Gunmen attack NATO supply trucks in Pakistan

[bemildred]

Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Gunmen in Pakistan attacked and set fire to 20 trucks transporting supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan on Wednesday, police said, the latest in a series of attacks on the supply chain for the war in Afghanistan.

Pakistani authorities, angered by repeated incursions by NATO helicopters from Afghanistan, last week blocked a supply route for the troops in Afghanistan. The attack on fuel tankers on Wednesday took place along another route.

The NATO incursions and the border closure have raised tensions between the United States and Pakistan.

Fourteen gunmen in two pickup trucks opened fire on the tankers, destroying five and killing a driver, following attacks on other tankers claimed by Taliban militants on Sunday.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6950BX20101006

[bemildred]

1. U.S. Slams Pakistani Effort Against Militants

WASHINGTON—A new White House assessment steps up criticism of Pakistan's campaign against militants, stating bluntly that its government and military have been unwilling to take action against Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists.

The aggressive language of the report—which also criticizes the leadership of President Asif Ali Zardari—could further strain difficult relations with a key ally and undercut support in Congress for providing billions of dollars in aid to Islamabad.

The report, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, also raises questions about the U.S.-led coalition's progress battling the Taliban and improving governance in Afghanistan two months before the White House will review its war strategy.

The administration and Pentagon have until now tried to keep their harshest criticisms of Pakistan private to avoid a public rift, but the report shows growing U.S. frustration, officials said. "The report reflects that there are real challenges we have with Pakistan," said an Obama administration official. Officials at all levels are in talks with Pakistan to address these issues, the official added.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/slams-pakistani-effort-militants/

[varun]

2. The war has come to the source of 9/11

After 9/11 I remember writing here on DU that the US should concentrate on Pakistan instead of Afghanistan. Bush made a big blunder supporting Musharraf. Now the war has come to the right place. I hope its not too late.

[sabrina 1]

4. Too late for what? All these wars have done it to increase

anger towards the U.S.

Without Pakistan, they could not have gone to Afghanistan. The supply route has always been through Pakistan for the War in Afghanistan.

The U.S. has been using drones in Pakistan, killing innocent civilians there, and this is the result. They are retaliating for the deaths of their citizens. If NATO wanted support from Pakistan, the last thing they should be doing is killing their civilians.

The current Government of Pakistan cannot deal with the militants there if the U.S. makes it more difficult for them by angering the entire population. Whose idea is this?

Even if the Government tries to control its militants, which it has been trying to do considering that they are enemies of the current Government also, these incursions by the U.S. into Pakistan's territory, a government that was an ally of the U.S. is undermining those efforts, then demanding that they do the impossible, try to convince their own people that it's okay to let the U.S. kill their citizens. It's crazy.

So the Pakistani people don't like seeing the U.S. killing their fellow citizens. Big surprise. We didn't like seeing anyone killing OUR fellow citizens. Do Americans not realize that we are not the only people in the world who will retaliate when attacked?

These wars need to END. They never should have been started. They are only getting worse as the U.S. is broadening the war into other countries. We will badly regret this. More and more as time goes by.

[DirkGently]

9. Yep. There's no "right" war over there. All we're doing is guaranteeing continuing violence.

[Poll_Blind]

6. Sorry, it is most definitely too late. n/t

PB

[bemildred]

7. Yah.

War was not the right answer to that problem in the first place either. Just because you got a hammer in your hand, that doesn't mean everything is a nail.

[Mike Marble]

3. Man, they've been burning a lot of NATO trucks lately!

[KeepItReal]

10. "Non-lethal" supply convoys into Afghanistan are PRIVATE CONTRACTORS

They don't have military escorts and the private companies that run them often pay bribes to the Taleban just to get from point A to point B.

NATO hasn't secured its supply lines in all these years....

[Poll_Blind]

5. THIS IS OVER 60 TANKERS IN ABOUT A WEEK. (All-caps are purely a courtesy detail)

60

TANKER TRUCKS

That's 60 times this:

PB

[bemildred]

8. US Fuel Convoys Under Attack, Amplifies Call for Renewable Energy

The beginning of October has brought at least 10 Pakistani attacks on oil tankers carrying fuel for NATO vehicles in Afghanistan. The NY Times reported today that fuel convoys are “sitting ducks” and as a result, have come under increasing attack. In response, U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords came out in support of bipartisan leaders of the House Armed Services Committee for urging Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates to study new ways of reducing energy use.

The U.S. government is the largest user of fuel in the country and has publicly committed to adopting the use of renewable fuels. Just this year, several test flights have already taken place using “bio” jet fuel. In addition, the military has acknowledged the vulnerability of its troops due to their dependence on fossil fuels, and last month, Biodiesel Industries announced the next phase in development of its system to create biodiesel right on military bases. This system could be built in military camps around the globe lessening the danger of U.S. troops who would no longer h

“Transporting fuel for operational use is one of the most dangerous assignments for our men and women serving in Afghanistan,” said Giffords, a member of the Armed Services Committee. “We must take immediate steps to find ways of reducing fuel use as a way of safeguarding our troops.”

“Our enemies know of our reliance on oil and they are using it to their advantage, and as a result, thousands of service members are dedicated to securing vulnerable supply lines instead of fighting the terrorists who threaten our way of life,” continued Giffords who has introduced legislation to address the issue.

http://domesticfuel.com/2010/10/06/us-fuel-convoys-under-attack-ampliefies-call-for-renewable-energy/