Terrorize the Jam Like Troops in Pakistan

by Eric Martin

On Sunday, the Pakistani Taliban infiltrated two US transportation terminals in Peshawar Pakistan and destroyed 160 vehicles, along with other supplies, destined for NATO troops serving in Afghanistan.  As Brandon Friedman pointed out yesterday, that attack represented the second such large scale supply line assault in less than a month.

Today brought another:

Gunmen from the Pakistani Taliban torched supplies destined for Nato forces in Afghanistan for a second day running today, officials said.

The militants struck a container terminal on the outskirts of Peshawar, in north-west Pakistan, just over a mile from yesterday's attack, in which gunmen torched more than 100 trucks.

About 50 containers were destroyed in today's assault, which again targeted the main route for supplies to troops in land-locked Afghanistan from Pakistan.

"The militants came just past midnight, firing in the air, sprinkled petrol on containers and then set them on fire," Mohammad Zaman, a security guard at the terminal on the Peshawar ring road, told Reuters.

Friedman (the good one) offers some analysis on the significance of these attacks, and their goal of disrupting the Pakistani supply route (through which 70-80% of all NATO supplies pass):

Attacking U.S. and NATO supply lines in Pakistan has the potential to create a chain reaction: For example, if U.S. forces begin to run short on fuel, they conserve by performing fewer mounted patrols.  Fewer combat patrols means less presence in rural areas and more time and space for the Taliban to operate, grow, and consolidate.  The walls could close in quickly if the Taliban could do this effectively for a while.   

Furthermore, the Taliban know two things: 1. The Pakistani military is either unwilling or incapable of stopping them from attacking the supply depots, and 2. the U.S. is unwilling to initiate a major cross-border ground campaign against them.  So they're free to operate as they see fit.  And once they get the technique down, it's likely that they'll continue this marauding until the supply lines leading to the Khyber Pass are completely destroyed (though the Guardian suggests it might be a little more complicated than that).  They also have the added benefit of keeping U.S./Pakistani relations roiled.

This is definitely something to keep an eye on, and yet one more factor that should be added to the cost-benefit analysis attached to our decision making when pondering the wisdom of maintaining our current Afghanistan policy.

Meanwhile, concerned NATO countries seeking to diversify their re-supply routes have signed deals with Russia and are pursuing similar arrangements with Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Ukraine and Belarus.  The necessary courtship of Russia should put some of the recent Russia-hawkishness in perspective.  Just four months ago John McCain and his neocon advisors like Randy Scheunemann were declaring that Russia's conflict with Georgia represented the first "serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War" and that we should take immediate punitive actions against Russia's "invasion" and move to incorporate Georgia into NATO (potentially putting us in a position making direct armed conflict with Russia likely). 

According to those self-described foreign policy "experts," a new Cold War-lite was an acceptable price to pay to ensure Georgian...something or other.  Part of the reason McCain's response was so wrong-headed (apart from ignoring Georgia's role in provoking the confrontation) is that we need Russia's cooperation in several crucial arenas, and we just can't afford a new era of hostility in exchange for the uncertain and vague benefits associated with backing Georgia to the hilt.  Afghanistan is but one such arena. Iran is another. 

And then, there's the value of not raising tensions with a large power, generally speaking.  Yet one more reason to appreciate the results in November. 

Comments

[spartikus]

Reading Nato officials said yesterday that the organisation is negotiating with Ukraine and Belarus for a land route which, though long, would avoid Pakistan and the pirates of the Gulf of Aden. made me do a double take. Is this the Guardian...or Kipling?

[ThatLeftTurnInABQ]

Is this the Guardian...or Kipling?

And a jolly good thing that teh Taliban will never be clever enough to figure out where our alternative landlocked supply lines are and attack them too.

I'm sure that none of the issues which are causing us headaches in Pakistan will be found in Central Asia. Nope, no ethnic tensions, religious factionalism, corruption, banditry, etc. We'll just load up those tanker trucks with Caspian gas and drive them all the way to Kabul with nary a problem.

After all, it makes perfect sense for a maritime power like the US to set up supply lines running right across the largest landmass on Earth.

[Nell]

Attacks on U.S. supply lines have been foretold for many months.

From the drive-the-foreigners-out perspective, it makes sense for the attacks to intensify during the seemingly-endless Bush-to-Obama transition, Gates holdover or no.

In another sense, the U.S. fate was sealed years and years ago. November-December 2001; 1991; 1979...

[avedis]

Sun Tzu is doing 360s in his grave.

[liftingscale]

Afghanistan is not 'the good war'. It's the foreign policy crisis waiting to sink Obama. He should withdraw in two years, regardless of conditions. It is unwinnable.

[Daniel]

We've got maybe one more slash and burn attack before the raiders figure out that it's a lot more profitable to steal this stuff than it is to burn it up.

[fester]

@ ThatLeftTurnInABQ --- raiding the northern routes would be significantly more difficult as they are not in Pashtun territory and the Taliban is overwhelmingly Pashtun. This means the number of people with social ties to the raiders decrease which decreases the support base and also increases the number of people (Tajiks for instance) who may actually remember seeing something and reporting that a large band of armed foreigners is moving through the area to either their local warlords or to governmental forces.

Doable, just a whole lot harder.

[Kris]

Completely OT Eric, but I was just listening to Enter the Wu-Tang on my way to work this morning. 15 years later, it's still amazing.

[Eric Martin]

One of the best ever kris.

[Nell]

@Daniel: The links in my comment document that the blowing-up has been going on for quite some time. What would encourage those doing the blowing-up now, particularly as fuel prices are much lower than they were six or twelve months ago?

[Nell]

Oops, meant to write 'what would encourage those doing the blowing-up to move to theft now'.