Attacks on ISAF Supply Convoys

[A1Kaid]

Here is a picture of the destroyed NATO vehicles.

Pakistani firefighters extinguish smouldering trucks at a NATO container terminal near the northwest Pakistani city of Peshawar, 08 Dec 2008

-Source for the Caption: VOA News - Taliban Strikes NATO Supply Depot

 

[fatman17]

Here is a picture of the destroyed NATO vehicles.

Pakistani firefighters extinguish smouldering trucks at a NATO container terminal near the northwest Pakistani city of Peshawar, 08 Dec 2008

-Source for the Caption: VOA News - Taliban Strikes NATO Supply Depot

according to the pentagon, these vehicles were destined for the afghan army and these strikes have not dented in any way their military ops!

 

[hasang20]

lol US cant even control its border with Mexico "so called super power" the war cant fight without your heart into it.

 

[Awesome]

according to the pentagon, these vehicles were destined for the afghan army and these strikes have not dented in any way their military ops!

They will encourage and inspire newer attacks. The US should just quit the Pakistan route and go through Russa, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan.

Any other way. It will cost a little more but it would be safe. Taliban doesn't even have much control in the northern territories of Afghanistan right? American should take the safe route rather than the cheap one.

 

[S-2]

"American should take the safe route rather than the cheap one."

Safe? It's not our people dying by these attacks on this equipment. As to "cheap", when it no longer becomes so relative to other routes, we'd likely switch. At that point, your citizens lose a considerable daily transportation bill of lading.

Cost vs. gain as a risk calculation for America, correct? For Pakistan, the costs and gains are more closely measured and reflecting more important conditions within your nation.

Your choice, not ours, really. We'll react accordingly.

 

[fatman17]

Taliban doesn't even have much control in the northern territories of Afghanistan right

72% to be exact by one report!

 

[daredevil]

Another attack on Nato vehicles in Pakistan
Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:05:30 GMT

Nato vehicles, destined for US forces in Afghanistan, were attacked by armed militants in Pakistan for the third time in a week, police said.

The militants hurled petrol bombs on a terminal on the outskirts of Peshawar, northwest Pakistan, where Nato trucks and containers were parked, destroying some of them, local police official Kashif Alam said.

This was the third such attack in a week, coming days after hundreds of NATO vehicles were destroyed in twin raids on terminals in the same area, the police official said, adding that firefighters had been called to the scene. Around 80 percent of US supplies and equipment are transported through the country, he said.

A Press TV correspondent reported that four trucks were destroyed while two of the containers were brought to safety by the authorities.

Armed militants torched nearly 100 vehicles, including jeeps and supply trucks, early Monday in an attack on a container terminal along the main overland supply route into Afghanistan.

A day earlier about 250 assailants took over two other terminals, overpowered guards and set some 200 vehicles on fire in the biggest attack of its kind.

Security along the road leading to the Afghan border has deteriorated this year with Pakistani troops recently carrying out an offensive in the Khyber region to drive out the al-Qaeda and Taliban linked militants from the outskirts of the main northwestern city of Peshawar, our correspondent said.

The latest attacks have fueled concerns that Taliban insurgents are tightening their grip in Pakistan's tribal belt and could choke the supply route, he added.

 

[Anwar2]

Dear S-2:

The US government does not pay a fair price for the logistics. US is very stingy and pays the Reimbursables as per the FAR’s. The main beneficiaries are US companies like Halliburton / KBR; and some of their Dubai based preferred cronies.

Pakistani transport sector is at the bottom of the food chain, the marginal income is peanuts.

The US just cannot find an alternate route; that possibility evaporated after the US prompted Georgian attack on N Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The only viable mode of transportation is by Air. It is virtually unaffordable for an impoverished USA

 

[rubyjackass]

Is there any place where I can find what areas in FATA are under friendlies of Pakistan and NATO and what others are under pro-Taliban forces?

 

[Anwar2]

The entire area is under Pakistan government Political admisnitration; and is friendly to Pakistan. It is patently unfriendly to the US / NATO forces. Pakistan government cannot gain much traction supporting US / NATO forces.

 

[S-2]

"The entire area is under Pakistan government Political admisnitration; and is friendly to Pakistan."

Were it so then the GoP would inherit all responsibility for the violence since 2002 directed at Afghanistan from militias within these regions.

Can't have it both ways under your logic, Anwar2. Which would you choose and stand firm upon- sovereign control and all that implies or control diminished by a shared enemy.

One gains you help and assistance in reasserting your sovereignty. The other choice would gain you two new enemies (Afghanistan and the U.N.) without removing any of your current threats.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The entire area is under Pakistan government Political admisnitration; and is friendly to Pakistan.

Which fairytale were you living in when the POF were bombed, when the bus at the Naval academy was bombed, when the ISI buses transporting personnel were bombed repeatedly, when over a hundred schools were destroyed in Swat, when our soldiers were captured, tortured and videotaped in FATA?

By and large the people of FATA have no major grievances with the GoP, but the militants have hijacked the region, and destroyed the traditional power structures.

Back up your comments with logical arguments and sources next time or this is the end of the line for you on this forum.

 

[maximus]

"American should take the safe route rather than the cheap one."

Safe? It's not our people dying by these attacks on this equipment. As to "cheap", when it no longer becomes so relative to other routes, we'd likely switch. At that point, your citizens lose a considerable daily transportation bill of lading.

Cost vs. gain as a risk calculation for America, correct? For Pakistan, the costs and gains are more closely measured and reflecting more important conditions within your nation.

Your choice, not ours, really. We'll react accordingly.

You can cry and scream all you want, at the end of the day you will never succeed in Afghanistan without our help. That pretty much sums it all up.

 

[S-2]

There were two thoughts that I was prepared to entertain before Anwar2's departure into his "la-la land of the sovereign" thingy. Both are written with the certainty of fact. Both MIGHT prove correct. Neither points have been supported-

1. "Pakistani transport sector is at the bottom of the food chain, the marginal income is peanuts."

Is Anwar2 a transportation manager with purview to bills of lading and existing net margins. If so, it's a supply and demand equation where security becomes a factored cost- again, but doable under adjusted and agreed terms.

2. "The US just cannot find an alternate route"

The proof of which will help drive the aforementioned point of purchase up or down among Pakistani trucking companies.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You can cry and scream all you want, at the end of the day you will never succeed in Afghanistan without our help. That pretty much sums it all up.

At the end of the day, we will never succeed in FATA either, without major efforts on our side and support of various forms from the West.

We could do this on our own were there not a hostile entity on the Eastern front, and resources not tied up there, but since there is, US influence and resources will have to be tapped, and have been to varying degrees so far.