This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Furious At Latest U.S. Attack, Pakistan Shuts Down Resupply Routes To Afghanistan "Permanently"

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by John C.K. Daly of OilPrice

Furious At Latest U.S. Attack, Pakistan Shuts Down Resupply Routes To Afghanistan "Permanently"

NATO recently literally shot itself in the foot, imperiling the resupply of International Assistance Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan by shooting up two Pakistani border posts in a “hot pursuit’ raid.

Given that roughly 100 fuel tanker trucks along with 200 other trucks loaded with NATO supplies cross into Afghanistan each day from Pakistan, Pakistan’s closure of the border has ominous long-term consequences for the logistical resupply of ISAF forces, even as Pentagon officials downplay the issue and scramble for alternative resupply routes.

Pakistan, long angry about ISAF/NATO cross border raids, has apparently reached the end of its tether. Following the 26 November NATO aerial assault on two border posts in Mohmand Agency in Pakistan’s turbulent NorthWest Frontier Province, Islamabad promptly sealed its border with Afghanistan to NATO supplies after the allied strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The U.S. military insists a joint patrol with Afghan forces was fired upon first and only responded with return fire and calling in airstrikes on the posts, which a commander mistakenly identified as Taliban training camps, after reportedly checking that there were no Pakistani military forces nearby. Pakistan Major General Ishfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, rebutted Washington’s assertions one by one, commenting, "The positions of the posts were already conveyed to the ISAF through map references and it was impossible that they did not know these to be our posts."

So, what does this mean for logistical support of ISAF forces? According to Nesar Ahmad Nasery, the deputy head of Torkham Customs, around 1,000 trucks cross into Afghanistan on a daily basis, nearly 300 of which are NATO contractors carrying NATO supplies in sealed containers. Khyber Transport Association chief Shakir Afridi said that each oil tanker has a capacity of 13,000-15,000 gallons. In October 2010 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said that fossil fuels are the number one import to Afghanistan.

Noting the obvious, as Afghanistan has no indigenous hydrocarbon supplies, every drop must be brought in, with transit greatly increasing the eventual cost. For 2001-2008, almost all U.S. and NATO supplies were trucked overland to Afghanistan through parts of Pakistan effectively controlled by the Taliban.

Ground supplies are shipped into Pakistan’s Arabian Sea Karachi port and offloaded onto trucks before being sent to one of five crossing points on the Afghan border, the most important being Torkham at the Khyber Pass and Baluchistan’s Chaman. The recent attack has put all these routes at risk, perhaps permanently. Pakistan, being the shortest and most economical route, has been used for nearly a decade to transit almost 75 percent of the ammunition, vehicles, foodstuff and around 50 percent of fuel for coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan.

On 27 November Interior Minister Rehman Malik, addressing journalists at the Ministry of the Interior’s National Crisis Management Cell, after strongly condemning the NATO attack on Pakistani forces, stated that the resupply routes for NATO via Pakistan have been stopped “permanently,” adding that the decisions of the Defense Cabinet Committee (DCC) on the NATO forces attack inside Pakistan would be implemented in letter and spirit, stressing that "The decisions of the DCC are final and would be implemented."

The major issue at stake here for ISAF and U.S. forces is fuel, all of which must be brought in from abroad at high cost. In October 2009 Pentagon officials testified before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that the "Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel" (FBCF) translates to about $400 per gallon by the time it arrives at a remote Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Afghanistan. Last year, the FBCF reached $800 in some FOBs following supply route bombings in Pakistan, while others have claimed the FBCF may be as high as $1,000 per gallon in some remote locations. For many remote locations, fuel supplies can only be provided by air - one of the most expensive ways being in helicopter fuel bladders.

The majority of U.S. tonnage transported into Afghanistan is fuel - 70 percent, according to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Alan Haggerty. The Marines' calculate that 39 percent of their tonnage is fuel, and 90 percent is either fuel or water.

According to ISAF spokesman Colonel Wayne Shanks, there are currently nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan, ranging from the massive Bagram airbase outside Kabul down to camps, forward operating bases and combat outposts.

The Pakistani supply lines have come under increasing attack by militants. Baluchistan Home Secretary Akbar Hussain Durani noted that last year, 136 NATO tankers were destroyed in 56 attacks in the province, with 34 people killed and 23 wounded in the assaults.

But NATO and the Pentagon have a backup plan – since 2009 they have been shifting their logistics to the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a railway link running from Latvia’s Riga Baltic port through Russia and Kazakhstan terminating in Uzbekistan’s Termez on the Afghan border.

The NDN is a joint initiative of multiple Department of Defense agencies, including the US Transportation Command, CENTCOM, the US European Command, the Defense Logistics Agency and the Department of State. The NDN’s first shipment was sent on 20 February 2009 from Riga 3,212 miles to Termez, with U.S. commanders stating that 100 containers daily would be transported via the NDN. The supply trains have been given preferential right-of-way to speed the trip to about nine days. According to Pentagon officials, its goal is eventually to be able to bring 75 percent of its equipment into Afghanistan from the north.

But the true number of forces to be resupplied is far higher. Last year the Pentagon's Central Command put the number of contractors for the U.S. military at 107,000.

According to ISAF spokesman Lieutenant Gregory Keeley in Kabul, the NDN now accounts for 52 percent of coalition cargo transport and 40 percent for the U.S., which also receives around 30 percent of its supplies by air.


According to the FMN Logistics, the Washington DC-based logistics company that oversees the NDN and  provides “full supply-chain management to ensure the smooth  transit of(European Union) government cargo from various Ports of Entry including Riga, Latvia;
Poti, Georgia; Mersin, Turkey and Bandar Abbas, Iran, through to multiple NATO/ ISAF camps in North and South Afghanistan,” in January Russian Railways increased rail tariffs for freight by 10 percent and is suggesting an additional increase of 11.7 percent in 2011 to cover “operating costs.” Further east, Uzbekistan increased rail tariffs twice last year.

Bringing supplies overland on the NDN costs two or three times as much as shipping them by sea and moving them up through Pakistan.

And the NDN is not without problems of its own. On 16 November Uzbek media reported an explosion on an NDN railway line on a railway bridge on the Galaba-Amuzang section of track on Uzbekistan’s border with Afghanistan.

Besides the NDN, the Pentagon also uses a supply route through Georgia’s Black Sea Poti port via Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, where goods are transshipped across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan, where the goods are carried by truck into Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. While shorter than the NDN, it is also more expensive because of the constant on-and-off loading from trucks to ferries and back onto trucks. A third supply route, a spur of the NDN, bypasses Uzbekistan from Kazakhstan via Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but poor road conditions in Tajikistan limit its usefulness.

So, given Pakistan’s shutdown, can the NDN absorb the increased railway traffic?

Probably, but it won’t be cheap, and will take some time to implement.

NATO’s investigation of the Mohmand attack, led by a one-star general, will release its findings on 23 December. What does Pakistan want to resolve the issue? A formal apology and resolute action taken against those responsible for the deadly cross border air strike.

The U.S. military's Transportation Command deputy commander Vice Adm. Mark Harnitchek said of resupplying Afghanistan, "This is the logistics challenge of our generation."

If the Pentagon does not issue an apology, then the U.S. military had better expect “the logistics challenge of our generation” to continue.

Or get out and push and push the HUMVEES and helicopters.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:10 | 1941692 Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

Anybody know how many nukes Pakistan actually has? I wonder how much they are really under control and how much of a hand the U.S. has on the trigger.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:28 | 1941726 Manthong
Manthong's picture

Aw heck.. Kennedy supplied Berlin with C-47 Gooney Birds..

Obama can supply Afghanistan and the Chinese mines with C-17 Globemasters.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:52 | 1941813 eureka
eureka's picture

NATO is a few more missteps from falling apart...

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:04 | 1941856 Nobody special
Nobody special's picture

The North American Terrorist Organization seems to be encountering greater resistance.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:57 | 1943047 trav7777
trav7777's picture

well, we are kinda waging a war in Pukistan...I mean we send in military assets and conduct attacks on their sovereign territory.  This shit doesn't sell well

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:34 | 1942140 midtowng
midtowng's picture

NATO hasn't had a legit purpose since the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Now it's just imperialism.

NATO deserves to be ended, for the good of the world.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:13 | 1941887 foxenburg
foxenburg's picture

Kennedy? The Berlin airlift was 1948/49.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:22 | 1941938 Manthong
Manthong's picture

My bad.. of course..  jelly donut brain moment.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 17:05 | 1942213 americanspirit
americanspirit's picture

Ich bin ein Berliner

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:39 | 1942653 eaglefalcon
eaglefalcon's picture

ich bin Frankfurter

ich bin Hamburger


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:23 | 1941939 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

Slight difference between a C-47 and 47 planes. 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:54 | 1942042 Mike2756
Mike2756's picture

That was a shorter route, think Stalingrad.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:04 | 1941860 CPL
CPL's picture

100 warheads under the NPT, which means about as much as financial regulation now a days.  I understand that there have been increasing bribery problems from senior US military staff in Afghanistan with the culling of their pensions.  So take the official number and times it by four then put those warhead into the patriot missiles the US sold Pakistan for "defense" extend the range on them with retro fitting and extra capacity fuel, they in theory could turn Israel into a glass parking lot.


But if they wanted to do damage, they would target the southern naval yards of India to cut the knees off the US navy and air support, it would damage all oil refinement in the area.  It would also starve India from toe to head unless someone sets up an endless stream of trucks, horses and men to haul cargo.


Modern armies need a lot of everything to keep their hands clean.  Especially food.  MRE supplies are one of the last things considered in the Navy.  Mainly by design that your boat's job is to move bodies quickly and have as much firepower crammed into it along with repair gear.  It was the Achilles heel of old long haul boat, it's still the Achilles heel today.  You don't fight a boat, you starve the sailors.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:02 | 1943060 trav7777
trav7777's picture

India would annihilate Pukistan.

What planet are you on?  Haven't you heard of the Kargill War?

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 05:28 | 1943442 Element
Element's picture

Kargil was not a war, is was a protracted series of small but intense skirmishes over the control of a mountain ridgeline.

Pakistan was itching to fight a 'proxy' war, but all it could do was fake a terrorist infiltration of disputed Indian Territory. Pakistan used its own forces to pretend to be NON-Pakistan-military.

i.e. they had only a fraction of Pakistani forces and firepower options available in the subsequent battle.

India however was politically free to throw in a large and coordinated force (i.e heavy artillery and ground-attack fighters) to dislodge the lightly armed irregular forces on the peaks.

The Pakis were unable to do the same things because that would mean tacitly admitting that the attackers were in fact Pakistani military forces, that had pre-emptively attacked Indian border positions.

But soon after Kargil ended it became undeniable that this was indeed a Pakistani military operation ... and the Pakis knew this would be discovered and proven ... so could have jumped in fully, but they didn't want to escalate it into a war, at that time.

Thus India was always going to win that battle, if they threw their weight into the fight.

The Pakis were taking a gamble that thy wouldn't, or else would eventually give up.

They lost the gamble.

It could have escalated into a general war, but what subsequently occurred was not even close to a real war or even a real battle between the two military forces.

The one thing repeatedly shown by wars is that to underestimate an enemy, and how far they will go, can lead to defeats. Vietnam is a classic and stunning case of determined rice-farmers deciding they were not going to loose, no matter what it took.

Vietnam beat the crap out of greatest military power on earth when the USA was at the very peak of its financial, economic, political and technological power.

Don't forget this incredibly important lesson when asserting x can beat the crap out of  y.

It simply isn't so.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:03 | 1941862 Crassus
Crassus's picture

The best guess is slightly under 100.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:29 | 1941958 PD Quig
PD Quig's picture

Somewhere around 55 at last count.

Poor Pakistan! Being subjected to cross-border raids by NATO and the US. Why, it's an outrage, I tell you! I mean, Pakistan is in complete control of their sovereign territory and all. And their military and intelligence agency--the ISI--have been such good allies to everybody in the region. What, with enabling the Taliban, enabling terrorists who attack India, and enabling the worst forms of Islamist craziness.

Fucking Pakistan will not settle down until they finally piss off India and get turned into nothing more than beautiful mountains--all glowing radioactive green. Motherfuckers.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 17:34 | 1942289 english serf
english serf's picture

Exactly. Fuck the pakis.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 18:50 | 1942431 MyKillK
MyKillK's picture

"Enabling terrorists who attack India"


You must mean David Headley, who scouted out all the targets for the Mumbai attack. Oh wait, nevermind, he was a CIA agent. Who's enabling attacks against India again?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:28 | 1942720 Seize Mars
Seize Mars's picture

You must mean David Headley, who scouted out all the targets for the Mumbai attack. Oh wait, nevermind, he was a CIA agent. Who's enabling attacks against India again?

Wow. Well I learn something new every day.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 11:45 | 1943850 bahaar
bahaar's picture

You mean Nov 26 was the first time Pakistan ever attacked India?

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 23:19 | 1945658 PD Quig
PD Quig's picture

I realize you're probably historically illiterate like so many products of government schools, but if you had even the most basic knowledge of the history since 1948, you would know that Pakinstani terrorists have been killing Indians regularly for decades in Kashmir.

Jesus Christ. How is this country ever going to get a grip when there are so many people who are as ignorant as President Obama?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:37 | 1942651 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Yes, relish in all the innocent children and babies that would be killed by such action, fine gentlemen that you are!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 05:45 | 1943448 Element
Element's picture

You might recall that even China has a difficult time exerting sovereign control of their western border zone and security.

The same certainly applies to NATO-[un]controlled Afghanistan! How much or Afganistan does the NATO backed puppet in Kabul control, as a percentage of Afghan sovereign territory - on any given day?

Pakistan controls a much larger percentage of its sovereign territory.

In fact, why do we even believe that the Paki's don't control 100% of their territory all the time, and always have?

Have they not been playing both sides of the street all along? Doesn't that require a deniable myth of 'lawless' NW regions?

If it's so lawless and out of their control, why is this where Pakistan test-fired its a-bomb?

Similar consideration applies to disputed Indian-controlled Kashmiri sovereignty.

The country with the best sovereign territorial control in the area is Iran.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:13 | 1942097 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

My big bet is that 'Hot Pursuit' by foreign powers raining asymmetrical death on summary suspects in your neighborhood is treated with a bit more empathy, cowboy.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:08 | 1941694 SeventhCereal
SeventhCereal's picture

well it's about time they grew some balls.  what are they doing with those jf-17's anyway? 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:34 | 1942527 philipat
philipat's picture

The  next step, the US will cut off all aid to Pakistan. The Military/Industrial complex is still undecided wether Iran or Pakistan is the next war. Watch for a "Terrorist attack sponsored by..." attack as the selection process advances.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 05:52 | 1943450 Element
Element's picture

And the Chinese and the Russians will step right into the weapons and tech vacuum, and Pakistan will more than happily welcome their assistence and advisors.

Thus Pakistan then flips to their camp, and will be supplied and protected as a VERY WILLING, HIGHLY MOTIVATED AND ENDLESSLY AGGRESSIVE proxy-war fighting rook.

BTW: and I bet the USSA and NATO will not defeat them.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:10 | 1941696 XitSam
XitSam's picture

Well, I stopped reading midway through the first sentence ... "NATO recently literally shot itself in the foot, ..."

Do you know what the word literally means? FYI, NATO does not have a foot.  /rant

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:15 | 1941704's picture

One of my pet peeves also. But the article had some good information. We learn near the end that US supplies to troops in Afghanistan will now go through Russia.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:30 | 1941728 patb
patb's picture

We also learn that some will go through Bandar Abbas Iran?


Let me get this straight.  NATO ISAF is running logistics through Iran?  A country most of the EU is about to attack, if the Israeli's don't first.

What doesn't go through Iran, is going through Pakistan, home to Bin Laden, and the rest through Russia?  A country NATO was meant to oppose?


Did FDR and Churchhill contract with Mussolini to run supplies against Hitler?



Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:36 | 1941752 Careless Whisper
Careless Whisper's picture

This looks very bullish for Russian Railways. Their bonds are BBB. I think this makes them a Strong Buy.


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:10 | 1941892 CPL
CPL's picture

Nothing good historically has come out of the area and it has been the one region of the world (Afghanistan mountain regions) if you follow your history.  I won't say cursed, but anytime, any country wanders through the area and attempts to control it or possess it, the world power/country in question at the time runs the clock until it's obliterated and a shell of its former self.


Some people discuss the Bermuda triangle as a weird part of the world when things disappear.  Afghanistan is one place on the planet where civilizations disappear.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:33 | 1941972 ltsgt1
ltsgt1's picture

Nothing good would come out of supporting a regime which forces a rape victim to marry the rapist.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:20 | 1942114 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

Does that rule also apply to Soverign foreign powers refusing the oil exploration/pipelive/r-o-w deal that they can't refuse?

Resource rape your Mother Nature in your next-door neighbor's back yard. See how that works for you. Chat amongst yourselves if you think that might help.

Children know better.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 17:36 | 1942293 Banjo
Banjo's picture

Then the US should NEVER have armed trained and supported the Taliban against communist Russia. Communism is very civil compared to religious fundamentalism at least you were able to sit and talk with Russians at START treaty talks and communist China is a most favoured trade partner today.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 05:59 | 1943454 Element
Element's picture

You know the irony is the CIA wanted to prevent the Russians getting an Indian ocean Naval port in Pakistan.

But the way things are going now, they may get a Russian, AND a Chinese Naval port (or three) in Pakistan.



Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:00 | 1942447 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

Helen Thomas - Sensored/Career - Shut Down Permanently

"Afghanistan is the Graveyard for Empires"

PS. while stopping over in mass. a couple years back i happened to stay at a hotel not to far from a military training base. the owner was an indian [no surprise in mass.] and i happened to notice that 75% of all the guest were pakistani air force pilots. they were being trained to fly american foreign aid military jets [f14's& Fi6's]. it was continuous training of hundreds of pilots [helicopter's also were part of traing] bused in and out in the morning and returning in late afternoon. i asked the indian proprietor how long this training has been going on [he chuckled, with a nervous kind of laugh],... taken by surprise by my off-the-cuff [direct] question, he said without hesitation for months.

thankyou i said,... while walking away from the front desk i couldn't help but notice the glaring disdain felt, from the leftover pakistani's in the lobby towards me - perhaps overhearing my query.

ps2. pakistan gets billions in foreign aid, and just perhaps they want to 'up-the-anti-abit', for much more money.


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:34 | 1942644 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Come on now!?  Next your going to tell me that the alleged 9/11 hijacker pilots were trained at U. S. Military bases.  Come on now.  Our government is honest, above board and beyond reproach.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:01 | 1943457 Element
Element's picture

You keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:30 | 1942518 GiantVampireSqu...
GiantVampireSquid vs OWS UFC 2012's picture

War on terror War for resources Bitchez

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:33 | 1941963 Crassus
Crassus's picture

We still have Russian rail bonds personally guaranteed by the tsar.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 18:20 | 1942371 Barack Obama
Barack Obama's picture

Patb, you may recall Israel, the ones so worried about its motral enemy Iran, sold sophisticated antitank missles to Iran. And, Israeli banks held/hold billions of dollars
on hehalf of Yassar Arafat, the Palestinians, and other individuals and groups opposed to Israel.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:05 | 1943460 Element
Element's picture

That was part of the game of balancing Iran against Iraq, to ensure Bagdad did not become even stronger.

Same things occurred swapping weapons for western hostages.


"held/hold" billions of dollars on hehalf of Yassar Arafat


Replace "held/hold" with froze

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:30 | 1941730 patb
patb's picture

We also learn that some will go through Bandar Abbas Iran?


Let me get this straight.  NATO ISAF is running logistics through Iran?  A country most of the EU is about to attack, if the Israeli's don't first.

What doesn't go through Iran, is going through Pakistan, home to Bin Laden, and the rest through Russia?  A country NATO was meant to oppose?


Did FDR and Churchhill contract with Mussolini to run supplies against Hitler?



Sat, 12/03/2011 - 18:12 | 1942351's picture

Milo Minderbinder.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:03 | 1942589 knukles
knukles's picture

But Angela Merkel has a dick.
And so does Lady Gaga.
So all's well in Never Never Land
Justin Beiber and I miss Michael Jackson...

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 02:22 | 1943302 ozzzo
ozzzo's picture

If you take it literally, the author is suggesting that Pakistan is NATO's foot. A corny metaphor maybe, but not complete nonsense.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:14 | 1941702 DionysusDevotee
DionysusDevotee's picture

I gotta say, good for them.  And, "we want an apology"?!?  Seems mind-blowingly forgiving to me.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:30 | 1941732 RealFinney
RealFinney's picture

I'm sure if Pakistani troops shot up 24 US soldiers, the Americans would be equally considerate.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:07 | 1943461 Element
Element's picture

That is the contrast people should be making. What would have happened?

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 13:24 | 1944203 prole
prole's picture

At first I was thinking the answer involved somehow the word glass.

But then seeing how those SEALs go wacked, I must admit I have no idea anymore?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:16 | 1941706 Biff Malibu
Biff Malibu's picture

Ja Mein Fuhrer

I assure you, we can supply 6th Army from the air!

Herman Goerring

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:27 | 1941724 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Geo-politics at its finest!

What do Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria have in common?

The are all Med States.

So why is the first move of the Military Industrial Complex to go after the Med States?

To control transportation routes.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:28 | 1942630 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Actually the first move in Libya was to take over their bank.  Any banks not a part of the international banking syndicate are subject to kinetic action!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:15 | 1941907 duo
duo's picture

Patton:  Strategy wins battles, but logistics wins wars.

He knew the Russian army made it's way to Berlin on what they could forage from the countryside, and he could have cut them off and starved them with a few divisions.


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:17 | 1941710 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Looks like a Black Swan just flew up the Military Industrial Complex's ass.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:19 | 1941930 Schmuck Raker
Schmuck Raker's picture

Actually, I believe that is a Golden Goose, and they are pulling it out.

Oh look! I think I can see sunbeams now.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:11 | 1943466 Element
Element's picture

Indeed, they would kill (pardon the Pun) to get another Vietnam, they'd make squillions!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:26 | 1941712 Barnaby
Barnaby's picture

This just in: US Congress Declares President Obama A Vegetable.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:18 | 1941713 spacecadet
spacecadet's picture

Is this bullish for lithium?


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:34 | 1942138 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

How long will it take before the first idiot punctures a chunk of rolling lithium and tries urinating into the hole?

The urban legend was doing it on the third rail, before the alligators took over the sewers of NYC.

Science in action.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:22 | 1941718 Voodoo Economics
Voodoo Economics's picture


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:23 | 1941719 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

This story has been going on since mid week already. In addition, they have refused to cooperate with NATO in the investigation. Perhaps more importantly, they've revoked US privilege to use the Shamsi Airbase which was a launch point for predator drone attacks. Pakistan is still fuming over two other huge events this year: Raymond Davis, a CIA operative who killed 2 Pakistanis, and the raid that took out Osama Bin Laden

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:31 | 1941735 patb
patb's picture

They are mad about Bin Laden.


The Bin Laden thing really cut off their ability to fundraise from Al Qaeda and from NATO.



Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:36 | 1941749 Elwood P Suggins
Elwood P Suggins's picture

I'm sure a billion bucks or so passed out here and there will quickly solve this problem. 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:19 | 1943473 Element
Element's picture

Not if Pakistani cooperation has failed to resolve the impasse with India, and the West is instead taking India's side, and courting them as a regional ally.

What's in it for Pakistan then, to keep NATO in the area?

Perhaps China will serve their interests better in dealing with Indian claims to retain Kashmir?

In which case a few billion mere benji's is not going to buy Pakistan back into the Axis f ... , er, sorry, the Alliance of the willing fold.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:33 | 1941976 Kiwi Pete
Kiwi Pete's picture

Pakistan probably set up Nato and sacrificed their own soldiers. They run the Taliban and want the US out but still want your money.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:30 | 1941731 rambler6421
rambler6421's picture

"Anybody know how many nukes Pakistan actually has? I wonder how much they are really under control and how much of a hand the U.S. has on the trigger."


hard to say.  word on the street that the CIA has the nuke situation under control (according to stratfor)

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:07 | 1941883 Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

Wiki (aka CIA) says both Pakistan and Israel have around 100 each - enough to make a real mess. Iran sits in the middle. Everybody is on edge. Not a lot of fun.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:31 | 1941736 0cz
0cz's picture

This obviously means we need to ramp up agression versus Iran.  I mean Iran is supposedly engaging in a nuclear weapons program.  We need to eliminate their threat before we end up pissing off every other nuclear capable nation on the planet. 

*You read that in McCain's voice*

I bet Pakistan could point every weapon they have at U.S forces and the only solution would be to attack Iran.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:11 | 1941891 steelrules
steelrules's picture

I foresee an mutual defence alliance between Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan, which brings with it Russia and China.

We should have left Afganistan 7 years ago.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:22 | 1942620 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

McCain should be tried for treason!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:23 | 1943476 Element
Element's picture

And now that Iran and Paki interests are finally broadly aligning ... they will cooperate more to swap secrets, technology and weapons.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:32 | 1941737 Royal Fleming
Royal Fleming's picture

what the fuck are we there for anyways.let that cancer run its course and kill off its host. get out of there. NOW. and yes I agree with Barnaby.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:35 | 1941746 nah
nah's picture

its going to take everything we got to get in there and back out again and again

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:26 | 1943478 Element
Element's picture

This is the beginning of the bleeding of NATO. A retreat will become necessary - unavoidable

come next spring and summer ... it's gone quiet because winter is here

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:35 | 1941748 the 300000000th...
the 300000000th percent's picture

Russia willbe next the close the gate and then well i guess Obama will have to "Have a victory in Afghanistan, and bring the troops home" because there will be no way to fight a war that way if you cant re supply, it is ofcourse almost an election year


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:32 | 1941971 toady
toady's picture

Your comment, and the one before it, are right on the money. Should have declared victory and got out 7+ years ago.

Another rarely discussed option is going all-in with India against the Paki's. They hate the Paki's and would team up in a second if the US asked.

The trick would be keeping the nuclear war limited. How could they keep Russia and China calm when nukes are going off in their backyard?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 17:28 | 1942271 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

We would have really won if potus 43  had the testosto-sack he seems to have now when he's out of fire zone and told Cheney and Rumsfeld to pound sand.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:18 | 1942493 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

or we could just leave people alone and stay out of other people's business..........novel concept, no?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:09 | 1942601 knukles
knukles's picture

Give the man a ceeee-gar, cupie doll and a gold star for common sense, raw intelligence, human insight and just a plain good old fucking idea.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:37 | 1942732 toady
toady's picture

Agreed. As I said, it would be best to declare victory and get out.

Short of inventing a time machine, I can't see the US never being there in the first place.

I tend to believe the MIC will escalate rather than get out.

Reality bites!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:52 | 1943181 trav7777
trav7777's picture

this could have been "solved" during the Kargill War, where India's naval superiority had Pukistan at the verge of resource starvation.  Pukistan would have probably gone nuclear and that recognition is why the superior powers leaned on both sides for an end to the conflict.

Letting the forests continue to disease only invites an inevitably worse forest fire that cannot be controlled.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 04:20 | 1943411 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

or we could just leave people alone and stay out of other people's business..........novel concept, no?

Not if your name is Ron Paul.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:32 | 1943483 Element
Element's picture

They can't.

Whoever fires a nuke at Pakistan will be considered a global rouge, a mass murderer, and will be blasted to soot by the remaining big nuclear powers, because no one can trust any nuclear power that starts a nuclear bombardment.

They can't afford to let that go unpunished in kind ... because they may be next to get attacked.

That's why 'the-bomb' is supposed to be a "Weapon of LAST resort".

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:10 | 1943919 bahaar
bahaar's picture

Pakistan is a loose cannon and whole world including China is probably afraid of them.  The only reason world tolerates Pakistan (it's military) is because Pakistan is perceived as Saudi sidekick (Pakistan has been murdering Shias, Ahmediayas, Sufis) to prove what radical Sunnis they are (just like Saudi Arabia).  And Saudis are tolerated because of their oil.  As for China and Russia throwing their weight behind Pakistan, I doubt it.  Paksitan, as Saudi sidekick is anti-Shia, anti-Iran (Remember Iran calls Pakistan a 'military with a country').  Russia will always support Iran over Pakistan.  And so will China.  China needs their oil.  And Iran has border conflicts and idealogical conflicts with Paksitan.  So it's all very complicated.  Pakistan should forget about playing with the big boys, abandon all these extremely expensive war games and concentrate on improving it's economy, before multi-nationals decide Asia has become too expensive and move to Africa to scout for labor.  But then Paksitani military will never allow Pakistani economy to improve, because that would mean, populace will not be dependant on them to procure hand-outs from their arch enemy, the US. 

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 12:10 | 1943925 bahaar
bahaar's picture

Pakistan is a loose cannon and whole world including China is probably afraid of them.  The only reason world tolerates Pakistan (it's military) is because Pakistan is perceived as Saudi sidekick (Pakistan has been murdering Shias, Ahmediayas, Sufis) to prove what radical Sunnis they are (just like Saudi Arabia).  And Saudis are tolerated because of their oil.  As for China and Russia throwing their weight behind Pakistan, I doubt it.  Paksitan, as Saudi sidekick is anti-Shia, anti-Iran (Remember Iran calls Pakistan a 'military with a country').  Russia will always support Iran over Pakistan.  And so will China.  China needs their oil.  And Iran has border conflicts and idealogical conflicts with Paksitan.  So it's all very complicated.  Pakistan should forget about playing with the big boys, abandon all these extremely expensive war games and concentrate on improving it's economy, before multi-nationals decide Asia has become too expensive and move to Africa to scout for labor.  But then Paksitani military will never allow Pakistani economy to improve, because that would mean, populace will not be dependant on them to procure hand-outs from their arch enemy, the US. 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:37 | 1941761 dumpster
dumpster's picture

raid that took out Osama Bin Laden

the raid that took out a patsy.. osama dies in 2002 of liver failure

just repeat the standard lies of the media , unemployment 8.6 but really 22%  

inflation 2% but really 13% .. black is white . war is peace .. yadda

buried at sea lol


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:15 | 1941908 CPL
CPL's picture

War will set you free.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 17:29 | 1942274 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

Emiliano Zapata is in the mountains!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:46 | 1942869 UP Forester
UP Forester's picture

"This just in:  CIA head Petreaus announced Pancho Villa has been spotted in the mountains of Mexico, somewhere between Tijuana and Oaxaca.  Villa has been overheard on cell-phone intercepts to be threatening silver mining production.  President Obama has already sent all available heavy armor, assault helicopter and unmanned aerial vehicle units down through Central Mexico in pursuit of the dangerous terrorist.

"In other news, Mexico has cancelled previous plans to back the Peso with silver.  News at 11."

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:08 | 1941770 CTG_Sweden
CTG_Sweden's picture


If I had been a Pakistani leader I would have tried to avoid everything that could give ordinary people in the West the impression that Pakistan is an enemy of the United States and the West. News segments in which Pakistanis burn the American flag make people believe that Pakistan is an enemy of the United States just like Iran. Therefore, people in the West will be less inclined to think that an attack on Pakistani nukes is not justified.


Rather than shutting down supply routes to Afghanistan, I think that Pakistani leaders should outlaw actions like burning American flags temporarily.


I don´t think that Islamic leaders understand how to deal with the public at large in the West.


I also suspect that the US, France and Britain think that Pakistani nukes are a potential problem since radical muslims may lay hands on these weapons. 

Mon, 12/05/2011 - 01:58 | 1943487 Element
Element's picture

Dude, the whole EU NATO missile-shield program is designed primarily to deal with Pakistan - NOT WITH IRAN.

This missile shield is incapable of stopping Russia. If Russia needs to hit a target, that target WILL be hit.

Pakistan has weapons on IRBMs.

Iran doesn't and won't have enough warheads, for MANY years, to become a real threat.

So who is the Euro-missile-shield really being put in place to guard against?

I'm amazed people still don't get this.

This is why the USA says it has the Paki weapons "covered" ... they think a missile shield can do it.

But as I pointed out last week, EMP can defeat all of the technologies that such a US/NATO missile sheild requires in order to be operational and function.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:41 | 1941771 etudiant
etudiant's picture

Pakistan is doing the US a favor. We just need to catch the hint.

This theatre is a nightmare to supply, along wretched 1000+ km truck roads. That is why the real cost of fuel in theatre is well over $100/gallon, everything must be brought in by oxcart or equivalent.

It is the height of insanity to leave a force deployed at the end of such a thin thread.

The British learned that in the 1840s, we can only pray that we don't repeat their experience in the 2010s.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:43 | 1942005 Husk-Erzulie
Husk-Erzulie's picture

It is the height of insanity to leave a force deployed at the end of such a thin thread.

Apparently there are very few in NATO who understand this.  Not surprising, a careerist officer corps with no real experience of warfare.  The vegetable in chief?  Phht, as clueless as the congress and the criminal in charge at state.  Blind leading the blind = bloody failure eventually, just a matter of time.  Dien Bien Phu anyone?

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:47 | 1943491 Element
Element's picture

Let's remember, Hitler lost an entire over extended army this way at Stalingrad.

Surrounded, cut-off, insufficiently provisioned, winter, unable to break-out = >250,000 DEAD GERMANS

NATO could take a terrible beating in tme.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 08:53 | 1943563 Mike2756
Mike2756's picture

I doubt it, the opposing force doesn't have the numbers. They might take out an isolated outpost. If push comes to shove, local commanders will pull extended troops into mutually supporting "boxes". Worked  for the Brits in N Africa.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 18:53 | 1942437 MyKillK
MyKillK's picture

It gets as high as $1,000/gallon in some areas because the fuel has to be brought in by helicopter.


$1,000+/gal for ALL of Afghanistan should be the norm now without Pakistani supply routes.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:45 | 1941783 Absalon
Absalon's picture

Fuck Pakistan.  They were hiding Bin Laden.  The US gives them money to help in the fight against the Taliban and Pakistan gives some of the money to the Taliban to keep the fight going.  


We are supposed to be in Afghanistan so it can't be used as a base for terrorist attacks.  The simple way to stop it from being used for terrorist attacks is to seal the fucking place off from the world so no one can go in or out.  Blow up the bridges, rip up the airports, blow up the power stations, block the passes and be done with it.  Should have done all that from the air a decade ago.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:24 | 1941937 thinx
thinx's picture

Afghanistan is a tribal nation, and have been internally unstable because of shifting power between tribes.  However, they are not a threat to us by themselves.  The problem really begins in Pakistan's army, which has exploited the lack of a strong Afghan centre to develop and support terrorists in Afghan territory.  As such, Pakistan will resist and try to scuttle any possibility of a strong, stable Afghan government.


The US goal in Afghanistan is to stabilize the country and make sure it won't be used for terrorism again.  Unfortunately, this is IMPOSSIBLE because it is directly opposed to Pakistan's strategic objective in the region.


Destroying Afghanistan is not the answer (the place doesn't have much to destroy anyway).  The real enemy is Pakistan's army, not Afghanistan.  If anything, blowing everything up in Afghanistan and "sealing it off" will only make it that much easier for Pakistan to get back to what they were up to until 9/11.


Unless we have the ability and political resolve to bring Pakistan to heel (which we don't), any 'success' in Afghanistan will pretty much be unraveled as soon as our back is turned.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:31 | 1942134 Absalon
Absalon's picture

OK - so think through the consequences of what you are saying in the last paragraph.


The choices that the US has are: (1) physically isolate Afghanistan so that they are not a threat to anyone except themselves; or (2)  go and kill some generals and intelligence officers in Pakistan.


Better to kill a few dozen intelligence officers in Pakistan than thousands of civilians in Afghanistan.



Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:37 | 1942733 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

If you put EvERY MIL ASS WE HAVE IN afg you couldn't 'SEAL IT OFF'.




Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:55 | 1943189 trav7777
trav7777's picture

the only way to win is all-out war...we're not gonna do that.

We're not going to have hearts and minds; the best we can do is bribe people until they get a better offer or play a protection racket with us for even more money.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:52 | 1943495 Element
Element's picture

Better to kill a few dozen intelligence officers in Pakistan than thousands of civilians in Afghanistan.


And then who controls the paki nukes with a clear chain of command in disorder and a power-grab results?

There are ZERO simple solutions to this ... well, unless NATO simply left the region next Tuesday ... that might fix it ... for a bit.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:18 | 1942611 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Sorry, methinx you are wrong.  Our greatest threat are the true terrorists in WDC and the international banking cartel which owns 93% of them.  Does the vote this week on the NDAA mean anything to you?  Can you not see what is coming!?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 23:27 | 1942962 thinx
thinx's picture

While I don't disagree with your viewpoint, it is useful to remember that there are many different kinds of threats.  The existence of the one you referred to does not diminish the other.  They are just different types, and if you only focus on one, you will likely become susceptible to the other.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 10:14 | 1943650 Mesquite
Mesquite's picture

Funny no one mentions the poppies...


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 17:31 | 1942278 ToNYC
ToNYC's picture

Please enlist all your friends and family to empower your personal vision. 'll keep my porch light on for you when you find the key...

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 18:55 | 1942441 MyKillK
MyKillK's picture

Your heart is full of evil.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:20 | 1942498 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

you just really don't get it do you?

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 01:18 | 1943231 zardoz3006
zardoz3006's picture

Have you ever considered that privately the US knows and encourages the pakistanis to channel money to the Taliban.  Hard to keep your Military Industrial Complex going without a sufficiently strong Bogey Man.  I mean it would get embarrassing for people to realise that more money is needed to fight an essentially irregular guerilla force than was required to keep the balance of power equalised against the former soviet superpower.  Just a thought...

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 01:51 | 1943271 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

If anyone should know about kabuki, it should be someone named Zardoz! :>D

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:45 | 1941786 Azwethinkweiz
Azwethinkweiz's picture
Warren Pollock! He recently reuploaded this video but he made this way ahead of anyone talking about it.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:47 | 1941791 thinx
thinx's picture

NATO's shooting at Pakistani border posts is just an excuse.  Nato has been conducting cross-border raids for a long time, it is very unlikely that the Pakistanis became conscious of their own testes at this particular moment in history.


This is merely Pakistan following Chinese orders, as a warning against US moves in Iran and Syria.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:13 | 1941900 CPL
CPL's picture

This is less to do with sovereignty than it is about the international heroin trade.  Do not believe for a minute this is a policy or political challenge.  Someone didn't get paid their cut.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:19 | 1942615 knukles
knukles's picture

Conscious of their own testes?

I'm not sure how to respond to that, even though I wasn't even asked.
I'm stumped.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 22:44 | 1942867 thinx
thinx's picture

I meant that it is unlikely that they suddenly grew a pair _now_, since NATO has been shooting across the border for quite a while now.


The fact that they chose to react _this time_ has less to do with the actual incident, and has more to do with China putting pressure on them to do this.  Pakistan's foreign policy is very strongly influenced by China.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:50 | 1941804 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

I hope all the supplys get cut off so the troops fighting for the corperations and committing  treason  get killed .

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:15 | 1943098 trav7777
trav7777's picture


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 14:56 | 1941831 non_anon
non_anon's picture

koodos to Paki standing up to the thugs in DC, hope we can have the balls to do the same

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:00 | 1941844 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture

When people start shooting police at check points that would be a go start.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:08 | 1941886 non_anon
non_anon's picture

I recommend starving the beast that is DC, it is sucking the lifeforce out of each taxpaying citizen, take away its means to survive and it will die

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:00 | 1941843 dumpster
dumpster's picture

Fuck Pakistan. They were hiding Bin Laden

another shit for brains poster

spewing forth the lies of the media

bin laudin died of liver failure in 2002

the whole fabricated story still has wings with the still brain washed pavlovian dogs of wars .. ring

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:00 | 1941848 Abitdodgie
Abitdodgie's picture


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:21 | 1941935 FL_Conservative
FL_Conservative's picture

Fuck Pakistan....double-dealing pricks.  Besides, it's time to bring our men and women HOME! 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 21:40 | 1942738 karzai_luver
karzai_luver's picture

double-dealing , you idiot if they are double dealing then the uS HAS BEEN QUAD DIPPING FOR 50 YEARS.



Sun, 12/04/2011 - 06:57 | 1943498 Element
Element's picture



There, fixed it for you.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:24 | 1941941 MarketWatchTerrorist
MarketWatchTerrorist's picture

What the fuck are we even doing in Afghanistan still?  Guarding the poppy fields to ensure a steady supply of heroin to first world countries?


Osama is dead.  Afganistan is the same shit hole it has always been.  Why the fuck are we still there?  We can't build a nation in Afghanistan because they have NEVER been a unified society in the manner that the West conceives a society.  Breaking down Iraq and rebuilding it as a puppet state was a simple matter compared to Afghanistan.  They're tribal goat herders and farmers with no society beyond Islam and their ancient traditions.


And 95% of all terrorist attacks on Americans were carried out by men from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and so on.  Not fucking Afghanistan.


Waste of blood and treasure, nothing more.  But oh, wait, we need to build that fucking pipe line across Afghanistan don't we?  This shit is disgustingly sick once you dig beneath the surface of it.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:11 | 1942603 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

"And 95% of all terrorist attacks on Americans were carried out by men from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and so on. Not fucking Afghanistan."


"All terrorist attacks on U. S. soil in the last 10 years have been provocateured by the FBI."

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts


Sun, 12/04/2011 - 04:48 | 1943427 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

But oh, wait, we need to build that fucking pipe line across Afghanistan don't we?

Um, why do you need that pipeline, and why would you spend billions of dollars and let thousands of men and women from your armed forces die WHEN YOUR F***ING FRIENDS IN CANADA ARE WILLING TO PUMP THOUSANDS OF BARRELS A DAY TO YOU, BUT YOU WON'T OK THE KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE?

Seriously - if you think this war is because of the need of an Afghaniland pipeline, you're demented. There's lots of other disgusting reasons for it, not the least of which, as someone else hinted, is the heroin trade, but a pipeline running across difficult and hostile terrain, which would have to be guarded constantly against sabotage, and then then the oil would still have to be shipped halfway around the world, when you could have one in your own backyard, run by you and your friends? Idiotic.

Tue, 12/06/2011 - 04:18 | 1950155 MarketWatchTerrorist
MarketWatchTerrorist's picture

So what is it then? Do tell.






Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:27 | 1941946 falak pema
falak pema's picture

Here is a country with a military bureaucracy that was fed, clothed, armed and over fed during Afghan/USSR crisis by Uncle Sam. For sixty years doped increasingly on US aid.

Now this same corrupt government is fed up with its historical sponsor. When thieves fall out...they who have lived off the fat of the land, to the resultant misery,economic  stagnation, cultural decay of generations of people from Egypt to India; a vast expanse sacrificed to Cold War and Oil monopoly game : MIC+ OIL lobby complex. The heart of US hegemony play. Now one domino goes rogue. It is inevitable as will all the others; from Pakistan to Egypt. US might will now have to face this increasing challenge, all the while it decays internally under the financial strain.  

So Pakistan is the writing on the wall of what could happen afterwards in Iraq, and all the Arab lands. The key to ME puzzle in the coming years is the Turkey Iran axis. Historical dominant players. Watch the puzzle evolve. We are now approaching tipping point of ME geo political reconfiguration; one way or the other.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:33 | 1941975 Cloud9.5
Cloud9.5's picture

No one has every won a war in Afganistan.  Hubris.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:40 | 1941994 Scalaris
Scalaris's picture


Amateur Analysis Summarization Attempt 

This is the culmination of events going quite back since it was only last fall, when Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate, that the Haqqani Network in Afghanistan, a Taliban ally, infiltrated Pakistan's intelligence service.

At the same time, a Pentagon spokesman stated that elements of Pakistan government intelligence have been actively aiding terrorist groups. During the same period, a U.S. helicopter inadvertently killed Pakistani soldiers, and in retaliation Pakistan halted supply trucks from entering Afghanistan.

The current episode created a situation where anti-US sentiment has been widespread to both Muslim and Christian Pakistani communities, who demand not only the banning of supply movement and discontinuing any logistical providing, but also a breakup of any intelligence sharing ties between the two countries and subsequently NATO.  Leaders of large religious communities warned that upon failure of the country’s sovereignty protection, there would be a launch of a wide anti-government disobedience movement.

This will leave the current government with the option to strengthen its nationalistic credentials through domestic consumption by showing that it’s not a US pawn, while launching a reform of the already under criticism Pakistan military to ensure that any operational deficits will be dealt with, and render any defencelessness by future US incursions null.

This will allow them to kill two birds with one stone since it will give them an advantage against the opposition leaders and disheartened Islamists, while supposedly de-corrupting the army using American dollars.  This move will give them a further advantage for a future re-affirmation of Pakistan – US ties, which will give America the peace of mind of dealing with the newly corruption-free military and intelligence agency of a vital ally, which will of course reinstate the flow of American dollars as foreign aid to Pakistan.

Now, the US supports that the action of stopping the logistics through Pakistan will be of no significant impact for operations, and that drone attacks will continue despite the base closure.

The problem is that the US has been trying since 2009 to strengthen its Northern Distribution Network through Russia and former Soviet territories to reduce its reliance on Pakistan, where NATO already channels at least 52 per cent of supplies through the network and had planned to ship up to 75 per cent of all fuel to Afghanistan through it by the end of the year. Now, Russia threatens to cut off the only alternative US and NATO supply route into Afghanistan, raising the possibility that 130,000 coalition troops, could be left isolated, in protest against plans for a NATO ballistic missile defence system in Europe

US-Russian increasingly deteriorating relations, are highlighting the fact of US strategy’s overdependence on logistics outside its control, something which exposes NATO’s key vulnerability that is the inability of procuring new supply lines if both Pakistan and Russia suspend access.

From Pakistan’s side there are speculations regarding three conspiratorial scenarios, where, allegedly, firstly the episode was a joint operation of US-Afghan Security Forces designed to indicate to the Pakistanis the type of post withdrawal operations that could be conducted against them if they were to try and exploit the situation of a future transition of security, something which helps secure the US-Afghan Strategic Agreement and the Pentagon’s future plans of a prolonged stay in Afghanistan that may be the real goal and part of US strategy against Russia and China and part of the ‘new Silk Road’ scenario. 

Secondly a scenario has the Taliban masterminding the event by engaging the Afghan Security Forces in the vicinity of the Pakistani post thereby triggering their reaction and US/NATO response, in order to achieve additional regional destabilization.

The last scenario is the desire of NATO backed Afghan government to steer the US into attacking Pakistan, whom they have repeatedly identified as the real enemy, achieving thusly the destruction of Pakistani Taliban who infiltrated the Pakistan military and act against the new Afghani government.

Sources used:





Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:42 | 1942000 Tao 4 the Show
Tao 4 the Show's picture

Kyle Bass mentioned he had an idea about which countries would go to war with each other. Anybody heard which ones?

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:46 | 1942018 rambler6421
rambler6421's picture

The question is why the hell is the U.S. funnelling money to the ISI.  The ISI is run by a bunch of pricks. 

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 15:48 | 1942025 Antifaschistische
Antifaschistische's picture

Can you guys make a bigger deal out of nothing!! 

 All the US has to do is bring their supply ships into the Mediterranean, through the Sea of Marmara and into the Black Sea.   Unload at the Georgian Port at Sokhumi, truck the supplies through Georgia and into Azerbaijan where they will reload onto ferries at Baku.  From there, they ferry across the Caspian Sea to the port in Turkmenistan.   Once in Turkmenistan you’re home free.  A 600 mile trip on the Turk Interstate Freeway and you’re at the northern border of Afghanistan.  What’s the big deal?


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:04 | 1942066 UGrev
UGrev's picture

You forgot the tail-gate parties at the half way mark.. :D

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 07:04 | 1943501 Element
Element's picture

The Russians and or Iran airdrop hundreds of sea mines into the caspian sea, and lay IEDs and ambushes in Turkmenistan.


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:04 | 1942064 UGrev
UGrev's picture

Recommence with Dirty Paki Jokes!!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:04 | 1942065 zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

@ Absalon 13:45


I do not blame people who believe Osama was there. It is hard for ordinary person to read between the lines. Pakistan's criminal and corrupt politician allowed this raid under US directives. With out taking Pakistan army in to confidence, 1st May raid was done. The current supply route disruption is linked with 1st May, Osama drama. Osama died long ago and the raid was done for American public consumption.

Question is what are US motives to be in Afghanistan any way? 10 years rolling in the dust, a trillion dollars of borrowed money and thousands of solders' lives. Answer is Pakistan's nuclear assets. In this game Israeli, Indian and a hawkish US lobby is equally responsible. ISI being the best intelligence agency in the world knew this plan long ago but they let it cook tender and hit this when US is most vulnerable. In my opinion, ISI is responsible a lot for letting America continue afghan adventure and their hope intact that with the help of corrupt Pakistani politicians soon they will get hold of Pakistan nukes. This hope let America gamble its economy and allowed China grow from a manufacturer to a monster.  I remember USSR sent a threatening message to ISI during afghan invasion that was sent back after soviet collapse with a note on it saying this is how we do it.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:39 | 1942151 Absalon
Absalon's picture

I don't have time for your mentally ill conspiracy theories.


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:39 | 1942152 Absalon
Absalon's picture

I don't have time for your mentally ill conspiracy theories.


Sat, 12/03/2011 - 20:05 | 1942592 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Good, get your news from CNBC and CNN and wonder what happened when tanks are rolling down our streets!

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 00:34 | 1943143 Absalon
Absalon's picture

I do not watch CNBC or CNN.

The assertion that Osama Bin Laden died years ago is stupid.

The assertiion that the US is in Afghanistan to get the Pakistan nukes and that this is all happening with the assistance of the ISI but the ISI is behind cutting the road access because the US is particularly vulnerable now is stupid.

The idea that there will be tanks in the streets of the United States is stupid - at least in terms of it being a result of some foreign influence.  Americans don't care shit about foreigners.  If there are tanks it will be because OWS got out of hand and started rioting.

Sun, 12/04/2011 - 04:55 | 1943431 FrankDrakman
FrankDrakman's picture

I agree that the idea Bin Laden died almost ten years ago is ridiculous. For those who spout this asinine nonsense, please answer one question: if that's true, why in hell would Bush/Cheney not have played out the same act that you say Bambam has done when they had the chance? If they'd done that near the end of Bush's second term, he could have anointed practically anyone for the GOP nom, and they'd have breezed into office.

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 19:59 | 1942573 Tuco Benedicto ...
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

Thanks for the clip.  "Kinetic Action", what's it good for?!  Say it again y'all!

Sat, 12/03/2011 - 16:31 | 1942133 monopoly
monopoly's picture

Over $400.00 per gallon to ship the oil for killing. We have over 47 million on food stamps and 20 million either unemployed or under employed, we owe the world 15+ Trillion dollars, spending a bilion on a election that will make no difference, (unless RP is elected), a useless Congress, and a President that travels around the country trying to get re-elected while smoking in the back room.

Poverty and homelessness increasing at an alarming rate, and what are we doing? Fighting a war that is impossible to win, like Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq.

I think it is safe to say we have our priorities freaking backwards. But the 3%, who control it all, just do not care.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!