All foreign aid and any other financial incentives, trade and travel between NATO nations and Pakistan should immediately cease. All debts called in. Pakistani assets in NATO countries frozen. In the very lease, the US should do all of the above unilaterally - immediately.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 17, 2008 9:27 AM

Either NATO supply lines are immediately reopened - or - all foreign financial and military aid as well as any other financial incentives, trade and travel (all visas pulled) between each and every member nation of NATO and Pakistan should immediately cease. All debts called in. Pakistani assets in NATO countries frozen. In the very least, the US should do all of the above unilaterally - immediately.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 17, 2008 9:33 AM

Pakistan, they have played the west very well. Both pretending to be the ally during the cold war and now during the war on terror. Getting hold of western monetary aid as much as possible so that it can stay afloat and keep attacking India and Kashmir as well as the rest of the non Muslim world. In effect by not keeping its promises it is directly attacking NATO troops.

Posted by: savsiv at November 17, 2008 9:47 AM

All coalition troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan if they cannot be supplied. Let al Qaeda and whoever else wants to claim they won a "victory" over the West. The only losers are Afghans and they have themselves to blame. Al Qaeda couldn't do what it does in the tribal regions without the support of the people who live there. It's not just Pakistan. The tribal region is binational. Afghans are just as much a part of what happens in that area as the Pakistanis are.
Even if people did make it across the border into Afghanistan what are the Afghans doing when they come? Are they fighting them or helping them? Pull our troops out of Afghanistan. They are fighting for people who don't really care.

Posted by: PMK at November 17, 2008 10:01 AM

What's so impossible about re-directing the supply route? Just go from Karachi through Baluchistan to Kandahar, completely by-passing the NWFP and the "perilous mountain trail".

Or does that make too much sense?

Posted by: Cornelius at November 17, 2008 10:01 AM

What's so impossible about re-directing the supply route? Just go from Karachi through Baluchistan to Kandahar, completely by-passing the NWFP and the "perilous mountain trail".

Or does that make too much sense?

Posted by: Cornelius at November 17, 2008 10:03 AM

This should not be surprizing at all. Pakistan may be the most dangerous Islamic country given that it already has nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials should focus on reality rather than rhetoric that has so long come out of Pakistan. Pakistani support for Tablighi Jamaat is incompatible with the claims that they are key allies in the war on terror. Much of the operations that have produced Islamic terrorism over the past 25 years can be layed at the foot of the Pakistani operatives known as Tablighi Jamaat who operate with Al Qaeda,Saudi Wahaabists, and many othe terrorist organizations within the umma,even the Phillipine government recognizes the influences of Islamic terrorism within the Moro Islamic liberation front as coming from Pakistan's Tablighi Jamaat.

While law enforcementand the Military focuses attention on Osama bin Laden, the war on terrorism cannot be won unless al-Qaeda terrorists are understood to be the products of the Islamist ideology preached by groups like the Tablighi Jamaat. If the West chooses to turn a blind eye to the problem, Tablighi involvement in future terrorist activities at home and abroad is not a matter of conjecture; it is a certainty.

Posted by: Mackie at November 17, 2008 10:05 AM

Anyone give Obama his dues on this one?

He seems to have known Pakistan was going to be trouble...

Posted by: Gorgi at November 17, 2008 11:40 AM

Mackie,

Perhaps you'd rather be cavalier and ram that supply train through a heavily occupied region?

You could wear a big hunter orange patch in the shape of a target on your back that says:

"I am with Stupid! Free Supplies! Come and get them!"

It seemed to me the authorities in Pakistan were trying to manage supplies in a better way.

It was of course spun here at JW in the usual way: If they are Muslim, damn them if they do, damn then if they don't, and just damn them any way you can.

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 17, 2008 11:40 AM

Abdullah Mikail:

Your truth is not my truth. Pakistan has the 7th largest army in the world at over 620,000 strong. What efforts have the Pakistani Army made to protect the Khyber pass from Al Qaeda, and the Talaban? What efforts have they made with such a large army to root out OBL from the tribal areas? What efforts have they made to stamp out the Tablighi Jamaat who is in the forfront of so much terrorism throughout the world? Just asking.

Posted by: Mackie at November 17, 2008 12:36 PM

Mackie,

Stay on point.

It is a simple military fact.

So you are really not concerned that the Pakistan authorities are trying to prevent supplies from falling into enemy hands?

You just want to go on some tear because you feel they haven't done enough?

Is that your "truth?"

Peace
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 17, 2008 12:50 PM

Mr. Mackay:

Your peace is not my peace, your truth is not my truth,and as I was on point.

If you were able to grasp my question asking paragraph, might you take a stab at answering those questions.

Posted by: Mackie at November 17, 2008 1:00 PM

Mackie,

Your citizenship is my citizenship, argue that one, and was your service to this country the same as mine?

You were not on point, but digressed and asked me to analyze the why and the why not of Pakistani basic (per your opinion) non-involvement in OUR war with Al Qaeda.

Let me digress, how many times have we blown up Pakistani villages with unarmed drones firing missiles?

and further still:

How quick would the US be to respond to Mexicos cry for help in their war on drugs and if they they were continually blowing up Americans in their homes on this side of the border?

Yeah, there would be a loud "click" on the Whitehouse end of the hotline for help.

Think about it...

Truth, Peace, Citizenship, Service
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 17, 2008 1:42 PM

Mr. Mackay

You say I was not stay on point in regards to the Khyber Pass issue here. How did we somehow end up in Mexico in almost one sentence?

Quite frankly; I find you quite boring sir.

Posted by: Mackie at November 17, 2008 1:53 PM

From above:
How quick would the US be to respond to Mexicos cry for help in their war on drugs and if they they were continually blowing up Americans in their homes on this side of the border?

Yeah, there would be a loud "click" on the Whitehouse end of the hotline for help.

Think about it...
------------
What a brilliant analogy. That is, until you "think about it". Then it falls apart completely.

Now if the US were harboring terrorists responsible for committing unprovoked violent acts against the citizens of Mexico & around the globe, then the Mexican government would be completely justified in expecting genuine cooperation from the US. And they'd get it.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at November 17, 2008 1:59 PM

Mackie wrote:
You say I was not stay on point in regards to the Khyber Pass issue here. How did we somehow end up in Mexico in almost one sentence?

Quite frankly; I find you quite boring sir.
-----
Mackie - assuming AM is actually a man, this is his standard tactic. He can never reconcile the truth with his own beliefs.

Since he can't respond coherently to direct questions, this is all you will get. When you pin him on his logic, he just gets frustrated and starts name calling.

Don't take him seriously. Nobody else does.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at November 17, 2008 2:08 PM

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at November 17, 2008 1:59 PM

Sorry, Cool, I forgot that problem you have with making logical connections between seemingly unrelated things...I'll dumb it down for you in the future, okay?

"What a brilliant analogy. That is, until you "think about it". Then it falls apart completely."

Who provides the cartel market and the money for the drugs coming across our southern border?

"Now if the US were harboring terrorists responsible for committing unprovoked violent acts against the citizens of Mexico..."

"And they'd get it."

Well, genius, the problem is there on teh southern border and Mexico is not "getting it".

Get it?

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 17, 2008 2:25 PM

P.S. Cool Ghoul and Mackie,

Read Cornelius' post he seems to be the only rational one among you three.

Truth
Abdullah Mikail

Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at November 17, 2008 3:24 PM

With over 600,000 Men under Arms, the Pakistani Government should be capable of providing armed escorts.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 17, 2008 11:34 PM

Mr. Spencer,

I strongly suggest you pick up a map and have a look at ISAF's supply routes and why it has become necessary for Pakistan to do this to protect US supplies.

The Torkham border crossing is in the Khyber agency in FATA where the Pakistani government has basically never held any sway (the forays in 2002 were the first in 50 years). Just last week the Taliban seized a dozen US humvees and are perpetually harassing convoys going to this crossing. ISAF has been using Torkham for over seven years, if Pakistan was as duplicitous as you make them out to be, they simply wouldnt be able to.

Your simplistic analysis i.e. "well they're Muslims and this is what the Koran says etc." may be fine for your readers but you will never be taken seriously be anyone who actually understands the situation on the ground.

Best regards,

Posted by: Mpayne1 at November 18, 2008 12:53 AM

What's so impossible about re-directing the supply route? Just go from Karachi through Baluchistan to Kandahar, completely by-passing the NWFP and the "perilous mountain trail".

Or does that make too much sense?

Posted by: Cornelius at November 17, 2008 10:01 AM

You might have overlooked the fact that all those areas you mentioned are in Pakistan, which has the problem it has with the US.

The US did a great job criticizing the Uzbeks and other Turkic regimes in the region, and as a result, lost the bases they had there. It's high time the State Dept was disbanded and wrapped into the Pentagon. But this being the Obama administration, expect the opposite to happen.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 18, 2008 2:23 AM

IP,

No, I didn't overlook that fact. I'm suggesting that if the Pakistani rational for shutting the supply-line is legit, i.e., the Taliban's control over the Khyber Pass, then the alternate route through Quetta to Kandahar is the logical solution.

Should the Pakistanis balk, then it's obvious that the problem is as you suggest, political, rather than security-related.

PS - We did indeed lose our bases in Uzbekistan, but as far as I know, we continue to maintain a base presence in Tajikistan.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 18, 2008 6:07 AM

PSS - Abdullah, affirmations from you are the kiss of death here. Thanks but no thanks.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 18, 2008 6:09 AM

Cornelius,

AM made the irrational leap in logic that somehow your point was being dismissed or disputed - which it was not.

Posted by: The Cool Ghoul at November 18, 2008 11:29 AM

All debts called in.
Posted by: heroyalwhyness

That could become a slippery slope for a country with as much debt as ours...

Posted by: Richard at November 18, 2008 7:25 PM

This is a terrible dialogue, but a dialogue none the less.

For the Pakistani's, I look at it this way.

Because these supplies are going through their country at the moment, I do believe that they should supply security for those supply routs. However, the U.S. can only be so critical because we are using their territory and in a way, putting the Pakistani people in danger because of our "semi friendly" relationship.

Lastly, If those supplies are to be capture, those supplies may very well go toward the terrorists attacks in their own country. So in a way, they are protecting themselves until they can figure out how to secure the supply lines properly(which I have seen in the last couple days). Secondly, the US should be some what understanding because these supply lines continue to be attacked and they don't seem to have the will power to halt the travel until the routs are safe. So....I don't see all that much wrong with what happened.

That said, I am not within the inner negotiations between the Pakistani's and the Americans, so this is only my interpretation. I could be very wrong, so just look at it as an outsiders perspective. Don't freek out if you disagree. But comments questions and opinions are welcomed.

Posted by: jnyoung at November 19, 2008 1:12 PM

This is a terrible dialogue, but a dialogue none the less.

For the Pakistani's, I look at it this way.

Because these supplies are going through their country at the moment, I do believe that they should supply security for those supply routs. However, the U.S. can only be so critical because we are using their territory and in a way, putting the Pakistani people in danger because of our "semi friendly" relationship.

Lastly, If those supplies are to be capture, those supplies may very well go toward the terrorists attacks in their own country. So in a way, they are protecting themselves until they can figure out how to secure the supply lines properly(which I have seen in the last couple days). Secondly, the US should be some what understanding because these supply lines continue to be attacked and they don't seem to have the will power to halt the travel until the routs are safe. So....I don't see all that much wrong with what happened.

That said, I am not within the inner negotiations between the Pakistani's and the Americans, so this is only my interpretation. I could be very wrong, so just look at it as an outsiders perspective. Don't freek out if you disagree. But comments questions and opinions are welcomed.

Posted by: jnyoung at November 19, 2008 1:13 PM