ARmy Rumour SErvice

**alib** · 04-07-2012, 09:35

On the Battleland blog Magic Words Re-Open Pakistan Supply Routes: “We’re Sorry” By MARK THOMPSON

The good news is Pakistan has finally re-opened its overland supply routes to U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The bad news is that it took eight months – and $2.1 billion – to get Islamabad to agree. Plus, a U.S. apology. The two supply routes, which allow the U.S. to send food and fuel to troops in Afghanistan from the Pakistan port of Karachi, were shut down by Pakistan following an errant air strike last November 26 by U.S. forces that killed 24 Pakistani troops along their border with Afghanistan.

The U.S. had refused to apologize for the mistaken attack – contending there were errors on both sides – but Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broke that impasse in a Tuesday phone call with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. “We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military,” Clinton told Khar, a statement issued by the State Department said. “We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.”

The deal re-opening the so-called ground lines of communication – GLOCs – also had face-saving gestures by both sides: Pakistan agreed not to increase its tolls for such shipments, and the U.S. agreed it would not ship lethal aid via the routes unless it is intended for Afghan security forces.

“As I have made clear,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said, “we remain committed to improving our partnership with Pakistan and to working closely together as our two nations confront common security challenges in the region.”

Since the Pakistanis shuttered the routes last fall, U.S. supplies have had to either be flown in, or shipped overland from the north. ”On the ground, it is almost three times more expensive to come from the north as it does from Pakistan,” Vice Admiral Mark Harnitchek, director of the Defense Logistics Agency, said last week. “More expensive and slower.” It costs, he said, about $20,000 per container shipped through Russia and Central Asia, compared to about $7,000 when shipped through Pakistan. The U.S. had been paying about $250 in tolls to Pakistan before November’s attack. Following it, Islamabad was seeking as much as $5,000 per truck.

“There is a delta between the two sides on the charges that may be assigned to the reopening of the supply routes, and that’s something we have to work through,” Pentagon spokesman George Little told Battleland in May. “We are in a phase now where we’re trying to reset the relationship with Pakistan.”

Well that took longer than I expected.

**Brute** · 31-07-2012, 19:59

Originally Posted by alib

On NightWatch

Great statistical analysis but how about examining the actual nature of the attacks. Quality over quantity?

**Stonker** · 31-07-2012, 22:16

Originally Posted by Brute

Great statistical analysis but how about examining the actual nature of the attacks. Quality over quantity?

18 posts in a week, and slagging Alib, already.

A word of advice, from Napoleon: "Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted"

**Brute** · 01-08-2012, 23:36

Originally Posted by Stonker

18 posts in a week, and slagging Alib, already.

A word of advice, from Napoleon: "Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted"

Don't think I was 'slagging' anyone on here mate; more of a comment on the analysis of the writer of the article. Simply commented on a news story that measures a conflict purely through statistical analysis and clever wording. That aside, I couldn't give a monkeys about how senior and how long someone has been posting on a fucking internet forum. Poke your quotes!

**Kromeriz** · 21-08-2012, 15:26

BBC News - Afghan rocket attack damages US army chief plane

How big is Bagram and what sort of weapon would you need to land a round close to the plane?

**Brute** · 21-08-2012, 15:53

Originally Posted by Kromeriz

BBC News - Afghan rocket attack damages US army chief plane

How big is Bagram and what sort of weapon would you need to land a round close to the plane?

Think the answer is in the article shipmate. The picture at the bottom of the article shows you Bagram Airbase. Any weapon system can be used to target an aircraft. Depending on the type, Rockets can travel between 5-20km. Don't even need to be that accurate. If you fire enough in the general direction, eventually something of value is going to get hit.

Edited to add: Rocket on a sand mound: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_gEwNbG8uU

**OldSnowy** · 24-08-2012, 12:07

Latest typically sensible post from the well-respected US correspondent, Michael Yon:
Michael Yon - Online Magazine

Extract:
"Most people likely wish to hear that everything will turn out right in Afghanistan. The reality is that it will not end well. This bastard war will have a thousand fathers and nobody will claim it.
In 2009, I wrote, “If a writer wants to make money, he should avoid truth and tell people what they want to hear. Yet to win the war, tell the truth.” Since 2006, at minimum, the AfPak war on the whole has been going down. Only in 2010 did I see some flicker of hope for a change of direction. In my view, that flicker has been snuffed. And writing truthfully about Afghanistan will never pay the bills, because I have nothing to say that people want to hear. It is just bad news atop more bad news. Our continued losses in Afghanistan are for nothing. We should continue with a smaller presence to harass and kill terrorists, and losses from that are expected and part of the fight. But the ongoing larger war is going nowhere. We have been there since 2001. This is 2012. There is no vaguely discernible end. We should look at Afghanistan as a century-long project, to be put on a far backburner. The United States has problems to deal with at home.

On 21 January 2012, I published the following, and wish to reiterate today:
Time to Leave Afghanistan - This war is going to turn out badly. We are wasting lives and resources while the United States decays and other threats emerge. We led the horse to water. Importantly, there is no value in pretending that Pakistan is an ally. We should wish the best of luck to the Afghans, and the many peaceful Pakistanis, and accelerate our withdrawal of our main battle force. The US never has been serious about Afghanistan. Under General Petraeus we were starting to gain ground, but the current trajectory will land us in the mud. The enemies will never beat us in Afghanistan. Force on force, the Taliban are weak by comparison. Yet this is their home. There is only so much we can do at this extreme cost for the many good Afghan people. We must reduce our main effort and concentrate on other matters. Time to come home.

Sincerely,
Michael Yon"

He is pretty much spot-on the money, in my view - perticularly as regards the Pak position. As that is never going to be addressed, the problems with Pashtuns in AFG will never be solved.

**Robbeaus** · 24-08-2012, 13:13

The PakAfgan war was never about long term anything, except the need to lay an oil pipeline, through it.
In the 1970's the Pashtuns made up an significant element of Oman's armed forces, whenever the mention of Afgahn came up, there opinion was that the Brits had tried previously to interfere and had got there arses kicked. Its a shame war monger Blair didn't read his history books before he signed up for the grand, Shell/Exxon/BP, plan.
Whenever we do get out, the only credibility that will remain I feel is the re-enforcement that the Toms on the ground were the best at what they did. However the downside to that will be the Politicos who will be looking at the next folly [Iran, N Korea, Syria etc] with an attitude that might is right.

**OldSnowy** · 24-08-2012, 19:17

And today's second 'Good News' story:

Afghan Troops Killing Colleagues in Greater Numbers - NYTimes.com

"KABUL, Afghanistan — Even as attacks by Afghan security forces on NATO troops have become an increasing source of tension, new NATO data shows another sign of vulnerability for the training mission: even greater numbers of the Afghan police and military forces have killed each other this year.

So far, Afghan soldiers or police officers have killed 53 of their comrades and wounded at least 22 others in 35 separate attacks this year, according to NATO data provided to The New York Times by officials in Kabul. By comparison, at least 40 NATO service members were reported killed by Afghan security forces or others working with them.

Both figures fall under what officials call insider attacks, and both numbers have climbed sharply over the past two years, Western officials say. But while officials say that a vast majority of attacks on Western forces are born out of outrage or personal disputes, the Afghan-on-Afghan numbers are said in larger part to reflect a greater vulnerability to infiltration by the Taliban.

Further, there are concerns about cultural clashes within the rapidly expanding Afghan forces themselves, Afghan and NATO officials say, raising questions about their ability to weather the country’s deep factional differences after the NATO troop withdrawal in 2014."

It just gets better and better.

**Kromeriz** · 25-08-2012, 09:00

Originally Posted by Brute

Think the answer is in the article shipmate. The picture at the bottom of the article shows you Bagram Airbase. Any weapon system can be used to target an aircraft. Depending on the type, Rockets can travel between 5-20km. Don't even need to be that accurate. If you fire enough in the general direction, eventually something of value is going to get hit.

Edited to add: Rocket on a sand mound: 107 mm Rocket firing - YouTube

Sure. I have understood that the Taliban have Duska.s and RPGs amongst other weapons but had never heard of them being capable of firing rockets - Hamas supported by Iran and a benign Syria have had the capability but where are they getting rockets from now? And RPG has an effective range of around 200 metres.

Therefore, they were inside the wire, or base security is shite, or they have begun acquiring some serious hardware and the ability to use it.