# Jalaluddin Haqqani, Once CIA's 'Blue-Eyed Boy,' Now Top Scourge For U.S. In Afghan.



## High_Gravity (Oct 7, 2011)

Go fuckin figure.

Jalaluddin Haqqani, Once CIA's 'Blue-Eyed Boy,' Now Top Scourge For U.S. In Afghanistan 









> WASHINGTON -- The U.S.'s new public enemy No. 1 in Afghanistan is one of its own making.
> 
> Ten years into the occupation of Afghanistan, American officials describe the militia led by Jalaluddin Haqqani as the country's deadliest insurgent group, responsible for a slew of particularly bold attacks, including the day-long assault three weeks ago on the U.S. embassy in Kabul.
> 
> ...



Jalaluddin Haqqani, Once CIA's 'Blue-Eyed Boy,' Now Top Scourge For U.S. In Afghanistan


----------



## waltky (Jul 18, 2012)

So's Obama can put some boots onna ground to kick some Haqqani heiney...

*House votes to label Haqqani Network a terrorist organization*
_July 17th, 2012 - The House of Representatives passed a bill Tuesday calling on the Obama administration to add a Pakistan-based terror group to the list of organizations designated as a foreign terrorist organization (FTO)._


> "The Haqqani Network is engaged in a reign of terror in Afghanistan and is the single largest threat for IED's our soldiers face in that country," Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Michigan, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement. "They actively plot and kill U.S. and allied soldiers and routinely harm innocent Afghan civilian men, women and children in their path. To better protect the lives of U.S. soldiers, now is the time for action, not simply paperwork and talk. There is no good reason that this group has not yet been designated."
> 
> As CNN's Security Clearance reported last week, the administration has already designated members of the Haqqani leadership as terrorists and subjected them to U.S. sanctions. There is some concern designating the entire group could mean labeling Pakistan a state-sponsor of terror at a time when Pakistan's cooperation is needed as combat operations in Afghanistan come to a close in 2014.  "We are bringing a great deal of pressure to bear on the Haqqanis," Pentagon spokesman George Little said last week. "And we believe that on the Pakistani side of the border, that additional action needs to be taken by the Pakistanis to root out this network of militants that is a menace to Afghanistan and to Pakistan."
> 
> ...


----------



## waltky (Sep 7, 2012)

Granny says, "Good - now we can send a few Predator drones up their terrorist wazoo's...

*US declares Haqqani network a terrorist body*
_Sep 7,`12  -- The Obama administration on Friday declared the insurgent Haqqani network a terrorist body, a move that could undermine Afghan peace efforts and test fragile U.S.-Pakistani relations._


> Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said she notified Congress of her decision, which bans Americans from doing any business with members of the Pakistan-based militant group and blocks any assets it holds in the United States.  "We also continue our robust campaign of diplomatic, military, and intelligence pressure on the network, demonstrating the United States' resolve to degrade the organization's ability to execute violent attacks," she said in a statement.
> 
> Enraged by a string of high-profile attacks on U.S. and NATO troops, Congress gave Clinton a Sunday deadline to deliver a report on whether the Haqqanis should be designated and all of its members subjected to U.S. financial sanctions. Clinton's decision comes amid numerous disagreements within the administration about the wisdom of the designation.  The U.S. already has placed sanctions on many Haqqani leaders and is targeting its members militarily. But it had held back from formally designating the al-Qaida-linked network a terrorist group over concerns it could jeopardize reconciliation efforts between the government and insurgents in Afghanistan, and ruffle feathers with Pakistan, the Haqqanis' longtime benefactor.
> 
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Sep 10, 2012)

If we have moles that infiltrate terrorist networks is there any reason they can't do the same thing?


----------



## Paul25 (Sep 11, 2012)

The US should not have turned its back on Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal, but of course that comes with hindsight. And granted, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, America's leaders' eyes were focused elsewhere. Still, our foreign policy apparatus has certainly had no qualms about getting into bed with some awful people in pursuing their goals. It should be mentioned though, as far as I know, that the CIA had little to do with issuing resources to the mujahideen; that job was tasked to Pakistan's ISI. Nevertheless we should have been more actively involved in deciding who we were supporting.


----------



## waltky (Mar 14, 2014)

NATO to intensify efforts against Haqqani network...

*Allies 'cranking up heat' on Haqqani militants, US commander says*
_March 13, 2014  WASHINGTON  Allied and Afghan forces are putting a greater focus on going after the Haqqani militant network, which has threatened to disrupt the Afghan presidential elections in April, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Thursday._


> Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told Defense Department reporters that the more energized effort against the Haqqanis includes a U.S. move to "crank up the heat" on the group's financing and freedom of movement.  "The Haqqani network has been more active in some ways over the last few months, and so we have energized our efforts accordingly," said Dunford.  The network has made it clear it will conduct high-profile attacks to disrupt the political process and create the perception of insecurity as Afghans go to the polls.  The Haqqani network is blamed for some of the most high-profile attacks in Afghanistan. The U.S. has repeatedly pressed Pakistani authorities to move more aggressively against the militants, who are based in North Waziristan and routinely to conduct attacks against U.S. and coalition troops.
> 
> Dunford also gave reporters and lawmakers greater details on the U.S. plans as the war winds down and combat operations end on Dec. 31.  Officials have long said the coalition of NATO and allied nations would leave 8,000 to 12,000 troops in the country to advise and assist Afghan forces as long as Afghanistan's leaders sign a key security agreement. In addition to that, Dunford said the U.S. would leave "some thousand" troops  largely special operations forces  to continue to conduct counterterrorism operations.
> 
> ...



See also:

*Military: 80 percent of Colombian drugs gets to US*
_March 13, 2014  WASHINGTON  The U.S. doesn't have the ships and surveillance capabilities to go after the illegal drugs flowing into the U.S. from Latin America, the top military commander for the region told senators Thursday, adding that the lack of resources means he has to "sit and watch it go by."_


> Gen. John Kelly told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he is able to get about 20 percent of the drugs leaving Colombia for the U.S., but the rest gets through.  Aided by surveillance planes, radar, human intelligence capabilities and other assets, Kelly said he has "very good clarity" on the drug traffickers who are moving the drugs out of Colombia and through the Caribbean Sea. But much of the time, he said, "I simply sit and watch it go by. And because of service cuts, I don't expect to get any immediate relief in terms of assets to work with in this region of the world."
> 
> Kelly, who heads U.S. Southern Command, said he would be able to interdict more drugs if he had 16 ships that could be used as the base for helicopters. Generally, law enforcement officials use the helicopters to quickly go after traffickers operating small boats, forcing them to stop and surrender. Currently, Kelly said he has one U.S. Navy ship and two Coast Guard vessels that can be used for the drug operations.  The overall goal has been to reduce the amount of drugs coming into the U.S. from Latin America by 40 percent, which officials believe would cut into the profits of the cartels and perhaps turn them against each other. To reach that goal, he said, would require the 16 ships.
> 
> ...


----------

