iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Pakistan Cuts NATO Supply Line In Apparent Retaliation For Killed Troops

CHRIS BRUMMITT and DEB RIECHMANN   09/30/10 10:22 PM ET   AP

Pakistan Nato
Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari attends the Pakistan donors conference at a Tokyo hotel, Japan, Friday, April 17, 2009.(AP Photo/Itsuo Inouye)

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan closed the Khyber Pass supply route for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan after a coalition helicopter attack mistakenly killed three Pakistani soldiers at a border post Thursday, raising tensions in a vital relationship for both Islamabad and Washington.

NATO said its helicopters entered Pakistani airspace and hit a target only after receiving ground fire. The alliance expressed condolences to the families of the soldiers and said both nations would investigate the incident.

A lengthy ban on supply trucks would place intense strain on the U.S.-Pakistani relationship and hurt the Afghan war effort. But that was seen as unlikely, as neither Islamabad nor Washington can afford a meltdown in ties at a crucial time in the 9-year-old war.

Briefly closing the route would serve a different purpose – a timely reminder by Pakistan of the leverage it has over the United States in Afghanistan just as the American-led coalition there is under growing public and political pressure to show success.

The blockade left 150 trucks lined up along the fabled Khyber Pass carrying fuel, military vehicles, spare parts, clothing and other non-lethal supplies for foreign troops. Pakistan's other main route into landlocked Afghanistan, in Chaman in the southeast, stayed open.

While NATO and the United States have alternative supply routes into Afghanistan, the Pakistani ones are the cheapest and most convenient. Some 80 percent of the coalition's non-lethal supplies are transported over Pakistani soil after being unloaded at docks in Karachi, a port city in the south.

It was the third time in less than a week that NATO choppers in pursuit of militants behind attacks on coalition bases have crossed over the Pakistani border and fired on targets. Pakistani officials had warned after the earlier strikes that they would stop allowing NATO convoys if it happened again.

The NATO attacks follow a recent surge in missile strikes by CIA drones at Taliban and al-Qaida militants taking shelter in Pakistan out of reach of U.S. ground forces.

While the Pakistani leadership has quietly accepted drone strikes over the last three years and even provides intelligence for some of them, closing the border crossing was a clear signal it will not compromise on allowing foreign troops or manned aircraft inside its territory.

"We will have to see whether we are allies or enemies," Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik said of the border incident, without mentioning the decision to close the border.

The move shows Pakistan's deep sensitivities over foreign forces on its doorstep. While nominally allied with Americans against the shared threat of Islamist militants, polls show many Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy. Conspiracy theories abound of U.S. troops wanting to invade Pakistan and seize its nuclear weapons.

The spike in drone attacks this month – and the NATO's apparent increased willingness to attack targets on the border or just inside Pakistan – could be a sign that the coalition wants to try to expand its reach inside this country. Militants behind attacks in Afghanistan have enjoyed relative safe haven in Pakistan.

Thursday's strike took place soon after dawn on the border between Pakistan's Upper Kurram province and Afghanistan's Paktia province.

NATO said its helicopters crossed into Pakistan in pursuit of a target after being fired upon.

The Pakistani army said two approaching NATO helicopters fired on a post 200 meters (656 feet) inside the border. Its border force returned fire with rifles. Then the choppers rocketed the position, killing three officers and wounding three others, the army said.

Several hours later, Pakistani officials reported another rocket strike by NATO helicopters about nine miles (15 kilometers) from the first one, causing no damage or injuries. The army statement did not refer to that incident.

Pentagon officials said they were trying to clarify exactly what happened and were talking to the Pakistani government. The U.S. Defense Department said it was too soon to know what impact the border crossing closure would have.

"We expect this matter to be resolved through continued dialogue," spokesman Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan said.

The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is poorly defined and the terrain is rough. In 2008, 11 Pakistan border troops were killed when a U.S. plane mistakenly bombed them. That same year, U.S. helicopters and Pakistani ground troops briefly traded fire, causing tensions to spike for several days.

Frontier troops wear uniforms that resemble the traditional Pakistani dress of a long shirt and baggy trousers, which could make it hard to distinguish them from ordinary citizens or insurgents.

NATO said the closing of the Torkham border crossing, the busiest entryway for NATO and U.S. goods into Afghanistan, had not strained the coalition's supply operation.

Both the Khyber Pass and Chaman routes have occasionally closed for several days in recent years after major militant attacks on the road or disagreements between truckers and authorities. Pakistani security forces protect the convoys.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani told visiting CIA director Leon Panetta that Pakistan was "profoundly concerned" about the helicopter incursions and the increased drone strikes. "Pakistan being a front-line ally in the war against terror expects its partners to respect its territorial sovereignty," he said, according to a statement from his office.

Moeed Yusuf, from the United States Institute of Peace, a Washington-based think tank, said Pakistan's reaction indicated it felt that the coalition in Afghanistan was trying out a more aggressive strategy on the border and had not informed Islamabad.

He thought a major rift in ties between Islamabad and Washington was unlikely because they need each other too much.

The United States has few options but to rely on Pakistan's help in Afghanistan and in the fight against al-Qaida, while Islamabad cannot survive without foreign assistance. It too does not want to see Afghanistan descend into chaos, destabilizing Pakistan.

"If relations erupt right now, both Pakistan and the United States lose out on what they have been trying to achieve," Yusuf said. "Their relationship is too important to allow it to be derailed by border issues."

___

Riechmann reported from Kabul, Afghanistan. Associated Press writers Munir Ahmed in Islamabad, Riaz Khan in Peshawar, Matiullah Achakzai in Chaman, Hussein Afzal in Parachinar and Pauline Jelinek in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

ISLAMABAD — Pakistan closed the Khyber Pass supply route for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan after a coalition helicopter attack mistakenly killed three Pakistani soldiers at a border post T...
ISLAMABAD — Pakistan closed the Khyber Pass supply route for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan after a coalition helicopter attack mistakenly killed three Pakistani soldiers at a border post T...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 204
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
-PZ-
Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics
05:17 AM on 10/03/2010
Imran Khan's speech in 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8A-alPl2ts
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
11:21 AM on 10/01/2010
Stop sending them the F-16s
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1776 or 1984
IT'S AN EMPIRE, NOT A REPUBLIC!
08:57 PM on 09/30/2010
the Empire will keep distracting us with these incursions into Pakistan -- going after "Al Qaeda" -- until the bases lining the future Caspian Sea pipeline are in place. Then the Empire's legionnaires will "go home" (except for the 20,000 to 50,000 who will garrison the pipeline).
BraveWarrior
The truth will set you free, like it or not
11:31 PM on 09/30/2010
I truly hope you are right about the Empire's goals. Not that I don't appreciate how much in lives and treasure that it will cost. I fear that economic forces will compel the empire, ever dependent on oil, to attempt to invade Iran. The US has an limited tangible assets. Our consumer driven economy has been impoverished in the current crisis. We now longer have an industrial base to produce and export affordable products in world markets. China is quickly consolidating their control over valuable and scarce minerals and has a modern, highly productive industrial base. The emerging BRIC nations have mineral wealth, natural resources, underdeveloped but under national control with a world market scarcity to drive up prices. Without control over oil our empire is doomed. So in the poker game of world conflict, we may be ready to push all of our chips into the pot- while we still can. For the sake of the Persian people I hope to god I'm wrong. Of course failure would end the short reign of the current and only superpower. Outside of the ruling elites, Pakistanis' are a proud, self-respecting people. It seems that our overbearing arrogance remains our worst enemy. What empire isn't?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1776 or 1984
IT'S AN EMPIRE, NOT A REPUBLIC!
08:54 PM on 09/30/2010
the Empire will pat the puppet on the head and say, "now, now, calm down"
photo
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
06:16 PM on 09/30/2010
So, which scenario would you prefer? The allied troops in Afghanistan get the supplies they need and the war continues, or war become virtually impossible to prosecute because of the impossibility to resupply the troops? Afghanistan is only rivalled by Mongolia for 'least convenient country for a sea power to wage war".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:32 PM on 09/30/2010
End the f##ing war.
BraveWarrior
The truth will set you free, like it or not
11:43 PM on 09/30/2010
Even with air patrols and predators the few remaining land routes would be indefensible targets for the insurgent attacks. Mountain passes and bridges would be choke points. Alternate routes risk encountering non political brigands, who would have to be bribed. Spreading the war and supply lines, in countries lacking any significant infrastructure requires building highways, rail lines, tunnels, bridges and air strips to facilitate our operations. They would have to spend billions with construction teams under fire and needing protection. It would bleed the resources from our expensive adventure. Our military culture preaches against land wars in Asia. Our economy limits our capacity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
05:08 PM on 09/30/2010
Video Hints at Executions by Pakistanis

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/world/asia/30pstan.html?_r=1&hp
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
-PZ-
Amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics
04:08 AM on 10/03/2010
Isnt it odd that this video emerges now that the Pakistan army has shut down the supply routes?

The Swat conflict was a couple of years ago... So this video has been in existence since then atleast.

Why distribute now?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:33 PM on 09/30/2010
I'm telling you, this whole Afghan, Pakistan, Taliban thing reminds me of when I used to play army as a little kid. A bunch of little boys running around shooting at each other and complaining that someone didn't die when they were supposed to. Arguing over who's going to use the bigger gun, improper use of "dirt clod" hand grenades, no girls allowed, etc...
03:24 PM on 09/30/2010
Friendly fire is part and parcel of war. This was bound to happen, sooner or later. Firstly American asked Pakistan army to move from India border to the re-position at Afghan border, where Allied armies were already striking taliban targets, on both sides of borders. This was an unavoidable situation because American and Pakistani forces were operating at dangerous proximity. And people do die when guns are fired. There is only one way to end casualties in friendly or un-friendly fire. Just end this seemingly endless war, which is proving to be hunt for ghosts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:10 PM on 09/30/2010
Watch out, Pakistan.

Musharraf is getting ready to be your Savior.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:40 PM on 09/30/2010
uh-oh.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jayrag123
as salaam 3laykum
02:30 PM on 09/30/2010
Obama and the US Military need to realize that we can not defeat the Taliban. This is Vietnam once again. Let the Taliban have Afghanistan, what does it matter to America.

America is borrowing money from China to fight Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans need to realize that we can't be the Worlds police and the World doesn't want us protecting them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
centsable
are u smarter than a republicant..
02:51 PM on 09/30/2010
So the terrorist will have a base to attack america and it's interest...sound advice sir/madam.
photo
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
06:21 PM on 09/30/2010
The terrorists will have a base?
Wasn't 9-11, and the current European, plot planned largely in Germany?
The plot to assassinate Obama during the Democratic convention was entirely home-grown and muslims had nothing to do with it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Foodgrade
Learn to grow banannas
03:51 PM on 09/30/2010
Meanwhile we have 60 million unemployed. What the hell are we doing spending billions a week in Afghanistan? We have our own Taliban right here working to destroy the middle class.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
deminmo
just looking for answers
02:16 PM on 09/30/2010
Watch out Mr. President, these folks have nukes already!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
01:39 PM on 09/30/2010
Obama doesn't want anything to do with this economy or the War. He feels, neither of this is his doing. So he just wants to pass thru being the President for 4 years.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:49 PM on 09/30/2010
He likes the power, but doesn't want the responsibility.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
02:08 PM on 09/30/2010
Yup.. he feeks he has already gotten the prize. Nobel Prize and the title of the first black president. He could care less about anything else.
photo
MikeDu
Both salubrious and lugubrious concurrently.
06:22 PM on 09/30/2010
Anybody got any solutions?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
01:37 PM on 09/30/2010
Obama wants to surrender and leave. Obama wants the Armed forces/Pentagon to make the call to surrender. But they will not. But the armed forces wants him to make the call.

So Checkmate!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
01:35 PM on 09/30/2010
Don't worry folks. Obama will give them yet another $10 Billion to fund the Pak Army/ISI/LeT/AQ and the convey will move again.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
seagullking
''They always hate it when I don't die"
03:23 AM on 10/01/2010
Like Bush did?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
08:36 AM on 10/01/2010
Bush did so because there is no other way to fight a war in Afghanistan.
The alternative? Give the money to Iran. Those two countries control the land routes into Af that are accessible from the sea,.