Now I know this isn't news but there have been 6 incidents since Pakistan closed the border crossing so one has to think the insurgents are extraordinarily well informed far from their base, and have the ability to move around freely, or there is some fiddling going on at the edges. My theory is the ISI is involved.

I think you are right in there is a lot of shady stuff going on thanks to massive coprruption in that government. And that its both and not just either/or you described.

The ISI is deeply involved. They run the Haqqani Network ,which is a Taliban faction loyal to the Paki Intel. The reason the crossings were shut was because ISAF coalition forces crossed the border a few times in hot pursuit and attacked Haqqani Taliban forces in Pakistan.
US helos kill 30 Haqqani Network fighters in strikes in Pakistan - The Long War Journal
(Bill Roggio's 'Long War Journal ' is a good resource for tracking the AfPakia war)

The month of Sept. saw record numbers of drone attacks in N. Waziristan . These strikes were primarily based on intel of AQ activity ,and attacks on the Haqqani's ;who have also stepped up their attacks on ISAF bases in Khost .
US troops defeat Haqqani Network assault on base in Khost - The Long War Journal

To make the matter even more complicated ,someone in the White House informed Bob Woodward that the CIA had covert boots on the ground in Pakistan... and of course the jerk wrote it into his book. Relations between the US and Pakistan has never been lower .

For ISAF the reality is that they cannot adequately supply the troops without a secure land line. That is part of the reason there has been accommodations with the Pakis since the war began.

Hello:

Seems to ME, that we need a different supply route. Funneling ALL your stuff into ONE crossing, opens yourself up to attack... Even I know that.

Then, when you've got 'em all lined up at the border WAITING, if you destroy the first 25 trucks, you can take your time destroying the hundreds that now can't move... Even I know that..

Who's running things over there? Anybody?? Time to leave!

excon

There are no real alternate supply routes from the sea that doesn't go through Pakistan. Even supplying them by air ;as inefficent and dangerous that is ,can only be accomplished through nations that don't necessarily have our best interests in mind .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

There are no real alternate supply routes from the sea that doesn't go through Pakistan.

---

Hello again, tom:

I know. Maybe that's WHY Afghanistan has never been conquered... You'da also figured that our war planners would have KNOWN that...

But, of course, they didn't KNOW whether Saddam had WMD's or not, so I'm not surprised that they SCREWED up the war plans... And, are STILL screwing them up AFTER 9 years...

Time to leave.

excon

Yes... lets continue to allow AQ to operate in a safe haven there . That's a plan !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes ...lets continue to allow AQ to operate in a safe haven there . That's a plan !

---

Hello again, tom:

Your knee jerked. I didn't say that at all. I'm simply suggesting that there are OTHER ways to defeat them than to keep doing what we've been doing...

You're consistent, though. It's exactly like your response to the drug war. When something ISN'T working, do MORE of it..

You'da thunk, that after nine years of war, we'd be winning, especially when you consider that we defeated the whole damn WORLD in four years... And, we're definitely NOT winning. In fact, we're losing by ANYBODY'S measure... Indeed, we lost the Afghan war when we invaded Iraq. You can't WIN a war that you've already LOST. Vietnam is our precursor..

Time to leave.

excon

Pakistan has taken the heat way up today ,announcing that they are going to deploy anti-aircraft defenses against ISAF forces . In other words ,they are going to provide air cover for the
Pakistan Taliban and the Haqqani Network .
No doubt the President will ask for surrender terms .
Hmmm ,how many sortees have we flown in flood relief ?

What we have here is called escallation, but escallation in the wrong direction. Maybe someone made a mistake attacking a Pakistani border base and maybe they didn't, loyalties are very divided and the Taliban are not above firing from cover close to a Pakistani unit. What is obvious here is that you don't know who your friends are and in that situation it is better to pull out before you have a rout. This isn't leaving the ground to Al Qaeda, without a battle to fight they just might fade away too or it might be possible to convince Pakistan it is in their own interest to take them on

Duplicate post

Quote:

---

or it might be possible to convince Pakistan it is in their own interest to take them on

---

No they won't . I already explained to you why it is in their interest to have the Taliban control Afghanistan. They have already ceded territory they can't control to the Talban AQ coalition.

This move to provide them air cover is indicative of where they stand .The Zardari government is weak and corrupt and cannot control the ISI . If the military takes over the country (and they just might because of the floods) ,perhaps General Petraeus can come to an agreement with General Kayani and Lieutenant-General Ahmad Shuja Pasha of the ISI... oh yeah ,I guess CIA chief Leon Panetta should be invited too...

What is happening here is that we announced a withdrawal date and all the sides remaining are trying to dictate terms of our retreat .

The correct response to this is a declaration that we intend to keep our line of supply open by any mean necessary ,and any anti-aircraft battery that lights up one of our helicopters will find out if there really are virgins in Paradise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The correct response to this is a declaration that we intend to keep our line of supply open by any mean necessary ,and any anti-aircraft battery that lights up one of our helicopters will find out if there really are virgins in Paradise.

---

As I said escallation. You can't blame the Paki's from being nervious, after all you do so well at preventing friendly fire incidents and collateral damage.

It is too much to expect either side to respect borders and we both know that short of a full scale incursion into Pakistan it will remain a safe haven, so what is really needed is a better route for supplies or a better route for retreat.

It seems clear that Pakistan is only interested in dealing with threats to the Pakistani state, they are not interested in fighting your war for you, or it seems deterring europeans from entering the tribal areas. It should be of great concern that numbers of europeans are being trained by Al Qaeda in Pakistan. Apparently it isn't, because it is not a threat directed at the pakistani state