Pakistan orders Nato and US review after deadly border strike

Pakistan has ordered a review of all co-operation with the US and Nato after the alliance struck a Pakistani army checkpoint, killing at least 24 people.

A committee chaired by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani also decided to cut supply lines to Nato in Afghanistan.
Mr Gilani called the attack a "grave infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty".

A Nato spokesman admitted it was "highly likely" that Nato aircraft were behind the strike at the Afghan border.....

.... this could be a very costly mistake by Nato, which relies heavily on the route through Pakistan to supply its personnel involved in the war in Afghanistan.

A meeting of the cabinet's defense committee, convened by Mr Gilani, decided the government would "revisit and undertake a complete review of all programs, activities and co-operative arrangements with US/Nato/Isaf, including diplomatic, political, military and intelligence".

It "decided to close with immediate effect Nato/Isaf logistics supply lines", according to a statement issued by Mr Gilani's office. Reports appeared to confirm that Nato traffic was not being allowed through Pakistan's two border crossings with Afghanistan, at Torkham and Chaman.

The committee also said the United States would be asked to vacate, within 15 days, the Shamsi air base, which the US has used to launch drones.

Click to expand...

BBC News - Pakistan orders Nato and US review after deadly border strike

This war may get a lot more expensive if we lose our only land route to supply troops and the only airspace available to get to Afghanistan. Praying for the safety of the troops still there.

Frolicking Dinosaurs said:

BBC News - Pakistan orders Nato and US review after deadly border strike

This war may get a lot more expensive if we lose our only land route to supply troops and the only airspace available to get to Afghanistan. Praying for the safety of the troops still there.

Click to expand...

A lack of contingency planning and strategic foresight can be very costly. That's the lesson that is again being repeated as has happened so often (private and public sectors) to raise questions about whether "long-term institutional learning" really takes place to a meaningful extent. This was a manageable, even largely avoidable problem that the Pentagon's planners have long neglected, even as concern about vulnerability from overreliance on a single country for a supply route--one with deteriorating governmental capabilities--had been expressed by some in the Congress and also planners outside the Pentagon, since well before this latest situation unfolded. The securing of multiple routes would have given the U.S. greater leverage over all of those making the routes available. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. The current situation is just another example of the kind of tunnel vision or inattention to risk that led to the Pentagon's being "surprised" when a full-fledged insurgency developed in Iraq and when the Taliban starting launching attacks across Afghanistan, developments highly consistent with the historic experience in both countries and developments that raised the cost of the overall operations (in financial and human terms).

Russia held the keys to a variety of alternative land routes into Afghanistan (i.e., via Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan), but the necessary diplomatic effort was not pursued under the idealistic assumptions that Pakistan is a reliable partner (it isn't), its major regional interests are compatible with U.S. ones (many aren't), and Pakistan has a capable government (it's on a path toward failed state status with diminishing central authority). Even if the initial diplomatic cost for expediency is lower than the initial diplomatic investment in obtaining reliable partners, the overall costs of expediency can vastly exceed those associated with locking up reliable partners. The current situation provides just the latest example of that reality.

Today, and understandably so when Russia sees that the U.S. latitude for choice has shrunk, Russia's asking price is likely to be higher than it was early on when thought that the U.S. had multiple alternatives prevailed. Put another way, this situation is analogous to a supply-demand proposition. From Pakistan's conduct, Russia can see that the "supply" of alternatives to routes over which Russia has significant or controlling influence has diminished. Demand for supplies has not materially changed and might even be somewhat higher with the ongoing surge in Afghanistan. Hence, Russia has a rational reason to seek a higher price, especially if Prime Minister and Presidential candidate Vladimir Putin controls the negotiation.

From a nationalist/patriotic perspective I know that if our government allowed a foreign country to fly predator drones in our country to attack my fellow countrymen I would be wanting some elected officials tried for treason and sentence to die of a slow painful death.

The UN needs to also review Pakistan.

No matter how you spin it, Pakistan has not been our best ally. They harbor our enemies while accepting our money to fight the enemies they are harboring!!! They pose a danger to our troops in Afghanistan. What happens when they "accidentally" lose a nuke and it ends up near a military target. I understand "keep your friends close and your enemies closer;" but this is too close for comfort. My neck about to be out there on the line. We need to have a stronger hand with Pakistan, and let them know that whether they shot first or us, you are not going to like what happens when you eff with the U.S. military.

rickety said:

No matter how you spin it, Pakistan has not been our best ally. They harbor our enemies while accepting our money to fight the enemies they are harboring!!! They pose a danger to our troops in Afghanistan. What happens when they "accidentally" lose a nuke and it ends up near a military target. I understand "keep your friends close and your enemies closer;" but this is too close for comfort. My neck about to be out there on the line. We need to have a stronger hand with Pakistan, and let them know that whether they shot first or us, you are not going to like what happens when you eff with the U.S. military.

Click to expand...

While Pakistan has never been a strong ally, to use a "stronger hand" at this juncture would be a dangerous position. We haven't the resources to fight that battle. There are many ways to force their compliance without military action and those are the avenues that with need to be strict with.