery-officer friend believed), but not necessarily keep it. --

You really think pampered Europeans would wage jihad against dozens of Soviet MechInf divisions?

--In actuality, *every* time a Soviet-style army has come up against a western-style army it has been either (a) stopped butt-cold (Korea, Vietnam), or collapsed in short order (Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War)--

Some Wehrmacht veterans might disagree with that statement! Japanese veterans of Manchuria would dissent also. In Korea, the North Korean Army was destroyed on SOUTH Korean soil, true, but another communist (Chinese, more Maoist than pure Soviet though) did drive the UN out of North Korea and pretty much kept it out. As for Vietnam, the "victorious" Americans left maybe 1/3 of South Vietnam (including the key Mekong delta) under NVA/VC control in Spring 1973. During the 2 year lull, the Ho Chi Minh trail was turned into a virtual superhighway. Had aid not been cut, the conquest might have come in 1976 or 1977, but it would have come just the same.

As for the Arab-Israeli wars, the Israelis, quite unlike ARVN, proved to be magnificent warriors without the need for US air strikes to bail them out of a jam. Still, they were, after all, fighting ARAB armies, as were we in the Gulf War. Need I say more?