# Haqqani Network (HQN)



## Marauder06 (May 29, 2011)

Do me a favor- when you read an article about the war in Afghanistan, make a mental note of how many times you see the attacks attributed to the HQN.  This article is but one example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4320941...talibans-new-tactic-high-profile-inside-jobs/




> NATO said the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network was responsible.



The HQN is now and has been for a while, the most dangerous anti-coalition force in Afghanistan.  Although they are often considered part of the Taliban, they are for the most part their own separate organization.  If we're going to get serious about stabilizing Afghanistan, then we need to get serious about dismantling the HQN and their ISI support network.  If we can buy them off or reconcile them great, but I think at this point we're going to have to kill off a lot of the major leaders as either irreconcilable on their own or too scared of the PAKs to give up the fight.  Either way, with AQ pretty much eliminated as a threat in the AFPAK region, it's time to go after the people who really matter, and that's the ISI's proxy force, the HQN.


----------



## alibi (May 29, 2011)

I have to admit, I'm really ignorant when it comes to the Haqqani network; most of the information I have read have pretty much just shoe-horned them into the Taliban, and I know that is not the case.  So, for a few ignorant questions:  What about the HQN makes them more dangerous than the other groups that compose the Taliban?  Is it because they have ISI connections, or their tactics, or something else?

If any of this is OPSEC, you can just smack me and be on your way.


----------



## AWP (May 29, 2011)

I would say a large percentage of the violence currently seen in Afghanistan, particularly in the N2K and P2K regions, is due to the HQN and not the TB or AlQ. Atatcks the media portrays as "Taliban" in those regions are often HQN. The HQN will work "with" the TB as long as we're in country. Once we leave the HQN will fight the TB and the Mayor of Kabul for control of the country. See also 1992-1996.


----------



## policemedic (May 30, 2011)

Marauder06 said:


> If we're going to get serious about stabilizing Afghanistan, then we need to get serious about dismantling the HQN and their ISI support network.




Agreed.  In fact, decimating the ISI would be a Christmas gift full of awesome.




Marauder06 said:


> If we can buy them off or reconcile them great, but I think at this point we're going to have to kill off a lot of the major leaders ...



You say that like it's a bad thing :-"


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 2, 2011)

alibi said:


> I have to admit, I'm really ignorant when it comes to the Haqqani network; most of the information I have read have pretty much just shoe-horned them into the Taliban, and I know that is not the case. So, for a few ignorant questions: What about the HQN makes them more dangerous than the other groups that compose the Taliban? Is it because they have ISI connections, or their tactics, or something else?
> 
> If any of this is OPSEC, you can just smack me and be on your way.



Actually, there was a very good article on the front page of Monday's Washington Post that sums it up nicely.  Excerpt:



> KHOST, Afghanistan — The United States knows where to find the most feared insurgent family in the Afghanistan war.
> Troops can point to the downtown Khost mansion owned by its patriarch, Jalaluddin Haqqani; the million-dollar blue-tile mosque he built for the city’s residents; and his base of operations 20 miles away in Pakistan. They are aware of his trucking and warehouse businesses, his sons who command about 3,000 fighters, and their sophisticated training camps that conduct courses in withstanding interrogation and firing rockets across borders.




Here is another article quoting ADM Mullen, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff:



> "It's fairly well known that the ISI has a long-standing relationship with the Haqqani network," he said in an interview with Pakistan's daily Dawn newspaper. "Haqqani is supporting, funding, training fighters that are killing Americans and killing coalition partners. And I have a sacred obligation to do all I can to make sure that doesn't happen.
> 
> "So that's at the core – it's not the only thing – but that's at the core that I think is the most difficult part of the relationship,"




First of all, the HQN is an extremely resilient network.  They operate in near-total sanctuary in Pakistan, and are able to regenerate their forces due to the extensive terrorist training centers... sorry I mean "madrassas" they operate.

They make A LOT of money exploiting the trade routes between PK and AFG, and by facilitating the flow of fighters and materiel into the fight in Afghanistan.  They are very well connected politically and socially (tribal ties) within the "P2K" region of eastern Afghanistan.

Their money and ties to militant groups and the PK military and intelligence apparatus ensures that they get good training, have good discipline, and practice good TTPs, especially when it comes to OPSEC and COMSEC.

They are on very few peoples' radars; we all hear about "Taliban" this and "AQ" that, what about the HQN?  They're the ones pulling off all the spectacular attacks... HQN is like the Tier 1 SOF of the Taliban.

Most importantly *the Pakistani intelligence service owns them*.  ISI keeps them safe, provides them with money and training, and protects their sanctuary against the mean Americans and that segment of the Pakistani military who actually gives a damn and wants to do something about them.  Why does PK's ISI want the Haqqanis around?



> Haqqani refrains from attacking the Pakistani state and is seen as a way to maintain Pakistani influence in any future political settlement in Kabul.



 Oh yeah, then there's that pesky problem with India, some hard-core completely loyal muj fighters might come in handy one day.


----------



## alibi (Jun 2, 2011)

Thanks Mara, that is really informative.  I actually saw that story from the Washington Post the other day and it helped clear up some things about them.

So, in essence, they are basically an ISI proxy force?


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jun 2, 2011)

Almost makes you want sneak some pipe hitting mofos into Pakistan and sabotage 2-3 reactors.  Oops did I say that out loud.


----------



## AWP (Jun 2, 2011)

alibi said:


> Thanks Mara, that is really informative. I actually saw that story from the Washington Post the other day and it helped clear up some things about them.
> 
> So, in essence, they are basically an ISI proxy force?


 
Yes they are. I think the ISI is hedging bets. They know that when we leave and this country devolves into a civil war that the HQN and TB will go at it for control of the country. Their support of the ISI and TB makes sense for them in that regard.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 3, 2011)

I'm getting some kind of deja vu...


----------



## Manolito (Jun 3, 2011)

When confronted with a program or project that is behind schedule and over budget there are some standard tools used to change the direction a project is headed. When it comes to the US and their War efforts we tend to never use these tools.
I will use the EFV ( Expeditionay Fighting Vehicle) as an example. This program use to be called the AAAV program and when it was so far in the whole the name was changed. Then when they dug a deeper whole on the new named project a decision was made to discontinue the program.
Why do we lack the ability to do the same with a War? We have a nuclear capability and refuse to use it probably a good idea in my thoughts. We have a Biological capability and we refuse to use it. We have a conventional force of the finest trained and equipped military on the planet and we choose to only use a very small portion of it. We have 60K plus special forces trained in winning the hearts and minds of the general population. We use them to some degree but then come in and blow up a village and undo what has taken months to put in place.
I don't think we have a distinct profile of our enemy. Everytime I read and study who we are fighting another group is added. The old addage divide and conquer is true in my mind. The US has chosen to fight on so many different fronts we can't focus our sites on the enemy and bring about a clear victory.
Determine a single enemy and defeat them before you move on to another faction or another country in my uneducated opinion.
I am sick of reading about our young people being killed over an unclear goal without a time line and clear objectives. If I ran a program this way I would be relegated to sweeping floors. Objective, time line, budget, facilities and staffing required, clear completion date.
Bill


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 3, 2011)

I don’t know, I think this whole process of changing a country is bullshit to begin with. We went to war b/c of AQ not b/c of the TB or HQN or whatever group they come up with. I say bring the boys/girls home and tell that whole region to fuck off, if they attack we nuke.


----------

