View Full Version : Pakistan blocks fuel supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan
Pakistan blocks fuel supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan
http://www.statestimes.net/2012/10/pakistan-blocks-fuel-supplies-for-nato-forces-in-afghanistan/
"Pakistan hаѕ ѕtοрреԁ аƖƖ supplies οf motor spirit (petrol) аnԁ high-speed diesel tο thе US Defence Energy Supply Company, whісh іѕ catering tο thе energy requirements οf NATO forces іn Afghanistan, according tο a news report.
Thе ban hаѕ bееn implemented wіth immediate effect, Thе News quoted a senior official аt Pakistan’s Petroleum аnԁ Natural Resources Ministry, аѕ saying.
Until now, thе US Defence Energy Supply Company wаѕ being provided petrol аnԁ high-speed diesel without thе petroleum levy аnԁ Generate Sales Tax, whісh іѕ otherwise being levied οn Pakistani consumers..................."
Hmmmm, about the money?
Pakistan blocks fuel supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan
http://www.statestimes.net/2012/10/pakistan-blocks-fuel-supplies-for-nato-forces-in-afghanistan/
"Pakistan hаѕ ѕtοрреԁ аƖƖ supplies οf motor spirit (petrol) аnԁ high-speed diesel tο thе US Defence Energy Supply Company, whісh іѕ catering tο thе energy requirements οf NATO forces іn Afghanistan, according tο a news report.
Thе ban hаѕ bееn implemented wіth immediate effect, Thе News quoted a senior official аt Pakistan’s Petroleum аnԁ Natural Resources Ministry, аѕ saying.
Until now, thе US Defence Energy Supply Company wаѕ being provided petrol аnԁ high-speed diesel without thе petroleum levy аnԁ Generate Sales Tax, whісh іѕ otherwise being levied οn Pakistani consumers..................."
Hmmmm, about the money?
What a wonderful ally we have in Pakistan. Maybe India would appreciate that 2,000,000,000 dollars a year.
Sounds like they now have found a way to supplement the loss of US aid.
How long are we gonna jack with these asswipes? :mad:
Interesting OpEd by Bruce Riedel in today's NYT.
Bruce O. Riedel, a former C.I.A. officer and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, is the author of “Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and the Future of the Global Jihad.”
Richard :munchin
A New Pakistan Policy: Containment
NYT, 14 Oct 2011
AMERICA needs a new policy for dealing with Pakistan. First, we must recognize that the two countries’ strategic interests are in conflict, not harmony, and will remain that way as long as Pakistan’s army controls Pakistan’s strategic policies. We must contain the Pakistani Army’s ambitions until real civilian rule returns and Pakistanis set a new direction for their foreign policy.
As Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Senate committee last month, Pakistan provides critical sanctuary and support to the Afghan insurgency that we are trying to suppress. Taliban leaders meet under Pakistani protection even as we try to capture or kill them.
In 2009, I led a policy review for President Obama on Pakistan and Afghanistan. At the time, Al Qaeda was operating with virtual impunity in Pakistan, and its ally Lashkar-e-Taiba had just attacked the Indian city of Mumbai and killed at least 163 people, including 6 Americans, with help from Pakistani intelligence. Under no illusions, Mr. Obama tried to improve relations with Pakistan by increasing aid and dialogue; he also expanded drone operations to fight terrorist groups that Pakistan would not fight on its own.
It was right to try engagement, but now the approach needs reshaping. We will have to persevere in Afghanistan in the face of opposition by Pakistan.
The generals who run Pakistan have not abandoned their obsession with challenging India. They tolerate terrorists at home, seek a Taliban victory in Afghanistan and are building the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal. They have sidelined and intimidated civilian leaders elected in 2008. They seem to think Pakistan is invulnerable, because they control NATO’s supply line from Karachi to Kabul and have nuclear weapons.
The generals also think time is on their side — that NATO is doomed to give up in Afghanistan, leaving them free to act as they wish there. So they have concluded that the sooner America leaves, the better it will be for Pakistan. They want Americans and Europeans to believe the war is hopeless, so they encourage the Taliban and other militant groups to speed the withdrawal with spectacular attacks, like the Sept. 13 raid on the United States Embassy in Kabul, which killed 16 Afghan police officers and civilians.
It is time to move to a policy of containment, which would mean a more hostile relationship. But it should be a focused hostility, aimed not at hurting Pakistan’s people but at holding its army and intelligence branches accountable. When we learn that an officer from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, is aiding terrorism, whether in Afghanistan or India, we should put him on wanted lists, sanction him at the United Nations and, if he is dangerous enough, track him down. Putting sanctions on organizations in Pakistan has not worked in the past, but sanctioning individuals has — as the nuclear proliferator Abdul Qadeer Khan could attest.
Offering Pakistan more trade while reducing aid makes sense. When we extend traditional aid, media outlets with ties to the ISI cite the aid to weave conspiracy theories that alienate Pakistanis from us. Mr. Obama should instead announce that he is cutting tariffs on Pakistani textiles to or below the level that India and China enjoy; that would strengthen entrepreneurs and women, two groups who are outside the army’s control and who are interested in peace.
Military assistance to Pakistan should be cut deeply. Regular contacts between our officers and theirs can continue, but under no delusion that we are allies.
Osama bin Laden’s death confirmed that we can’t rely on Pakistan to take out prominent terrorists on its soil. We will still need bases in Afghanistan from which to act when we see a threat in Pakistan. But drones should be used judiciously, for very important targets.
In Afghanistan, we should not have false hopes for a political solution. We can hope that top figures among the Quetta Shura — Afghan Taliban leaders who are sheltered in Quetta, Pakistan — will be delivered to the bargaining table, but that is unlikely, since the Quetta leadership assassinated Burhanuddin Rabbani, the leader of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council and a former Afghan president, last month. The ISI will veto any Taliban peace efforts it opposes, which means any it doesn’t control. Rather than hoping for ISI help, we need to continue to build an Afghan Army that can control the insurgency with long-term NATO assistance and minimal combat troops.
Strategic dialogue with India about Pakistan is essential because it would focus the Pakistani Army’s mind. India and Pakistan are trying to improve trade and transportation links severed after they became independent in 1947, and we should encourage that. We should also increase intelligence cooperation against terrorist targets in Pakistan. And we should encourage India to be more conciliatory on Kashmir, by easing border controls and releasing prisoners.
America and Pakistan have had a tempestuous relationship for decades. For far too long we have banked on the Pakistani Army to protect our interests. Now we need to contain that army’s aggressive instincts, while helping those who want a progressive Pakistan and keeping up the fight against terrorism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/opinion/a-new-pakistan-policy-containment.html?ref=opinion
There are links to additional, relevant, stories and maps when you open the link to this story and scroll down the page.
Pakistan warns US over unilateral military action
BBC – online
19 October 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15364956
Pakistan's army chief Ashfaq Kayani has warned the US that it will have to think "10 times" before taking any unilateral action in North Waziristan.
He said that the US should focus on stabilising Afghanistan instead of pushing Pakistan to attack militant groups in the crucial border region.
Washington has for many years urged Islamabad to deal with militants in the area, especially the Haqqani network.It has been blamed for a series of recent attacks in Afghanistan.
"If someone convinced me that all problems will be solved by taking action in North Waziristan, I'd do it tomorrow," a parliamentarian who attended a briefing given by Gen Kayani quoted him as saying.
"If we need to take action, we will do it on our schedule and according to our capacity."
Gen Kayani told the closed-door parliamentary defence committee meeting in Rawalpindi that any withdrawal of American assistance would not affect Pakistan's defence capabilities.
'Very focused'
The Haqqani network - believed to be linked to the Taliban and al-Qaeda - is accused of carrying out last month's 19-hour siege of the US embassy in Kabul.
The US has blamed the recent attack on Kabul's US embassy on the Haqqani network Some reports say that during the briefing Gen Kayani defended Pakistani contacts with the group as "useful" for intelligence gathering.
The verbal and military fight waged by the US against the network has intensified in recent months and is the main cause of tension between the US-led coalition in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
US national security adviser Thomas E Donilon is reported to have told Gen Kayani at a secret meeting in Saudi Arabia earlier this month that Pakistan must either kill the Haqqani leadership, help the US to kill them or persuade them to join a peaceful, democratic Afghan government.
In September outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm Mike Mullen called the Haqqanis a "veritable arm" of the Pakistani intelligence agency, accusing it of directly supporting the militants who had mounted the attack on the US embassy.
But Pakistan has been reluctant to give in to US pressure on the issue. Last month Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that his country "will not bow to US pressure" on fighting militancy.
A senior official in Afghanistan said on Tuesday that the coalition was "very focused" now on the Haqqani network.
The Haqqani network is thought have bases in Pakistan's volatile tribal regions He said that the Haqqani network operates mainly in Khost, Paktia and Paktika provinces, but there has been a significant increase in its activities in Wardak and Logar provinces.
Afghan and Nato officials argue that Pakistan's reluctance to confront the Haqqani network has forced them to increase missile strikes against them in their safe haven of North Waziristan.
For months, the US has been targeting militants, including members of the Haqqani group, in Pakistan's tribal areas near the Afghan border - some in the US Congress are now calling for it to go beyond drone strikes.
Pakistan's military was deeply angered and humiliated when US commandos killed al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in a secret raid on Pakistani soil in May.
While Pakistan has long denied supporting the Haqqani group, BBC correspondents say it has a decades-old policy of pursuing foreign policy objectives through alliances with militants.
Dozer523
10-20-2011, 08:13
What a wonderful ally we have in Pakistan. Maybe India would appreciate that 2,000,000,000 dollars a year. I think they'd love it. But unless India is going to drive a corridor through Pakistan (and they haven't been too successful, militarily, against them in the past) They won't be much help. Maybe the Iranians though . . . NOT. Fights in Afghanistan are victims of geography.
How long are we gonna jack with these asswipes? :mad:As long as they are the only ones with ports we can use in the SWA AO.
The tooth relies on the tail and the tail is caught in the crack when it comes to Pakistan.
I think they'd love it. But unless India is going to drive a corridor through Pakistan (and they haven't been too successful, militarily, against them in the past) They won't be much help. Maybe the Iranians though . . . NOT. Fights in Afghanistan are victims of geography.
As long as they are the only ones with ports we can use in the SWA AO.
The tooth relies on the tail and the tail is caught in the crack when it comes to Pakistan.
With all due respect sir,except for 1965 we have been successful in every military confrontation with Pakistan.We defeated them in 14 days in 1971 and held 93000 Pakistani POW's.
In 1999 when they back-stabbed us by occupying our vacant posts in Kargil with their army posing as militants and fighting with militant's against the Indian Army,we beat them even when they had the advantage of height.
They know it very well they cant beat us in a conflict hence they keep sending terrorists to disturb us time and again in Kashmir where our army gives them a warm welcome.
That was my understanding although I am not well versed in the history of those fights. My understanding is that is why they have to lean on acts of terror, proxies because they lost miserably in every attempt at conventional warfare.
China actually shares a small border with Afghanistan in extremely rough terrain. I haven't ever heard of China not ready to do business in the last several years.
I liked the article about a containment policy for Pakistan.
With all due respect sir,except for 1965 we have been successful in every military confrontation with Pakistan.We defeated them in 14 days in 1971 and held 93000 Pakistani POW's.
This was my basic understanding from what I've read, the basic outline for their conflicts....
1) Pakistan starts it.
2) Eventually Indian Sikhs and Gurkhas smack them, push them back and began taking Pakistani territory.
3) The UN intervenes pressuring a ceasefire.
4) India gives back the territory they captured.
5) Repeat.
Maybe we warn Pakistan next time India gets to keep what they capture?
Dozer523
10-20-2011, 16:44
With all due respect sir,. And I reply with the greaetst respect for you and your country-men.
No disparagement was meant on the Army or people of your country and I hope none was taken. Rather then "successful" the more accurate word choice should have been "aggressive" (or beligerent).
I recall the Pakistani's were implicated in the attack on the India's embassy in Kabul.
I was attempting to point out that, for now, Pakistan is the only place we can off load ships of supply. Maybe WE need to think about establishing a beachhead in Pakistan. . . Nah!
Like AG gas for farmers which is exempt from most of a state's additional taxing, it might be interesting to 'dye' our MilGas and see where it ends up being used outside of authorized military circles. ;)
Richard :munchin