Killed Taliban Leader Was Training U.S. Recruits

ABC’s Brian Ross and Christopher Isham report:

Thirty-six hours before he was killed by U.S. forces, Taliban Commander Mullah Dadullah said he was training American and British citizens to carry out suicide missions in their home countries, according to a videotape interview to be broadcast on ABC News’ “World News” Monday. “We will be executing attacks in Britain and the U.S. to demonstrate our sincerity,” he told an Afghan interviewer, “to destroy their cities as they have destroyed our cities.”

A senior U.S. official told the Blotter on that recent intelligence reports confirmed Dadullah’s claim that U.S. citizens were being trained in Taliban and al Qaeda camps. “The number is small, not large, but even once is dangerous,” the official said.

In the interview, Dadullah said, “This is our religious and moral duty to train suicide bombers against the nuclear power of the infidels, and they will be used when they are needed, whether they are one, 10 or 20.”

The video:

(Also available at ABC News and at Hot Air if the YouTube version disappears.)

AllahPundit is optimistic, citing an expert who claims this represents “one of the most significant setbacks to the Taliban in a very long time.” Perhaps.

AP’s post title description of Dadullah as “The Taliban Zarqawi” is likely quite accurate. As desirable as it is to kill off the best and the brightest, the decentralized nature of these groups virtually ensures they will adapt and continue. If there were Americans and Brits willing to be used as suicide bombers 48 hours ago, that’s unlikely to have changed because one man met his just rewards.

FILED UNDER: Blogosphere, Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.


  1. Anderson says:

    Well, since we know Pakistan is allowing Qaeda training camps in the NW Province, I imagine we’ll see some graduates sooner or later.

  2. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III says:

    Yeah, imagine how much better it will be for them when the Democrats surrender Iraq to al Qaeda and they can train more Kamakazis to attack us in our homes and shops and markets. Remember who let that happen. Seems Bush want to fight them there, not here.

  3. Wait a second, do you mean to say that there is a war going on?

  4. legion says:

    You do realize, don’t you, that it was Bush, not Congress, who decided to abandon the Afghanistan theater for Iraq before the actual mission was accomplished there? And that the rise in power of guys like Mullah Dadullah (wow, his name is even goofier that yours!) is _directly_ linked to that blown call? As good a thing as it is that Dadullah’s dead, his very existence is an indictment Bush’s strategic incompetence.

  5. Anderson says:

    Zelsdorf, hadn’t heard from you … thought maybe you’d joined the Marines.

    But since you favor getting Marines killed in Baghdad, on the theory that it keeps you from getting blown up on Main Street, I guess that would’ve been a poor choice for you.

  6. G.A. Phillips says:

    Legion, dude why , we are going to be at war forever with these freaks, as with you libbers, we have been in Afghanistan the whole time, its a different type of battle not that you know much about battles or war, but you are right in one aspect, we should have invaded Pakistan long ago too look for and kill these bastards, but you must see what would happen if we do, but being a lib it’s part your strategy to separate Bush from his allies, to benefit your beloved terrorists, and to undermine this war effort to gain political power, so keep doing personal attacks and the regurgitation of the same old donkeypooping made up propaganda, Dude like making fun of of someones name, lol, you call your self Legion, how original.

  7. vnjagvet says:

    Anderson, Legion, et al:

    It is better to have this guy dead than to have him alive, isn’t it?

    Why not just leave it at that?

  8. Tlaloc says:

    It is better to have this guy dead than to have him alive, isn’t it?

    That really depends on what you had to do to kill him. For instance nuking Kabul to kill AQ’s rapper star wouldn’t exactly be a victory on our part.

  9. Anjin-San says:

    Here is an excerpt from the “Mission Accomplished” speech…

    “In the battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban”

    Could Bush possibly be more full of wind?

    Yet there is no shortage of little Bush parrots… “surrender” “fight them there instead of here” and so on.

  10. Steve Plunk says:


    The Taliban are no longer the government of Afghanistan, we destroyed that.

    And please quit calling it the “mission accomplished speech”. That was put there by the carrier people to signify the end of their involvement. Bush clearly stated in that speech that was plenty of work left to do and it would take time.

    Lastly, please avoid the urge to label those who disagree as “parrots”. It would make just as much sense to call any liberal a Pelosi parrot or a Schumer parrot. Debate the ideas, don’t call names, it exposes a weakness of argument.

  11. Tlaloc says:

    The Taliban are no longer the government of Afghanistan, we destroyed that.

    Which is not the same as destroying the Taliban, which was the claim.

  12. Michael says:

    You don’t like liberals, we get it, can we move one now?

  13. G.A. Phillips says:

    Michael, very true in sum ways, not in others, If I did not like you I would not try to help you, and it is your reasons and methods I do not like, it is one thing to play political games for the power to change this country to conform better to your beliefs and philosophy, but when you and yours betray our troops and undermine this war effort and the security of our country for said goal, you have gone to far , and I think if you slowed down put some thought into the things that I am telling you that you are doing instead relentlessly repeating the liberal donking points that I keep hearing out of you and your friends you might come to see that we are at war and you and your friends and leaders are supporting our enemies.

  14. G.A. Phillips says:

    Oh and Michael even that it some time scares me, I believe it was a gift from God that I have a Conservatives philosophy, and the emotions and wiseassedness of a liberal.

  15. Anjin-San says:


    The Bush political team is legendary for sanitizing any room Bush works. The “mission accomplished” banner got sign off from Bush’s team, so he can live with it.

    And if I see anyone repeating Pelosi talking points word for word, I will be happy call parrot on them. Don’t squawk the squawk if you can’t walk the walk dude.

  16. Michael says:

    A simple “no” would have sufficed.

    The fact of the matter is, if I asked you to define what makes someone a “liberal” you would merely produce a list of attributes that are the polar opposite of all the attributes you would like to believe describe you (not that they do, just that you want to believe they do). This merely proves the fact that you hated liberals first, then you found reasons to justify that hate later. Since good people don’t hate good people, your only options were to believe that you yourself were a bad person, or to believe that liberals were bad people. Naturally you chose the later.

    Now I don’t know why you first decided to hate liberals. Maybe your parents were liberals and you haven’t outgrown the rebellion phase yet. Or maybe you think Rush is cool, and since you want to believe that you are also cool, you have to hate the same people Rush hates. Maybe you just got on the GOP bandwagon when they were the winning team so that you could convince yourself that you are a winner also. The reason doesn’t matter though, your liberal bogeyman doesn’t exist in reality, it’s a strawman concocted by your imagination to justify hating good people.

    Want proof? If you really believed that you knew about a specific person giving actual support to terrorists, you would be obligated to report them to authorities. If you really really believed it, you would take action yourself to eliminate that threat to our country. Since you’ve done neither, I can only assume that you either hate America, or you don’t actually believe the hyperbole you spout.

  17. Hal says:

    I can only assume that you either hate America, or you don’t actually believe the hyperbole you spout.

    Or he’s just a weak, effeminate French man who doesn’t have the balls to do what he believes is right and leaves it to others to do it for him.