Original Articles

Who is behind attacks on NATO supply trucks in Pakistan

Collateral damage: On Sunday, 3 October, at least six killed as NATO oil tankers were ambushed by the ISI's agents in Islamabad

There is now irrefutable evidence which suggests the following:

1. The ISI-Taliban Alliance (i.e., the Taliban in uniform and the Taliban in civil clothes) are behind recent attacks on NATO supply trucks in Pakistan

2. Pakistan’s foreign office is completely dominated by the ISI. Pakistan’s civilian government has no control on the country’s foreign policy. In particular, policies on India, Afghanistan, USA, UK etc are made in the army’s GHQ and implemented through their civilian servants (civil bureaucrats) in the foreign office.

3. There is currently an intense battle happening between the ISI and the CIA. Innocent Pakistanis and Afghanis are being killed in this battle by both spy agencies on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border.

Here is a selection of media reports which can be reviewed as an evidence to the above statements:

1. Pakistan shut down the Torkham border crossing – the most important NATO supply into Afghanistan – on Thursday in apparent protest of a NATO helicopter attack that killed three Pakistani soldiers on the frontier. It was the third such incursion into Pakistan in less than a week.

2. Senior U.S. officials acknowledged high tension between the two capitals that crested with the border closure. On the Pakistani side, the incursions into Pakistan by U.S. forces fighting in Afghanistan provoked an unusually strong government condemnation. On the U.S. side, publication of a video that may show Pakistani military officers summarily executing insurgents threatened to undermine public and congressional support for U.S. aid. (Source: Huffington Post)

3. “Oh Pakistani soldiers, shoot down the drones, cut the NATO supplies and abandon American’s war,” said a statement from the Pakistani branch of the international Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir.(Source: Huffington Post)

4. Just after midnight, about 10 suspected militants attacked 27 tankers parked at an ordinary truck stop on the edge of Shikarpur town in Sindh province, far from the Afghan border. They forced the drivers to flee by firing in the air before setting them ablaze, said police officer Abdul Hamid Khoso. A truck driver and his assistant were burned alive in the second attack on a single tanker in the parking lot of a restaurant in southeastern Baluchistan province, said police officer Mohammad Azam. (Source: Huffington Post)

5. Public reaction? Pakistan has not imposed any ban on the supply of goods to Nato forces but merely shut it down temporarily due to security reasons, Foreign Office Spokesperson Abdul Basit said on Sunday. “We did not ban Nato supplies. The temporary suspension comes in the wake of public reaction after the attacks. It will be restored when things get settled,” Basit told a British television channel. (Source: Express Tribune)

6. Taliban claim the attacks: Nato oil tankers in Shikarpur were torched by Taliban – By Mushtaq Yusufzai – PESHAWAR: Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack on Nato oil-tankers near Shikarpur in Sindh on Friday in which 27 tankers were burnt. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) spokesman Azam Tariq on Saturday called media people, including The News, from an undisclosed location and took the credit for the attack on oil-tankers in Sindh. He said the armed men who attacked the Nato supply vehicles in Sindh were in fact militants and affiliated with the TTP led by Hakimullah Mahsud. He said those involved in the first-ever attack on the Nato supplies in Sindh belonged to the mobile ‘Siyara Group.’ “They were local militants and had acquired training in South Waziristan and returned to their native towns to start attacks on government and security installations,” he claimed. Azam Tariq said 27 oil-tankers were destroyed in the attack. The oil-tankers, he said, were parked near a filling station in Shikarpur. The Taliban spokesman said they had already attacked Nato supplies in Peshawar, Khyber Agency, Islamabad and various places in Balochistan and the Punjab and would now target them in Sindh as well. (Source: The News, 3 Oct 2010)

7. The ISI-CIA battle: Analysts say that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are locked in an intense battle to secure their respective countries’ interests in the region. On Saturday U.S. helicopters violated Pakistan’s airspace and killed 50 people in the bordering area of the country near Afghanistan. And it seems that the ISI retaliated on Friday by torching NATO oil tankers for violating Pakistan’s airspace. The CIA stepped up its unmanned aerial bombing campaign in Pakistan. The CIA initiated 20 attacks with armed drones so far in September, as top officials work to stem the rise of U.S. casualties before the Obama administration’s review of its Afghanistan strategy in December, The New York Times reported Tuesday. Pakistan criticized a pair of NATO airstrikes on its territory, saying they were a violation of its sovereignty. U.S. officials have said they have an agreement that allows aircraft to cross a few miles (kilometers) into Pakistani airspace if they are in hot pursuit of a target. But Pakistan denied on Monday such an agreement exists. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a press release Monday that the mandate of foreign troops in Afghanistan ends at the Afghan border. Pakistan said that unless corrective measures are implemented, it will have to “consider response options.” (Source: Tehran Times)

8. The ISI’s admission: “Pakistan is not a walkover country,” warned the senior ISI official. If the United States continues its cross-border attacks, he said, “I will stand in the way of the convoys myself.” (Source: Washington Post)

9. ISI’s private support and public manoeuvring on the drone attacks: The ISI has privately backed the drone attacks, even though the Pakistani government publicly protests them. But the official cautioned that the recent barrage may be overkill. He said that by Pakistan’s count, of the 181 drone attacks since 2004, 75 have come in the past nine months. “The quality of the targets is not as good,” he said. “The perception is that you are trigger-happy.” Asked about American attempts to target the Haqqani network, a ruthless Taliban faction that in the past has had links with the ISI, the ISI official seemed to give a green light: “I would be happy if they go today. It will end so much trouble for Pakistan.” But he said Pakistan would oppose any attempt to widen the so-called “box” within which Predator drones can strike targets. (Source: Washington Post)

About the author

SK

16 Comments

Click here to post a comment
  • Collateral damage by the ISI’s ‘drone’

    Six killed as NATO oil tankers ambushed in Islamabad

    * NATO supply remains suspended for 4th day

    * FO says Pakistan will reopen supply route once public anger over NATO incursions eases, security improves

    LAHORE/ISLAMABAD: At least six people were killed and seven injured as unidentified miscreants opened fire at NATO oil tankers near the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) in Islamabad, a private TV channel reported on Sunday.

    According to details, the incident occurred in DHA Phase 2, where the NATO containers’ convoy was moving. Some unidentified gunmen opened fire on the oil containers and torched over 20 of them, the channel said. Firefighters were called from across Islamabad who tried their best to put off the fire. Rescue teams shifted the injured to a nearby hospital while large contingents of police have been deployed in the area, which cordoned off the area. According to sources, law enforcement agencies are investigating about suspected terrorists and their motives behind the attack, the channel reported.

    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\04\story_4-10-2010_pg1_5

  • نیٹو سپلائی آئل ٹینکرز پر حملہ، چھ ہلاک

    اسلام آباد میں رواں سال جون میں نیٹو سپلائی ٹینکرز اور کنٹینرز پر حملے میں سات افراد ہلاک ہو گئے تھے

    پاکستان کے وفاقی دارالحکومت اسلام آباد کے نواحی علاقے سہالہ کے قریب حکام کا کہنا ہے کہ نیٹو سپلائی کے آئل ٹینکرز پر نامعلوم مسلح افراد کے حملے میں کم از کم چھ افراد ہلاک اور نو زخمی ہوگئے۔

    یہ واقعہ اتوار اور پیر کی درمیانی شب پیش کو آیا ہے۔

    ایس پی رورل ایریا عمر حیات نے بی بی سی کو بتایا کے پچیس کے قریب آئل ٹینکرز جو پشاور سے آئے تھے، راولپنڈی میں واقع اٹک آئل ریفائنری پر تیل بھروانے کے لیے قطار میں کھڑے تھے۔

    کلِک ’نیٹو ٹینکروں کا جلنا عوامی ردعمل تھا‘

    کلِک ’ نیٹو سپلائی جلد بحال شروع ہو جائے گی‘

    انھوں نے بتایا کہ اس دوران چند نامعلوم مسلح افراد نے ان آئل ٹینکرز پر فائرنگ کردی جس کے نتیجے میں چھ افراد موقع پر ہی ہلاک ہوگئے جبکہ فائرنگ کے نتیجے میں نو افراد زخمی بھی ہوئے۔

    فائرنگ کے نتیجے میں دس آئل ٹینکرز مکمل طور پر تباہ ہوگئے جب کہ باقی ماندہ ٹینکروں میں لگنی والی آگ پر قابو پانے کی کوشش کی کی جا رہی ہے
    ایس پی عمر حیات
    ایس پی عمر حیات نے بی بی سی کے نامہ نگار شہزاد ملک کو بتایا کہ فائرنگ کے نتیجے میں دس آئل ٹینکرز مکمل طور پر تباہ ہوگئے جب کہ باقی ماندہ ٹینکروں میں لگنی والی آگ پر قابو پانے کی کوشش کی کی جا رہی ہے۔

    پولیس حکام کا کہنا ہے کہ اس واقع میں ہلاک ہونے والے افراد آگ سے ہلاک نہیں ہوئے بلکہ اُن کے جسموں پر گولیوں کے نشانات موجود ہیں۔

    ایس پی رورل ایریا کا کہنا ہے کہ یہ ٹینکرز رات کے وقت سفر کرتے ہیں کیونکہ دن کی روشنی میں ان ٹینکروں پر حملہ ہونے کے خطرات بدستور موجود رہتے ہیں۔

    اسلام آباد کے قائم مقام ایس ایس پی میر وعظ نے کہا ہے کہ حملہ آوروں کی تعداد آٹھ سے دس کے قریب تھی جو فرار ہونے میں کامیاب ہو گئے ہیں۔

    انھوں نے بتایا کہ علاقے کی ناکہ بندی کی دی گئی ہے اور حملہ آوروں کی تلاش کا کام جاری ہے۔

    ایس ایس پی میر واعظ کے مطابق جس وقت نیٹو سپلائی کے آئل ٹینکرز پر حملہ کیا گیا اس وقت وہ روانگی کے لیے تیار تھے۔

    بیس کے قریب آئل ٹینکرز روزانہ رات کے وقت پیٹرول بھروانے کے لیے آتے ہیں۔ہ جس جگہ یہ واقعہ ہوا ہے وہاں پر سیکورٹی کے کوئی انتظامات نہیں دیکھائی دیے اور نہ ہی متعلقہ تھانے کی پولیس کے اہلکار اس علاقے میں گشت کرتے ہوئے نظر آتے ہیں
    راجہ رشید
    جائے حادثہ پر موجود ایک شخص راجہ رشید کا کہنا تھا کہ بیس کے قریب آئل ٹینکرز روزانہ رات کے وقت پیٹرول بھروانے کے لیے آتے ہیں۔

    انہوں نے کہا کہ جس جگہ یہ واقعہ ہوا ہے وہاں پر سیکورٹی کے کوئی انتظامات نہیں دیکھائی دیے اور نہ ہی متعلقہ تھانے کی پولیس کے اہلکار اس علاقے میں گشت کرتے ہوئے نظر آتے ہیں۔

    متعلقہ تھانے کے انچارج محمد ارشد کا کہنا ہے کہ پولیس کو اس کی اطلاع نہیں دی جاتی کہ آئل ٹینکرز تیل بھروانے کے لیے یہاں آتے ہیں۔

    انہوں نے کہا کہ ان آئل ٹینکروں کے ساتھ نجی سیکورٹی کے اہلکار موجود ہوتے ہیں جو ان کی سیکورٹی کے ذمہ دار ہیں۔

    واضح رہے کہ رواں سال جون میں اسلام آباد کے ہی نواحی علاقے سنگ جانی کے قریب ناملعوم مسلح افراد نے افغانستان میں نیٹو افواج کو تیل اور دوسری اشیاء فراہم کرنے والے آئل ٹینکروں اور کنٹینروں کو آگ لگادی۔ اس واقعے میں سات افراد ہلاک ہوگئے تھے۔

    اس واقعہ کے تحقیقات کرنے والی ٹیم نے متعلقہ تھانے کے اُس وقت کے انچارج سمیت دو افراد کو ذمہ دار قرار دیتے ہوئے اُنہیں نوکریوں سے برطرف کردیا تھا۔

    کالعدم تنظیم تحریک طالبان نے اس حملے کے ذمہ داری قبول کی تھی جبکہ پاکستان کے دفتر خارجہ کے ترجمان عبدالباسط کا کہنا تھا کہ نیٹو آئل ٹینکرز پر حملہ عوامی ردعمل تھا۔
    گزشتہ ہفتے جمعرات اور جمعہ کی درمیانی شب کو صوبہ سندھ کے شہر شکارپور کے نزدیک مسلح افراد نے حملہ کر کے نیٹو سپلائی کے ستائیس آئل ٹینکرز کو تباہ کر دیا تھا۔

    کالعدم تنظیم تحریک طالبان نے اس حملے کے ذمہ داری قبول کی تھی جبکہ پاکستان کے دفتر خارجہ کے ترجمان عبدالباسط کا کہنا تھا کہ نیٹو آئل ٹینکرز پر حملہ عوامی ردعمل تھا۔

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/10/101003_islamabad_nato_tanker_torched.shtml

  • Who to trust:

    ’نیٹو ٹینکروں کا جلنا عوامی ردِ عمل تھا‘

    پاکستان کے قبائلی علاقےخیبر ایجنسی میں لنڈی کوتل کے مقام پر نیٹو فورسز کو تیل سپلائی کرنے والے ٹینکرز کو نامعلوم افراد نےدھماکوں سے اڑا دیا

    پاکستان کی وزرات خارجہ کے ترجمان نے کہا ہے کہ نیٹو کے ٹینکروں پر حملہ عوامی ردِ عمل تھا اور پاکستانی حدود میں نیٹو کی مبینہ کارروئیوں کی مشترکہ تحقیقات شروع ہو رہی ہیں۔

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/10/101002_nato_fo_pak.shtml

    آئل ٹینکرز پر حملہ ہم نے کیا: طالبان

    پاکستان سے اتحادی افواج کو سامانِ رسد کی فراہمی کا سلسلہ تیسرے دن بھی تعطل کا شکار ہے

    تحریک طالبان پاکستان کے شکارپور کے نزدیک افغانستان میں تعینات نیٹو افواج کے لیے رسد لے جانے والے آئل ٹینکرز تباہ کر نے کی ذمہ داری قبول کی ہے۔

    یکم اکتوبر کو نامعلوم افراد نے حملہ کرکے افغانستان میں تعینات نیٹو افواج کے لیے رسد لے جانے والے ستائیس آئل ٹینکرز تباہ کردیئے تھے۔

    کلِک نیٹو آئل ٹینکرز پر حملہ: تصاویر

    کلِک نیٹو آئل ٹینکرز پر حملہ، ستائیس نذر آتش

    کالعدم تحریک طالبان پاکستان کے مرکزی ترجمان اعظم طارق نے بی بی سی کو ٹیلفون کرکے بتایا کہ شکار پور کے نزدیک نیٹو افواج کے لیے رسد لے جانے والے آئل ٹینکرز پر سیارہ گروپ نے حملہ کیا ہے۔

    ترجمان کے مطابق سیارہ گروپ کاروان بیت اللہ کروپ کا حصہ ہے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ نیٹو افواج کے لیے رسد لے جانے والے ہر قسم کے گاڑیوں پر مزید حملے کرینگے۔ جس کے لیے پنجاب، سندہ، بلوچستان اور خیبر پختونخواہ میں ان کے جنگجو موجود ہیں۔

    انہوں نے بتایا کہ سیارہ گروپ کی تشکیل جنوبی وزیرستان سے ہوئی ہے البتہ ہر علاقے میں ان کے ساتھ مقامی لوگ بھی شامل ہیں۔

    اعظم طارق نے الزام لگایا کہ بعض صحافی امریکی پروپیگنڈے کا حصہ بنے ہوئے ہیں اور اپنے قلم کو طالبان کے خلاف استعمال کرنے میں مصروف ہیں۔

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/10/101002_taliban_nato.shtml

  • October 03, 2010

    So, How Much Did Petraeus’ Mistake Hurt NATO Supplies?

    By Steve Hynd

    It’s inconceivable that last week’s cross-border incursions in to Pakistan by US helicopters – in which three Pakistani frontier guards were killed by American gunfire – could have been authorised anywhere but at the highest levels of NATO command in the region. Specifically, General David Petraeus would have had to green-light crossing the border.

    Did he not get the memo from 2008, the last time such incursions caused five closures of supply routes through Pakistan in as many months as well as Pakistani threats to shoot down any further copters across the border, or did he just not care at the time? Did he not undrestand, as most anyone who watches the region does, that while drones flying from Pakistani bases may be one thing, manned incursions across the border that kill Pakistanis in uniform are quite another? As analyst Amil Khan, aka Londonistani, wrote on Friday:

    The hostility of the Pakistani public to U.S. actions in the region is obvious. However, any Pakistani government, whether civilian or military, will have to cooperate with the United States while managing public anger towards its benefactor. This increases the chances of both governments being pushed into secret, backroom deals that are less open to scrutiny and more likely to compound difficulties when they are uncovered. It also pushes the Pakistani authorities into a corner where they are forced to undertake face-saving actions such as the suspension of the NATO supply lines.

    Public opinion also matters when it comes to the army. In London a few months ago, I heard Anatol Lieven of Kings College answer a question about the likely outcomes of increased ISAF incursions into Pakistani territory by saying, “Two things are likely to happen; the Pakistani army’s rank and file may decide to sit on their rifles and disobey orders. Or, they may walk away with their weapons and decide to fight the intruders themselves.”

    My conversations with young, lower-ranking military personnel suggest that Dr. Lieven is probably right. Young officers feel the country’s political leaders have given away the independence they have sworn to protect and tarnished the national pride their institution is supposed to embody. Under these circumstances, a military government would feel the same pressure – perhaps even more keenly. As imperfect as the U.S.-Pakistani military relationship is, a fracture in Pakistan’s army serves no one, and repeats dark murmurings about the United States’ ultimate plans to dismember Pakistan.

    Military action is achieving little in this conflict. And although it might provide useful measures for justifying the conflict to war-weary publics and legislators, the ill thought-out use of violence is counter productive.

    If the Saintly general didn’t care before, he certainly cares now. Petraeus ended up calling General Kayani of Pakistan to apologise personally. Twenty seven tankers of fuel went up in smoke in what Pakistani authorities were said to have described as “just an indication of what could happen if Pakistan were to stop providing security to the convoys.” Hundreds of further tankers and container trucks are sitting by the roadside still, vulnerable, as the closure of the Torkham border crossing continues. Pakistan is now saying, post Petraeus’ apology, that the crossing will reopen as soon as public anger dies down. However, even once Torkham re-opens I think we can expect a series of closures over the next few months – just as in 2008/09 – as the Pakistani military first “accidentally” looks the other way so that militants can attack convoys, then closes the crossings for “security reasons” as they pretend to “hunt” those same militants.

    With reportedly about 50% of non-lethal supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan coming through just two crossings from Pakistan – and all of that via the port of Karachi – potential for disruption of NATO logistics is pretty high. (The 80% you will see in some press reports is outdated by a year and more.) The so-called Northern Distribution Network (NDN), handles 30% of all supply traffic and another 20% by air. However, the monthly average of non-fuel supplies through Pakistan is still 4,200 containers, compared with 1,457 by the NDN, and the bulk of the fuel delivered via the North is aviation gas rather than diesel and gasoline for ground vehicles and generators. The NDN is also far slower and far more costly.

    Recently, supply traffic through Pakistan had been reduced by up to 80% by floodwaters which had only just abated enough for full traffic to resume. Now it has been halted again, even if temporarily. Although NATO officials keep saying that all of this hasn’t hurt operational effectiveness, NATO only keeps a maximum of 30 days logistic reserve in its vast storage facilities inside Afghanistan – a modern army eats up fuel and supplies like a black hole. Those reserves must have been seriously impacted at the very time the offensive in the Kandahar region – the key offensive of the US military’s COIN strategy – hits full swing.

    It seems that either NATO is in serious danger of hitting a supply “wall” or it is hanging on only by moving supplies through the NDN – at somewhere between three and five times the cost, which taxpayers must pay. Shortages must eventually hit operational effectiveness, if not in Kandahar then in other regions which are less important. And the Pakistani populace and military have a whole new set of reasons to be pissed at the ongoing occupation in the country next door.

    All because Petraeus got cocky and forgot or ignored what happened in 2008. Still, I’ve yet to see anything in the mainstream media that questions the Teflon General’s judgement in precipitating this course of events.

    http://www.newshoggers.com/blog/2010/10/so-how-much-did-petraeus-mistake-hurt-nato-supplies.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Newshog+(NewsHog)

  • I disagree with the author. Pakistan army has made many efforts in curbing. The allegation of ISI-Taliban nexus is a based on pointless conspiracy theories.

  • It is so obvious that these attacks are a drama of ISI and the FO shamelessly call it the people’s reaction. I wonder after all the atrocities of Taliban how come they still have a gall to embrace them at the slightest upheaval in our relations with USA or NATO. Why one thing implies the other? Also what this so called people’s govt. doing? What is the point in just hanging on there? Who does it help? Just shut the ISI up and tell them to do what we ask you to do or get lost. Fire the FO spokeperson. What will the ISI do? Fire the goverment? Do they have this option? This spineless attitude has got us nowhere in last 20 years.

  • نیٹو رسد کی حفاظت: ذمہ دار کون؟

    آصف فاروقی
    بی بی سی اردو ڈاٹ کام، اسلام آباد

    ’کراچی سے طورخم تک ہر آئل ٹینکر پر پولیس کا پہرہ نہیں بٹھایا جا سکتا‘۔

    پاکستان کی بندرگاہ سے افغانستان میں تعینات اتحادی افواج کے لیے تیل لے کر جانے والے ٹینکرز پر گزشتہ چند روز کے دوران حملوں میں خاصا اضافہ دیکھنے میں آیا ہے لیکن حکومت پاکستان پندرہ سو کلومیٹر کے اس طویل سفر کے دوران اس سامان رسد کی حفاظت کی ذمہ داری لینے پر بظاہر آمادہ دکھائی نہیں دیتی۔

    سابق صدر پرویز مشرف کے دور میں ہونے والے ایک معاہدے کے تحت حکومت پاکستان نے نیٹو افواج تک رسد کی فراہمی کے لیے اپنی سرزمین استعمال کرنے کی اجازت دی تھی لیکن گزشتہ چند روز کے دوران ان ٹینکروں پر حملوں کے بعد ایک نیا سوال سامنے آیا ہے کہ کیا ان ٹرکوں اور ٹینکروں کو بحفاظت افغانستان کی سرحد تک پہنچانا کیا پاکستان کی ذمہ داری نہیں ہے۔ پولیس حکام اور ایف سی اہلکار بار بار اپنے بیانات میں کہہ رہے ہیں کہ ان ٹرکوں کو سکیورٹی فراہم کرنا ان کی ذمہ داری نہیں ہے۔

    پاکستان میں امریکی سفارتخانے کے ترجمان رچرڈ سنیلسئر کے مطابق اس معاملے پر دو رائے ہو ہی نہیں سکتیں کہ پاکستان سے گزرنے والے سامانِ رسد کو شر پسندوں سے محفوظ رکھنا پاکستانی حکومت کی ذمہ داری ہے۔

    بی بی سی کے اس سوال پر کہ کیا پاکستان اور امریکہ کے درمیان ہونے والے معاہدے میں درج ہے کہ اس سامان کی حفاظت کی ذمہ داری پاکستان پر عائد ہوتی ہے، ترجمان نے کہا کہ پاکستانی سرزمین پر کسی بھی مسافر یا سامان کی حفاظت کی ذمہ داری ریاست کی ہوتی ہے لہذا نیٹو افواج کے لیے جانے والے ان ٹرکوں کی حفاظت کے لیے کسی معاہدے کی ضرورت نہیں ہے۔

    رچرڈ سنیلسئر کا کہنا تھا کہ امریکہ اور نیٹو افواج افغانستان تک رسد پہنچانے کے لیے مختلف نجی کمپنیوں کو ٹھیکہ دیتی ہیں جو یہ سامان مطلوبہ منزل تک پہنچانے کی ذمہ دار ہوتی ہیں۔

    ’ہم سمجھتے ہیں کہ جیسے دنیا کے کسی بھی ملک میں سفر کے دوران آپ اور آپ کے سامان کی حفاظت ریاست کی ذمہ داری ہوتی ہے، بالکل اسی طرح نیٹو کے لیے سامان لے جانے والے ٹرکوں کی حفاظت بھی پاکستانی ریاست کے فرائض میں شامل ہے‘۔

    گزشتہ چند روز کے دوران دیگر شہروں کے علاوہ وفاقی دارالحکومت اسلام آباد میں بھی نیٹو کے لیے تیل لے جانے والے ان ٹرکوں کو نشانہ بنایا گیا ہے۔

    ٹینکروں حملے سڑکوں یا شہراہوں سے گزرتے ہوئے نہیں ہوتے بلکہ ان اڈوں پر ہوتے ہیں جو حکام کے بقول غیر قانونی ہیں۔

    اس سوال پر کہ پاکستان کے مختلف علاقوں سے گزرنے والے ٹرکوں کو شر پسندوں سے محفوظ رکھنا کیا پولیس کے فرائض میں شامل نہیں ہے، اسلام آباد پولیس کے ڈی آئی جی بن یامین نے کہا کہ اصولی طور پر تو یہ پولیس کی ذمہ داری ہے لیکن نیٹو آئل ٹینکرز کا معاملہ ذرا مختلف ہے۔

    ’ان ٹینکروں کو جس قسم کے خطرات لاحق ہیں اور پولیس کے پاس جتنی نفری ہے، اس کے پیش نظر کراچی سے طورخم تک ہر آئل ٹینکر پر پولیس کا پہرہ نہیں بٹھایا جا سکتا‘۔

    اسلام آباد پولیس کے ڈپٹی انسپکٹر جنرل نے کہا کہ اب تک ان آئل ٹینکرز پر جتنے بھی حملے ہوئے ہیں ان میں سے بیش تر سڑک پر چلتے نہیں بلکہ نجی اڈوں پر ہوئے ہیں جہاں ان کے ڈرائیورز سستانے کے لیے ٹھہرتے ہیں۔

    ’اگر ان اڈوں کے مالکان ہم سے خصوصی درخواست کریں تو ہم ان اڈوں کی حفاظت کی ذمہ داری لے سکتے ہیں‘۔

    بن یامین کے مطابق آئل ٹینکروں کے ایسے بیش تر اڈے غیر قانونی ہیں اور پولیس کسی غیر قانونی اڈے کی حفاظت نہیں کر سکتی ہے۔

    یاد رہے کہ پاکستان امریکہ سے افغانستان میں تعینات غیر ملکی افواج کو سہولت فراہم کرنے کی مد میں خاصی بڑی رقم سالانہ فیس کے طور پر وصول کرتا ہے ایسے میں مبصرین کا کہنا ہے کہ نیٹو افواج کے لیے سامان کی بحفاظت ترسیل کو ممکن بنانا پاکستانی حکومت اور اس کے ان اداروں کی ذمہ دای ہے جو اس فیس کی وصولی میں حصہ دار ہیں

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/2010/10/101006_nato_tankers_security.shtml

  • US scrambling for alternate route to Af-Pak amid spat with Islamabad

    WASHINGTON: The United States is scrambling to extricate itself from a logistical nightmare in the Af-Pak theatre. Multiple attacks on US/ Nato convoys (six by last count) by Pakistani militants, aggravated by Islamabad closing a key supply route (now in its 7th day), is forcing Washington to move to an alternate supply chain to reduce dependency on Pakistan.
    US officials say the situation is far from dire and military operations in Afghanistan could continue to be fully supplied even if Pakistan continues what amounts to a blockade. “It has not in any way impacted our ability to resupply fuel to our operations around Afghanistan,” Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said on Tuesday. “And we don’t suspect it will even if this were to last into the future.”

    But the growing crisis, amid deteriorating relations with Pakistan, is driving Washington to accelerate the switch to the so-called “Northern Distribution Network” through Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asian states. The U.S has already opened five supply routes from the countries north of Afghanistan, according to Lisa Curtis, a regional analyst with the Heritage Foundation.

    Curtis is among the experts recommending an alternate supply chain to reduce American reliance on Pakistan, which is said to currently account for 80 per cent of non-lethal supplies into the Af-Pak theatre. “U.S. dependence on Pakistani supply routes provides Islamabad leverage to resist U.S. pressure to shut down Taliban sanctuaries and to crack down more forcefully on terrorist networks that attack coalition forces across the border and threaten the overall mission in Afghanistan,” she warned in a paper this week.

    For now though, the Obama administration is still trying to work things out with an increasingly recalcitrant ally. Pentagon officials said there had been some progress in talks with Islamabad about the Nato chopper attack on a Pakistani post (which caused Islamabad to retaliate with the shutdown) and the US hope to “have the gate reopened as soon as possible.”

    Late on Wednesday, the U.S made what clearly was a pro-forma apology to Pakistan to get things rolling. “We extend our deepest apology to Pakistan and the families of the Frontier Scouts who were killed and injured,” US ambassador to Pakistan Anne Patterson said after nearly three days of talks between the two sides over the border spat.

    But US officials are also signaling that its switching to an alternate route could hurt Pakistan commercially and otherwise, even as the White House on Tuesday turned the heat on Islamabad, virtually accusing it backing off in the war on terrorism. Suggesting that Pakistan itself would benefit from reopening the border, Pentagon’s Morrell described the supply chain as a “huge commercial enterprise” for Pakistan.

    In fact, the two countries, which some US analysts are now saying are virtually at war, battled for days over two key issues: Resolving the chopper attack and the issue of hot pursuit, and protection for the Nato convoys.

    In the first instance, Pakistan was said to be insisting on an outright apology for the chopper attack and assurances that Nato forces will not cross the border in hot pursuit. But the US military is in no mood to offer this, and is in fact, insisting that it attacked the Pakistani post in self-defense after its choppers were fired on as they tailed terrorists fleeing back to safe havens in Pakistan.

    Under the arrangement that emerged on Wednesday, the apology came from the U.S State Department; the U.S military only offered regrets.

    The two sides are also locked in war of words over responsibility for protecting the supply convoys. With attacks on the supply chain extending from outside Karachi in the south to outside Islamabad in the north, Pakistan’s civilian dispensation has thrown up its hands, saying it is not responsible for the security.

    But US officials say they are by prior arrangement. In fact, a Pentagon official said the Pakistanis do not get paid until the supplies, mainly fuel, is delivered to the point of destination in Afghanistan. “So they have incentive to protect the convoys, to make sure that the situation is such that they can get to their destination safely,” Pentagon’s Morrell said.

    The suspicion in Washington – and even among some Pakistani experts – is that the attacks on Nato convoys are being engineered by the Pakistani intelligence community, possibly renegade elements among them. “‘Militants’ torched Nato supplies in Shikarpur and Islamabad two nights apart? Tell me another. Who in heaven are we trying to fool?” Kamran Shafi, a Pakistani analyst known for his trenchant views on the military state, said in his column in Dawn newspaper.

    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/US-scrambling-for-alternate-route-to-Af-Pak-amid-spat-with-Islamabad/articleshow/6702512.cms

    http://www.etamiltv.com/us-scrambling-for-alternate-route-to-af-pak-amid-spat-with-islamabad/

  • This is in response to the article by Abdul Nishapuri regd the Taliban ISI alliance.
    I did not read more than the opening line and am wondering who Mr Abdul is. Please do elaborate and tell us how you are a part of ppp if at all?

  • Convoys blocked, but not Taliban

    Pakistan allows thousands to pass through border gates without checks.

    By Dion Nissenbaum
    McClatchy Newspapers
    Posted: Friday, Oct. 08, 2010

    A Pakistani girl walks past flames as people collect oil leaked from NATO tankers after an attack in Pakistan Thursday. MOHAMMAD SAJJAD – AP

    MORE INFORMATION
    Shrine attacked

    TORKHAM, Afghanistan For more than a week since a U.S. helicopter strike killed two Pakistani paramilitary soldiers, Pakistan has blocked scores of Western supply convoys on the vital route that supports the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.

    Yet every day, say taxi drivers, security officials and border shop owners, Taliban insurgents cross from Pakistan into Afghanistan without a second glance from border officials.

    “Every day, 40,000 to 70,000 people pass through the border. We can’t handle it,” said Gen. Mohammed Zaman Mamozai, the commander of the Afghan Border Police stationed at Torkham gate. “For us it’s very difficult, and it’s not possible to ask every single person where they are going and if they have a passport.”

    “If they want to come to Afghanistan, none out of a hundred will be arrested,” said Sediqullah, an Afghan taxi driver, as he waited for Torkham-bound passengers outside Kabul.

    Among the thousands of men he’s picked up at the border, Sediqullah, who like many Afghans has only one name, suspects that he’s unwittingly driven plenty of inconspicuous Taliban insurgents heading to fight U.S.-led military forces across Afghanistan.

    Pakistan’s willingness to allow sanctuary for Afghan insurgents long has strained ties with the United States, and its closing of one of NATO’s critical supply routes to Afghanistan added to tension. However, Afghanistan shares the blame for not guarding its own front door.

    For nearly a decade, the U.S. has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to cut off the remote high-altitude mountain trails that Taliban forces use to smuggle weapons and fighters into Afghanistan.

    Now, the U.S. military is turning its attention to the border crossing.

    “More and more we’ve realized that they are not coming through the passes, they’re just coming through the … gate,” said a U.S. government official in Afghanistan who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could candidly discuss the unfolding plan to focus on the border crossing.

    The U.S.-led coalition is setting up a special task force in eastern Afghanistan to deal with the insurgents who are coming into the country through the front door.

    Torkham is one of America’s busiest military lifelines into Afghanistan. About half of the U.S.-led military coalition’s supplies come through Torkham, which is on the western edge of the Khyber Pass, and the southern crossing at Spin Boldak, Afghanistan.

    Not only have convoys headed for Torkham been idled, but Taliban in Pakistan also have claimed credit for a series of attacks on fuel trucks along the country’s second supply route bound for NATO bases in Afghanistan.

    Less dramatic, but just as troubling, is the suspected flow of insurgents using the porous crossing to dispatch new fighters, coordinate attacks and return to relative safety on the Pakistan side of the border.

    No one can say how many foreign fighters pass through Torkham. Mamozai said he suspects that more insurgents use clandestine routes, but Torkham now has the attention of the U.S. military.

    The Taliban presence is clearly evident at Torkham. One recent morning, travelers and shopkeepers were wary of speaking with English-speaking reporters.

    A few hundred yards from the Pakistani border, a beat-up station wagon played religious tunes over two dented megaphones haphazardly strapped to the car’s roof.

    Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/08/1746531/convoys-blocked-but-not-taliban.html#ixzz11kRSOlAR

  • Yum…love muffins! My favorite muffins are bran muffins. I know that sounds weird…but they are so good! I like the tops to be really crusty and then fluffy on the inside! YUM!!!