Hulk
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 7,582
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
US scrambling for alternate route to ****** amid spat with Islamabad - The Times of India
WASHINGTON: The United States is scrambling to extricate itself from a logistical nightmare in the ****** theatre. Multiple attacks on US/ Nato convoys (six by last count) by Pakistani militants, aggravated by Islamabad closing a key supply route (now in its 7th day), is forcing Washington to move to an alternate supply chain to reduce dependency on Pakistan.
US officials say the situation is far from dire and military operations in Afghanistan could continue to be fully supplied even if Pakistan continues what amounts to a blockade. "It has not in any way impacted our ability to resupply fuel to our operations around Afghanistan," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said on Tuesday. "And we don't suspect it will even if this were to last into the future."
But the growing crisis, amid deteriorating relations with Pakistan, is driving Washington to accelerate the switch to the so-called "Northern Distribution Network" through Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asian states. The U.S has already opened five supply routes from the countries north of Afghanistan, according to Lisa Curtis, a regional analyst with the Heritage Foundation.
Curtis is among the experts recommending an alternate supply chain to reduce American reliance on Pakistan, which is said to currently account for 80 per cent of non-lethal supplies into the ****** theatre. "U.S. dependence on Pakistani supply routes provides Islamabad leverage to resist U.S. pressure to shut down Taliban sanctuaries and to crack down more forcefully on terrorist networks that attack coalition forces across the border and threaten the overall mission in Afghanistan," she warned in a paper this week.
For now though, the Obama administration is still trying to work things out with an increasingly recalcitrant ally. Pentagon officials said there had been some progress in talks with Islamabad about the Nato chopper attack on a Pakistani post (which caused Islamabad to retaliate with the shutdown) and the US hope to "have the gate reopened as soon as possible."
Late on Wednesday, the U.S made what clearly was a pro-forma apology to Pakistan to get things rolling. "We extend our deepest apology to Pakistan and the families of the Frontier Scouts who were killed and injured," US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson said after nearly three days of talks between the two sides over the border spat.
But US officials are also signaling that its switching to an alternate route could hurt Pakistan commercially and otherwise, even as the White House on Tuesday turned the heat on Islamabad, virtually accusing it backing off in the war on terrorism. Suggesting that Pakistan itself would benefit from reopening the border, Pentagon's Morrell described the supply chain as a "huge commercial enterprise" for Pakistan.
In fact, the two countries, which some US analysts are now saying are virtually at war, battled for days over two key issues: Resolving the chopper attack and the issue of hot pursuit, and protection for the Nato convoys.
In the first instance, Pakistan was said to be insisting on an outright apology for the chopper attack and assurances that Nato forces will not cross the border in hot pursuit. But the US military is in no mood to offer this, and is in fact, insisting that it attacked the Pakistani post in self-defense after its choppers were fired on as they tailed terrorists fleeing back to safe havens in Pakistan.
Under the arrangement that emerged on Wednesday, the apology came from the U.S State Department; the U.S military only offered regrets.
The two sides are also locked in war of words over responsibility for protecting the supply convoys. With attacks on the supply chain extending from outside Karachi in the south to outside Islamabad in the north, Pakistan's civilian dispensation has thrown up its hands, saying it is not responsible for the security.
But US officials say they are by prior arrangement. In fact, a Pentagon official said the Pakistanis do not get paid until the supplies, mainly fuel, is delivered to the point of destination in Afghanistan. "So they have incentive to protect the convoys, to make sure that the situation is such that they can get to their destination safely," Pentagon's Morrell said.
The suspicion in Washington – and even among some Pakistani experts – is that the attacks on Nato convoys are being engineered by the Pakistani intelligence community, possibly renegade elements among them. "'Militants' torched Nato supplies in Shikarpur and Islamabad two nights apart? Tell me another. Who in heaven are we trying to fool?" Kamran Shafi, a Pakistani analyst known for his trenchant views on the military state, said in his column in Dawn newspaper.
Read more: US scrambling for alternate route to ****** amid spat with Islamabad - The Times of India US scrambling for alternate route to ****** amid spat with Islamabad - The Times of India
WASHINGTON: The United States is scrambling to extricate itself from a logistical nightmare in the ****** theatre. Multiple attacks on US/ Nato convoys (six by last count) by Pakistani militants, aggravated by Islamabad closing a key supply route (now in its 7th day), is forcing Washington to move to an alternate supply chain to reduce dependency on Pakistan.
US officials say the situation is far from dire and military operations in Afghanistan could continue to be fully supplied even if Pakistan continues what amounts to a blockade. "It has not in any way impacted our ability to resupply fuel to our operations around Afghanistan," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said on Tuesday. "And we don't suspect it will even if this were to last into the future."
But the growing crisis, amid deteriorating relations with Pakistan, is driving Washington to accelerate the switch to the so-called "Northern Distribution Network" through Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asian states. The U.S has already opened five supply routes from the countries north of Afghanistan, according to Lisa Curtis, a regional analyst with the Heritage Foundation.
Curtis is among the experts recommending an alternate supply chain to reduce American reliance on Pakistan, which is said to currently account for 80 per cent of non-lethal supplies into the ****** theatre. "U.S. dependence on Pakistani supply routes provides Islamabad leverage to resist U.S. pressure to shut down Taliban sanctuaries and to crack down more forcefully on terrorist networks that attack coalition forces across the border and threaten the overall mission in Afghanistan," she warned in a paper this week.
For now though, the Obama administration is still trying to work things out with an increasingly recalcitrant ally. Pentagon officials said there had been some progress in talks with Islamabad about the Nato chopper attack on a Pakistani post (which caused Islamabad to retaliate with the shutdown) and the US hope to "have the gate reopened as soon as possible."
Late on Wednesday, the U.S made what clearly was a pro-forma apology to Pakistan to get things rolling. "We extend our deepest apology to Pakistan and the families of the Frontier Scouts who were killed and injured," US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson said after nearly three days of talks between the two sides over the border spat.
But US officials are also signaling that its switching to an alternate route could hurt Pakistan commercially and otherwise, even as the White House on Tuesday turned the heat on Islamabad, virtually accusing it backing off in the war on terrorism. Suggesting that Pakistan itself would benefit from reopening the border, Pentagon's Morrell described the supply chain as a "huge commercial enterprise" for Pakistan.
In fact, the two countries, which some US analysts are now saying are virtually at war, battled for days over two key issues: Resolving the chopper attack and the issue of hot pursuit, and protection for the Nato convoys.
In the first instance, Pakistan was said to be insisting on an outright apology for the chopper attack and assurances that Nato forces will not cross the border in hot pursuit. But the US military is in no mood to offer this, and is in fact, insisting that it attacked the Pakistani post in self-defense after its choppers were fired on as they tailed terrorists fleeing back to safe havens in Pakistan.
Under the arrangement that emerged on Wednesday, the apology came from the U.S State Department; the U.S military only offered regrets.
The two sides are also locked in war of words over responsibility for protecting the supply convoys. With attacks on the supply chain extending from outside Karachi in the south to outside Islamabad in the north, Pakistan's civilian dispensation has thrown up its hands, saying it is not responsible for the security.
But US officials say they are by prior arrangement. In fact, a Pentagon official said the Pakistanis do not get paid until the supplies, mainly fuel, is delivered to the point of destination in Afghanistan. "So they have incentive to protect the convoys, to make sure that the situation is such that they can get to their destination safely," Pentagon's Morrell said.
The suspicion in Washington – and even among some Pakistani experts – is that the attacks on Nato convoys are being engineered by the Pakistani intelligence community, possibly renegade elements among them. "'Militants' torched Nato supplies in Shikarpur and Islamabad two nights apart? Tell me another. Who in heaven are we trying to fool?" Kamran Shafi, a Pakistani analyst known for his trenchant views on the military state, said in his column in Dawn newspaper.
Read more: US scrambling for alternate route to ****** amid spat with Islamabad - The Times of India US scrambling for alternate route to ****** amid spat with Islamabad - The Times of India
