A Lesson From Albert Speer and Stupidity From The Pentagon

Posted on by ( 44 comments already! )
        

Loading

NATO Tankers And Fuel Burns In Pakistan After Attack By Insurgents

Albert Speer, Prominent National Socialist, Laid Out Key To Winning Wars

Our supplies of diesel fuel is being compromised in Pakistan: apparently our fuel is delivered to Afghanistan by truck through Pakistan with only light Pakistani security. Whether the Taliban forces are actually applying military history lessons or they are just taking advantage of our weakest point, their latest tactic can possibly bring our war effort to a grinding halt. This tactic was outlined by Albert Speer in his memoir “Inside The Third Reich”.

Albert Speer joined the National Socialist Workers Party in 1931, he worked his way up the ladder as an architect and became part of Hitler’s inner circle. Extremely talented, Speer was given the responsibility of getting different industries back up and running after Allied bombing destroyed the different armament facilities. He was so proficient it defied the imagination, the allies would bomb a refinery and Speer would have it up and running in a few days, he did the same with tire factories, ball bearing factories, and munition factories. He was so good at battling the effects of Allied bombing that he extended the war by months if not years. Although his efforts were not war crimes; using slave labor to rebuild the facilities caused Speer to be sentenced to 20 years at Spandau Prison.

Speer was atypical of the other National Socialist prisoners, he cooperated with Allied forces and exposed many of the inner workings of the Nazi Party. In his memoir of the Third Reich, Speer told Allied commanders how they could have won the war within a few months. According to Speer, the Allies bombed one target after another or one industry after another, rather than concentrating on one industry like ball bearings. If the ball bearing facilities would have been bombed every time he rebuilt the facility, the war would have literall ground to a halt in thirty days.

This glaring mistake cost tens of thousands of American lives and has been kept under wraps for decades, either intentionally or by accident since the concept admits that we didn’t prosecute the war as effectively as we should have. None the less, the Taliban has no pretensions at being concerned over feelings or being politically correct; they intend to win this conflict, using a page from Speer’s memoirs to attack our weak underbelly is only common sense to our enemies.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
44 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Very interesting post, Skookum.

The idea that we could have bombed one industry into the ground to shorten the war probably didn’t occur to the Brits (before we entered the war) because of their own decentralized weapons-making.

They probably assumed (wrongly) that the Germans were doing the same as they were.

Like the Sten machine gun.
The Sten was designed to be built in a garage by any one.
And, before the war was over, many Brits knew how to build one and had even taught others how to build one.
There were small garage ”factories” all over the UK building them.
No amount of bombing could have stopped production.

Studying war history is always valuable.

We do (or should) learn from the mistakes of leaders who went before us.

0

Every fighter knows, if you can throw a punch that will land with even moderate effect but hit success, then you throw it over and over and over. A quick connecting light jab can bring down the strongest opponent in time and it certainly sets up the big cross for the big final finish far earlier.

0

Nan, ball bearings, tires, and refineries cannot be disseminated. It takes highly specialized equipment to manufacture these important components of a war machine. Speer actually was surprised that Alleid bombers attacked the whole war production machine rather than concentrating on one or two key components; thus he was always given time to rebuild the machinery. Allied commanders were always amazed at the speed that the factories were back in operation. Ball bearing are not romanticized like airplane factories, but without ball bearings nothing can be built and no parts can be replaced on equipment in the field. Tanks, trucks, and airplanes stop in the where the breakdown occurs and without parts they are out of commission, for without ball bearings there can be no bearings and bearings are responsible for most mechanical failures.

It is virtually impossible for the enemy to attack any other components of our war machine; obviously, our fuel supply lines are the most vulnerable to attack. Thankfully, it took the enemy nine years to figure this out: why did our Pentagon leave this weakness open for nine years?

If we are left without fuel, our position will become tenuous at best; yet, we are entrusting Pakistani security companies with the fuel that our equipment and the lives of our troops depend upon. This is an omission by the Pentagon that can end up being catastrophic for our war machine and our troops.

0

The USAF has plenty of airlift capacity if we have the will to use it.

0

The hypothesis holds IF Pakistan was the ONLY source of oil and refiened products.

We can fly the stuff in (expensive) or drive it in through the north.

0

Skookum, do you recall our original plan to attack Iraq?

It was a classic pincer movement.

Too bad the Turks reneged on their promise to allow our army to go through Turkey for the northern front of the pinch.

We ended up with the enemy given a chance to disolve into the civilian population while we made history’s largest naval movement of an army just to get those troops into the fray at all.

And they all ended up bringing up the rear in the south.

What a waste.

My point is, we cannot ever know everything that will happen once we engage our enemy.
I’m sure the allies did not have perfect intel on where every German war factory was.
Just as we could not have predicted that Turkey would give its promise one day then renege the next.

0

Actually Nan, we had great intel during WW2, at least in Europe; that does it, you need to read Speer’s book, “Inside The Third Reich”. It will have a tremendous effect on your outlook on strategy. The insight on how to regroup from attacks and how to plan strategic strikes is a tremendous gift that Speer left to the free world. I suppose we will hear from our officer class in the next few hours; however, I stand by my premise that Speer left an important manual to winning major conflicts, if it is being ignored, it is costing American lives.

0

Sorry Nan, I am doing three different things. No we cannot anticipate every tactic of our enemy, but to leave our fuel supply lines open to attack is a major mistake that is approaching the realm of incompetence. Of course this all comes from an arm chair strategist who was the most basic type of grunt; however, some grunts were voracious readers and could debate many officers on strategy and history.

0

Air Marshal Erhard Milch, in his memoirs wrote that was the second bombing of the Allies brought the end of the war in the year that the Germans had no effective protection against air raids. He writes so well that if the intensity of the bombing would have been 15 – 20% higher then the Third Reich would fall more in the forty-fourth year.

0

Consider that book on my ”to read” list.
It really does sound good.
Thanks.

0

Pavel, I listened to relatives who flew bombers and fighters against the German fighters and the flack, it sounded horrific. It’s true that Germany ran out of planes and pilots with no way to replace them. It was very difficult to destroy AA batteries in a cost effective manner since the were fairly inexpensive to rebuild.

I’ve only read excerpts from Milch and he has given a lucid account of the air war; however Speer was assigned the task of rebuilding the damage of allied bombing, sadly he did a monumental job. Consequently, he has a unique perspective and opinion. The idea of bring the war to a halt in 90 days with strategic bombing was a strategy that was ignored during the war in Indo-China. Picking out one particular element of the munitions required for war and devastating that particular element, regardless of how many locations you had to hit, instead of trying to hit everything in a fairly primitive war production machine and shutting down nothing, cost us severely.

0

Creighton Abrams, who had significant experience in WWII, developed the idea of “logistics nose” in the fight in Vietnam. Whereas US forces had a logistics tail, to support the “teeth” on the fighting line, the Vietnamese communists smuggled food and ammunition in forward, to build up stockpiles, and only then brought in the fighters. Creighton Abrams’ approach was to identify the stockpiles, and sweep in to take them over before the fighters came in.

Our enemy is the Taliban, created by Pakistani Intelligence. Rather than running US Army convoys through Pakistan, we would be better off purchasing competitively priced fuel from Pakistani merchants. That way the local people would be lifted from poverty, and would have a vested interest in providing resources. If the Taliban or supporters interfered with fuel shipments, they would make enemies of the Pakistan business interests.

We should have learned that lesson from Thailand, where Senator Proxmire instituted the golden fleece award, and gave it to the US Air Force which kept pumping fuel into storage bunkers while the local people siphoned it out, stealing it to stay alive.

0

@ Ivan, The Air Force lacks the capability to supply the logistics requirements for NATO by air.
Afghanistan has no oil, refineries or ports for bulk cargo. The Logistical needs are supplied through three principle ports in Pakistan and bulk supplies go overland through Pakistan.

http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/PAK.php

Ports in Pakistan”

Gwadar
Port of Gwadar
Karachi
Port of Karachi
Muhammad Bin Qasim
Port Muhammad Bin Qasim

Overland NATO Supply Routes are closed, compromised and very dangerous due to Pak Taliban attacks that have the routes impassible.

Is There a Better Supply Route to Afghanistan?

http://georgiandaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20071&Itemid=132

The closure of a critical supply route into Afghanistan may not last long, but it underscores the need to look for other options, says one former Pentagon official.

Pakistan this week closed the Torkham border crossing, a vital NATO supply line for fuel and other nonlethal goods into Afghanistan, in response to what the government in Islamabad said were NATO cross-border raids that killed three Pakistani border soldiers.

“Once again, we see the difficulty in using the southern route … through Pakistan into Afghanistan in the north,” Richard Douglas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for counter-narcotics, counter-proliferation and global threats, told AOL News. “It really underscores the way we have not used the South Caucasus, the full capacity.”

The idea of a South Caucasus route, which would run through Georgia and Azerbaijan, has been suggested in the past. The president of Georgia, which aspires to join NATO, has previously pitched the idea of using his country as a hub. The route would involve using Georgia’s Black Sea ports, then going overland by train to Azerbaijan, then to the Caspian Sea and finally through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

U.S. officials have been quick to downplay the Torkham closing as merely a hitch in the U.S.-Pakistani relationship, while also emphasizing the importance of quickly reopening the route through Pakistan.

“It’s inconceivable to me that the closing of the routes — the alleged closing, which is not a full closing anyway — would continue more than a short period of time,” Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said today in Washington, according to Agence France-Presse.

But, he continued, an extended closure would have “a colossal effect on the region.”

While complimenting Pakistan on its cooperation with the United States, Douglas noted that the current supply routes have proved dangerous. “The fact is, there is unused capacity in the South Caucasus,” said Douglas, noting that routes that use Georgia and Azerbaijan are “safer and friendlier” than the route through Khyber Pass.

“One wonders why we haven’t been working through that route,” Douglas continues. “It could just partly be inertia.”

One problem, Douglas acknowledged, could be politics, and in particular the U.S. relationship with Russia. Georgia and Russia engaged in a brief but destructive war in 2008 that destroyed the Georgian port of Poti.

Though the conflict is long over and Poti has since reopened, relations between Georgia and Russia remain icy.

“All sorts of people are ready and waiting to do the work. We just have to make a decision to do more through the Black Sea,” Douglas said. “It’s not exotic science.”

U.S. Moves Suggest Afghan NATO Supply-Route Talks With Kyrgyzstan

http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Moves_Suggest_Afghan_NATO_SupplyRoute_Talks_With_Kyrgyzstan/1496601.html

(RFE/RL) — Kyrgyzstan’s eviction of U.S. forces from an air base in the country was already seen as a setback for NATO’s efforts to expand its presence in Afghanistan.

That’s because the air base at Manas, whose lease to the U.S. forces came closer to ending with Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev signing off on a parliamentary bill calling for their eviction, has long served as a key staging post for the alliance’s military operations in Afghanistan.

Bakiev’s signature is the final step before Kyrgyz authorities issue a notice that will give the United States 180 days to vacate the facility, used as a transit point for 15,000 troops and some 500 tons of cargo each month to and from Afghanistan.

Now, defense ministers from NATO countries meeting for a second day in Krakow, Poland, will have to address another setback: The government in Pakistan’s Punjab Province has cancelled a private deal on a new supply terminal for overland NATO deliveries into Afghanistan from the port city of Karachi. They say the deal was cancelled because of security concerns.

The main land route into landlocked Afghanistan passes through Pakistan’s lawless Khyber tribal region and another land crossing through the southwest province of Baluchistan. Regional insurgency is rife in those areas and pro-Taliban militants have been focusing attacks on bridges, terminals, and even convoys of NATO supply trucks.

Alternative Routes

With the pressure growing on NATO’s logistical support, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates confirmed at the NATO gathering in Krakow that Washington is now in talks with several other countries about alternative supply routes that would replace Manas.

Still, Gates suggested that talks on the future of the base are still open and that there could be negotiations with Bishkek about the amount of money paid for maintaining a U.S. presence at Manas.

He told reporters in Krakow on February 19 that the Pentagon is looking to see if there is justification for Bishkek to receive a larger payment. But he said Washington was “not going to be ridiculous about it.”

Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are possible alternatives. U.S. Rear Admiral Mark Harnitchek has been in Dushanbe for talks with Tajik Foreign Minister Hamrokhon Zarifi on the issue.

Harnitchek said in Dushanbe on February 19 that Tajikistan has agreed in principle to the use of its railways and roads for the transit of “nonlethal” military supplies into Afghanistan:

“Clearly any nation that shares a border with Afghanistan is important, and because the distance to our bases in Afghanistan is likely the shortest from Tajikistan, so by extension, Tajikistan is very important,” Harnitchek said.

Harnitchek also said Uzbekistan has agreed to the transit of cargo and that the Pentagon plans to send 50 to 200 cargo containers each week from Uzbekistan to Tajikistan and then by land into Afghanistan.

But U.S. officials are emphasizing that no formal agreement has been signed yet.

Uzbekistan’s Foreign Ministry has declined to comment on whether it had approved the transit of NATO supplies across its territory. General David Petraeus, the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command, visited Uzbekistan on February 17 in what appears to have been an attempt to seek the use of the country as a transit route for supplies in Afghanistan.

Moscow Give And Take

Kyrgyz President Bakiev announced the pending closure of Manas earlier this month, complaining the United States was not paying enough rent for the base. His announcement came shortly after he secured $2.15 billion in aid and loans from Russia during a visit to Moscow.

That has led some observers to conclude that the Kremlin has had a hand in instigating the closure of Manas. But Russia also has offered the use of its railroad network for the overland transport of nonlethal military supplies into Afghanistan.

Patrick Moon, the assistant U.S. secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, said in Helsinki this week that the route would carry cargo from Latvia through Russia and Kazakhstan to Uzbekistan — and eventually on to Afghanistan. He said the first trains could carry that cargo before the end of February.

Meanwhile, on the sidelines of NATO defense ministers’ meeting in Krakow, Gates warned that Moscow is trying to “have it both ways” by offering help in Afghanistan and undermining U.S. efforts there at the same time.

Gates also has sought to downplay the significance of Manas, saying that it is import but not irreplaceable.

Analysts see those remarks, and moves by the Pentagon to seek alternative supply routes, as a sign that price negotiations are still under way between Washington and Bishkek on the use of Manas.

Uzbekistan: Karimov Approves Overland Rail Re-Supply Route for Afghan Operations

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav040708a.shtml

Perhaps the biggest success at the NATO summit in Bucharest was an under-the-radar development, in which Uzbekistan consented to giving NATO forces an overland re-supply route to Afghanistan. But Tashkent’s acceptance comes with a potentially problematic catch for the United States.

The United States worked painstakingly in recent months to repair bilateral relations with Uzbekistan, and to obtain Tashkent’s approval for a transit corridor. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. NATO planners feel that an overland rail supply route would greatly ease the logistical hassles connected with reconstruction and counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Capping a period of intensive diplomacy, Pamela Spratlen, the acting US deputy secretary of state for Central and South Asian affairs, spent five days in Uzbekistan, from March 27-April 1, meeting with top Uzbek leaders. The mission was shrouded in secrecy — a fact underscored by a statement issued April 1 by the US embassy in Tashkent that described Spratlen’s extended tour in Uzbekistan only as “a useful visit.”

Prior to the NATO conclave in Bucharest on April 2-4, Russia signaled that it would facilitate a transit corridor. Attending the discussions on April 4, Uzbek President Islam Karimov also formally endorsed the plan. An overland route may prove a particular boost to reconstruction assistance bound for Afghanistan.

“We in Uzbekistan are acutely aware that the decisive factor for security is the attainment of peace and stability in Afghanistan,” Karimov said in an address to the assembled heads of state. Karimov added that Afghanistan’s stabilization would create “big opportunities for the resolution of vitally important problems of the stable socio-economic development of the entire Central Asian region.”

Karimov indicated that Tashkent was agreeing to a transit corridor — in which the Uzbek border city of Termez would serve as the hub — mainly out of a desire to keep NATO engaged in Afghanistan. During the run-up to the Bucharest summit, some NATO member states indicated that they might consider pulling their troop contingents out of Afghanistan if no steps were taken to reinforce the war effort. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

“There is no alternative here, since the aggravation of the confrontation

Now, since a withdrawal date has been announced by the POTUS and his Merry Band of Amateur Strategists…Why Bother?

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/033922.html

“Dynamite in the hands of a child is not more dangerous than a strong policy weakly carried out.”

That’s a quote from Winston Churchill – a man more quotable than most. You may have an image in mind of Britain’s prime minister during the Second World War, a man whose long life in the political arena well-prepared him for his role. And yes, the quote is from that Winston Churchill – but then again, it isn’t… that was 23-year-old Winston Churchill, opining specifically on his nation’s policy on Afghanistan in 1897, but doing so with a truth on broad terms.

Maybe that’s an obvious truth to twenty-somethings of any generation; then again maybe it’s something some people go through life without fully grasping. Here’s another example of something blindingly obvious being put into words.

“…we’ve got to get the job done [in Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

That one’s from 46-year-old Senator Barack Obama, opining on his country’s Afghanistan policy in 2007. I concur with that – I’m fairly certain most people would. I’ve no doubt General Stan McChrystal did, and others I could name. Hey, while blindingly obvious, it implies a strong policy.

As for carrying it out – here’s a more recent example from the same guy:

Privately, he told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”

And even there you have to consider the definition of “rejected” – as it also appears here:

Obama rejected the military’s request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end…

OK then the same Dude that thinks that there are 57 States has it all figgered out then…

0

we would be better off purchasing competitively priced fuel from Pakistani merchants.

Why not just give the money directly to the Taliban while you’re at it Don? That is who eventually will end up selling it to the US military.

Pakistan is, in fact, against us. They created the Taliban and would prefer the US to leave with the 1990s Taliban, their puppets, running the place instead of some pro-Indian government.

0

In the final days of the war, bombing was reserved for the civilian population, and thing that moved was fare game. It was safer to be in the German military than being firebombed in the cities of Germany. The decision to allow the Russians to enter Berlin and mop up was there reward for the their ruthlessness in killing Germans. The German army was scattered and were unable to defend Berlin, that was left to old men and young boys. The Russians destroyed anything left standing and machine gunned the civilians, and raped any woman, regardless of age. The allies were going to drop gas, poison, and disease. Due to pressure against the civilians, fire bombing was the final solution. The allies were also aware of the location of prison camps in Poland, but that was not on their list, as the Russians were there first, from the west. I understand why they allowed this . This was the second time the Germans had brought war to europe, the allies wanted severe punishment and revenge. The regular German army observed the Geneva convention rules of war, prisoners were taken and kept in camps, persons in my family, were in the camps throughout the entire war and returned. The allies captured prisoners and sent them to rural areas in the US, they were loosely guarded and did farm work. In England and Scotland they roamed free, but wore “P” on their backs. The SS, were the gangsters, Hitler’s private guards, were murders and charged with murdering millions. Hitler survived 13 times to kill him. The last failed, by his own army officers. Speer was not involved, he was a liar, and imprisoned 20 years.

0

OT, thanks for the information. It is reassuring to know that we have options available.

0

@ Ivan, sometimes you can buy Friends for the right price and sometimes you can’t. 🙁
The Pak ISI is comprised of Taliban supporters and are just waiting for Congress to pull the plug on funding or NATO troops to leave to defend their Homelands against Terrorist attacks.

“When the true history of the Expedition, especially the diplomatic side of it, is written, it will not be a very inspiring chapter for school children, or even grownups to contemplate. Having dashed into Mexico with the intention of eating the Mexicans raw, we turn back at the very first repulse and are now sneaking home under cover like a whipped cur with his tail between his legs.”

That’s General Pershing’s private correspondence to his father in law, regarding the Punitive Expedition to Mexico in 1916, (Winston Churchill was busy with World War One at the time…) a retaliatory effort launched after Pancho Villa crossed into the US and attacked the town of Columbus, New Mexico.

Regardless of his level of personal disgust with the “diplomatic side of it”, in his official report Pershing concluded:

“The splendid services that the regular troops comprising this expedition have performed under most adverse conditions again proves that for natural ability, physical endurance, unflinching persistence, general efficiency, and unquestioned loyalty and devotion to duty the well trained officers and men of the regular army are unexcelled by the troops of any other nation.

Like this closing thought, from young Lt Churchill on the Afghan frontier:

It was only natural that the Viceroy, himself, should view with abhorrence the prospect of military operations on a large scale, which must inevitably lead to closer and more involved relations with the tribes of the Afghan border. He belonged to that party in the State which has clung passionately, vainly, and often unwisely to a policy of peace and retrenchment. He was supported in his reluctance to embark on warlike enterprises by the whole force of the economic situation. No moment could have been less fitting: no man more disinclined…

Obama rejected the military’s request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. “I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

Privately, he told Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to push his alternative strategy opposing a big troop buildup in meetings, and while Mr. Obama ultimately rejected it, he set a withdrawal timetable because, “I can’t lose the whole Democratic Party.”
***************************************************

Now, He has spent several trillion dollars on things that have not done a blamed thing to improve the economy and nothing lifts US International prestige like making political decisions that lose a war, Right?

0

@ Skookum, No sweat Pardner, all unclassified Info but it is meaningless if We are going to take our ball and go home in a year or so. We are talking about an investment in infrastructure that could win Allies and make that region more stable but not worth Obama losing the Democratic Party over…

0

It is strange that the history of the world hinges on the possibility of Obama losing the Democrat Party.

The big strategy question of the future will be whether Obama will secure our borders once we start fighting the Taliban on US soil.

0

If Speer believed the war could be stopped within a few months if bombers targeting a particular industry then this was clearly lost on the Nazi – as they failed to implement this themselves againt Britain. I suspect that was mainly to do with the incompetence of Goring & Hitler. Also hoping to bomb civillians into surrendering also usually fails.

0

All this underscores why I supported GWB in his decision NOT to go heavy in A-Stan, but rather to keep only lighter SF fighters that could be supplied and withdrawn by air.

I believe that OBL had planned from the start to draw the US into inserting heavy forces into the A-Stan and then cutting their supplies leaving them in a starved (fuel) scenario for his fighters to pick at and draw blood each day.

With a internationally weak leader who flops at the waist like a rag doll, we are at risk of having a very large force of men soldiers stranded in A-Stan if the Paki Gov were to collapse or lose control of the ISI.

And lord knows we can count on the Iranians to try and stir the pot for us too.

I believed from the get-go that this situation was why GWB decided to make the next fight in Iraq in the first place. It only makes sense to avoid their trap and draw them into a fight where we would not have this sort of a risk and the Arab street could witness how we fight, how we treat our friends and how we decimate our enemies. So now the Obama-one wants to trade what was a tactical and strategic victory into a humiliation?

0

Before we talk about victory in Afghanistan, Iraq and defeating terrorists in Pakistan, one must first decide what is a category win. What it is.
America has a wonderful experience from the past. This is a victory over Germany and Japan. We must proceed from the fact that Islam – is not a religion but an ideology, such as the ideology of National Socialism and win it will be possible only if destroy the ideology of Islam to destroy Islam in general. As well as destroying National Socialism in Germany. In Germany after the war, denazification was carried out – the result can be seen now.
A war that is ongoing in the countries of the Middle East is the half-measures.

0

@Skookum:
Interesting. I do not even know that was the idea of ending the war in Indochina in 90 days. Where you can read about it more?

0

Old Trooper 2 and TSgt Ciz: Great comments. Thanks.

0

Pvel the 90 day theory was an observation of Speer. The concept was more difficult in Indo-China because they were being supplied by China and Russia by sea. Still the concept of hitting a wide variety of targets was effective and almost brought about an end to the war if the Left in the US would not have given the North encouragement to continue, it was still possibly a waste of munitions and manpower if a more strategic plan like Speer outlined would have been adopted. We were still using the big bomber multi target strategy of WW2, instead of hitting and completely destroying one key component. Sorry for the confusion.

0

Pavel: A war of half-measures, I think that was on the button. In today’s Leftist media controlled politically correct theory of war we only want to inflict minor casualties so that we don’t appear like an aggressor. Thus we piss away the lives of our young patriots in a half assed war instead of applying our full military potential. The pursuit of victory is only a half-measure or secondary to being politically correct, a consideration that matters not a damn bit to the grunt in a fire fight, but is so important to the campus Socialists and Union radicals.

0

Good comments, thanks to all – Skookum – you are right about Speer, I think – I still have my copy of his book on my bookshelf – read it 35 years ago or so…..

Frankly, Speer or not, I am surprised that it took the Taliban this long to attack the tankers – and so many immediate and successful attacks are why I fully believe the Pakis are directly invovled in this.

0

@ThomNJ

The Taliban/Pak ISI have frequently attacked the tankers and support units in Pakistan.

Notice that this latest round of attacks happened the day after a NATO chopper killed three Pak border troops.

Kinda makes you think.

0

NATO uses almost one million gallons of fuel (all types) per day in Afghanistan.
125 tankers-worth @ 8000 gal/tanker.

The burning of the tankers is be allowed by Pakistan as a “pressure release valve” of sorts, and has little to no effect on the war, as we have 3 months worth stockpiled in-country.

0

@ Patvann, IF the Taliban does not get lucky and hit a FARP or two or bulk storage facilities.

FARP =Forward Rearm Refuel Point.

Also kindly consider the cost per gallon for that fuel with the transport fees paid and no port facility
in the Stans to receive it in bulk. 😉

0

I hear ya OT, but this was not done by AQ, nor was this fuel even guarded, as all “normal” transports are…Not only that, but these trucks were IN the Capitol, and NOT on any “key route” as the media has us believe.

The Kyber pass (Torkam crossing) is only used for non-lethal cargo, and is the only one temporarily closed. It also only carries a fraction of our “stuff”, because the road sucks, and is closed most of the winter.

Also notice that only 2 people have died in all this “uprising” in the past 3 days.

The main route is the southern one, (Chaman) guarded by the Pak army, watched with our drones, and is still open…and yes the Pak route is cheapest…Chaman being the cheapest.

The Kyber pass will be back open in a day or two, and closed again when the snow comes in a few weeks.

-NONE of this takes away from the crux of Skooks post…we need to pay attention, and keep all avenues open. (Excuse the pun, please.)

0

@ Patvann, The Northern Route is indeed seasonal which is a limitation.

Now, mixed messages are my issue. The media presents a different picture than folks that I personally know and have trusted over the years.

White House Report Faults Pakistan’s Antimilitant Campaign

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298504575534491793923282.html?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory

The White House’s findings on Pakistan could aggravate tense relations with the U.S. ally after a series of cross-border raids by North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces from Afghanistan prompted Islamabad to shut a key crossing used to deliver supplies to the U.S.-led coalition.

In recent weeks, the U.S. has stepped up missile strikes against militants on Pakistani soil, an indication that it sees Islamabad as unable or unwilling to act against these groups.

The Central Intelligence Agency has fired an unprecedented number of Hellfire missiles against suspected militants in Pakistan’s tribal regions, a surge in part directed at disrupting suspected terrorist plots against European targets.

The new White House assessment highlights critical areas where Pakistan is seen to be lacking the will to take action to counter the most dangerous militants and shore up its civilian government.

In very simple terms, the “whack -a-mole” drone attacks, cross border, approach has “made”
more Militants than friends, has killed more civilians than bad folks and that is the approach that Panetta’s (Obama’s ) CIA has taken.

A new White House assessment of Pakistan faults its campaign against militants and, in blunt language, says the government and military have been unwilling to take action against al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists.

The unusually critical assessment, part of a report sent to Congress this week, appears at odds with more upbeat pronouncements by top Obama administration and Pentagon officials who have publicly praised Islamabad’s performance in the fight against militants.

The report, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, also raises questions about the U.S.-led coalition’s progress battling the Taliban and improving governance in Afghanistan just two months before the White House will review its war strategy.

President Barack Obama, in a letter to Congress accompanying the report, said he doesn’t see the need for any adjustments in Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy “at this time.”

Now, you had better believe that Al Q and the Tangos have made adjustments in strategy, have the patience and persistence to stick it out, the sense of opportunism required to stay in the fight until Congress pulls the plug or the NATO Timeline runs out. There can be no stability in the Afghan Government or the Region after that.

What does Victory look like?

* A stable Afghan Government, strong Afghan Military & Police Force and no more safe harbors or havens in Pak for the Enemy.

* No more Tango Terror Training Camps in Pak.

And that, Pardner will take a long time under the Current Strategy.

0

OLD TROOPER 2; hi, I think it would break some dependancy of getting the supplys to the US troops, if we use our own air route instead of being unsecured by not so friendly helpers for route who can tie a knot as you get more dependant, because they don’t care.

0

In the larger picture, Pakistan is the stronghold of the enemy, and should be treated as such. The defeatist attitude in Obama’s office makes those within the Pak army that ARE on our side, more reluctant to put their necks out….Which in the end, will cause us to fail, and quite possible, Pakistan to fail.

-An addendum to my last comment (31). The customs guys at Chaman closed the gates for half of today due to “improper paperwork”, and “suspected smuggling”…It was re-opened after a general from America and Pakistan intervened.

0

Now, on a more positive note:

Euro terror alert spotlights voiceprint technology

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EUROPE_TERROR_THREAT?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Officials in Germany were tightlipped Tuesday on details of a U.S. missile strike in Pakistan’s rugged mountain border area where Pakistani officials said eight German militants were killed.

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/10/scratch-5-german-militants-in-pakistan-linked-to-terror-alert.html

Scratch 5 German Militants In Pakistan Linked To Terror Alert

Obviously we are doing something right on the intel front. Let’s hope it’s enough. Will German Leftists get upset? It wouldn’t surprise me. Evidently Germany doesn’t mind us killing their citizens when they are involved in terrorism.

BERLIN (AP) — An American missile strike killed five German militants Monday in the rugged Pakistan border area where a cell of Germans and Britons at the heart of the U.S. terror alert for Europe – a plot U.S. officials link to al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden – were believed in hiding.

The attack, part of a recent spike in American drone strikes on Pakistan, came as Germany said it has “concrete evidence” that at least 70 Germans have undergone paramilitary training in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and about a third have returned to Germany.

****************************************************************************
So the CIA has been doing something right but the Paks just don’t get it yet.

@ ilovebeeswarzone, We absolutely need more MSRs, Military Supply Routes, through safer territory. Bringing supplies by road or rail using Georgia’s Black Sea ports, then going overland by train to Azerbaijan, then to the Caspian Sea and finally through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would be very useful if the Obama State Department can exercise some diplomacy and statesmanship. Big IF so far!

The Teeth to Tail ratio is Logistics heavy compared to “Gunfighters” in boots. The old Red Ball Express in WWII was successful when the number of French ports were limited. The difference here is trucks hauling supplies in Liberated France and not Terrorist controlled Pakistan. There are some parallels. The Berlin Airlift was a magnificent effort made by Allied Air Forces in Cold War Germany but airlift is not the only answer.

0

As I was saying.
I ran is always so eager to be a good neighbor.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/06/afghan-police-seize-tons-explosives-iran/

Afghan Police Seize 22 Tons of Explosives From Iran

Published October 06, 2010 | NewsCore

Afghan police said Wednesday they had seized 22 tons of explosives stashed in boxes marked “food, toys and kitchenware” that were reportedly imported from neighboring Iran.

The discovery was made Tuesday in a customs office in the western province of Nimroz on the Iranian border, deputy provincial police chief Mohammad Musa Rasouli told the AFP.

“We found these materials hidden in a 40 foot shipping container that had come from Iran. The explosives were disguised as merchandise like food, toys and kitchenware,” he said.

Bombs made from old ammunitions and explosives are the main weapon used by the Taliban and other insurgents fighting against the Western-backed Afghan government and Western troops, and cause the bulk of military casualties.

Foreign military commanders and some Afghan officials have accused Iran of providing weapons to the Taliban, the chief group leading the insurgency since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion ousted its regime from power.

Tehran, a long-running U.S. foe, denies the charges and senior Afghan administration officials say they have no evidence against Iran.

The U.S. and NATO have more than 150,000 troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and keep President Hamid Karzai’s administration in power.

0

TSgt Ciz: thank you for that good news, we could expect them to do that from the beginning,
those who found it deserve a good present, thanks to them even more, bye

0

Petraeus Fights Time, Enemy in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09/28/world/asia/AP-AS-Afghanistan-Petraeus.html?_r=1&WT.mc_id=GN-PS-E-OB-PS-TXT-GN-ROS-0810-NA&WT.mc_ev=click

And NATO officers, like Petraeus’ predecessor McChrystal, have openly admitted that the local government-in-a-box that was supposed to backfill NATO efforts is not yet providing adequate services. U.S. and Afghan officials privately complain that Afghan officials extorting bribes from the people they were hired to serve also remains commonplace.

Questioned about some of those obstacles, Petraeus said it was too soon to guess how much progress would be made on security, or governance, over the next year.

A member of Petraeus’ staff explained the thinking — that they were “hunkered down,” in “fingers-crossed” mode, because the whole plan’s success depends on the Afghan government doing what now seems unthinkable: rooting out graft in a country where every level of government subsists on a latticework of bribes leveraged against impoverished Afghans. And the decision to do that is in the hands of an Afghan president whose own family is accused of benefiting from corruption.

The staffer spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the strategy debates within headquarters.

0

OLD TROOPER: hi, you give such valued references on the subject you decide to tackle,
thank you for letting the civiliens of AMERICA into the difficultys of fighting a WAR,
where you cannot trust those who ruled the people and ask for bribes for giving what they are suppose to do.
bye thank

0

PAVEL: hi, would I be right to believe that GERMANY did not expected
THE UNITED STATES to join in the WAR?, bye

0


Pakistan Spy Agency Reportedly Urging Taliban to Fight U.S.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/10/06/report-pakistan-pushing-taliban-fight/

Pakistan Urges On Taliban

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704689804575536241251361592.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLETopStories

Members of Pakistan’s spy agency are pressing Taliban field commanders to fight the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan, some U.S. officials and Afghan militants say, a development that undercuts a key element of the Pentagon’s strategy for ending the war.

The explosive accusation is the strongest yet in a series of U.S. criticisms of Pakistan, and shows a deteriorating relationship with an essential ally in the Afghan campaign. The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in military and development aid to Pakistan for its support.
More

* Talks Court Afghan Insurgents
* Gunmen Torch NATO Trucks

The U.S. and Afghanistan have sought to persuade midlevel Taliban commanders to lay down their weapons in exchange for jobs or cash. The most recent Afghan effort at starting a peace process took place this week in Kabul.

But few Taliban have given up the fight, officials say. Some Taliban commanders and U.S. officials say militant leaders are being pressured by officers from Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency not to surrender.

“The ISI wants to arrest commanders who are not obeying [ISI] orders,” said a Taliban commander in Kunar province.

U.S. officials say they have heard similar reports from captured militants and those negotiating to lay down their arms.

A senior Pakistani official dismissed the allegation, insisting Islamabad is fighting militants, not aiding them.
Regional Violence

View Interactive

Follow events in Afghanistan and Pakistan, day by day.

* More interactive graphics and photos

“Whenever anything goes wrong in Afghanistan, ISI is to be blamed,” said the senior Pakistani official. “Honestly, they see ISI agents behind every bush in Afghanistan.”

The explosive accusations of ISI efforts to keep Taliban commanders on the battlefield are the strongest yet in a series of U.S. criticisms of Pakistan, and show a deteriorating relationship with an essential ally. The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in military and development aid to Pakistan in return for its support for the Afghan war and its own fight against extremists; the reports suggest some Pakistani officials are undermining that strategy.

The Taliban commander in Kunar, like others interviewed in recent days, said he remained opposed to the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan and had no plans to stop fighting them. But “the ISI wants us to kill everyone—policemen, soldiers, engineers, teachers, civilians—just to intimidate people,” the commander said.

He said he refused, and that the ISI had tried to arrest him. “Afghans are all brothers; tomorrow we could be sitting together in one room.”

The allegations of interference by the Pakistani spy agency come amid a new U.S. strategic focus on Pakistan as key territory in the Afghan war.

Gen. David Petraeus, who took over in July as the top coalition commander in Afghanistan, has come to see militant havens in Pakistan, from which the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani network of radicals stage attacks in Afghanistan, as a greater threat than he had previously assessed them to be, according to officials.

In September, Gen. Petraeus said Afghan President Hamid Karzai had frequently raised the issue with him. “The biggest single issue he typically raises has to do with the sanctuaries the Taliban and Haqqani have in Pakistan. That is a concern we share. It is a concern he and I have discussed with Pakistani partners,” Gen. Petraeus said.

The new assessment has supported a ramped-up campaign of Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes on militant targets across the border, including targets believed to be involved in a plot to launch attacks in Europe.

That shift has also brought debate in the U.S. about how to approach Pakistani allies. For more than a year, U.S. military officials have praised Pakistan’s actions to confront militants in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

But U.S. officials have been voicing frustration with what they see as Pakistan’s focus on fighting extremists who pose a domestic threat while avoiding militant groups that use Pakistani havens to stage attacks across the border.

A White House report released to Congress this week painted a grim picture of the Pakistani military’s ability to defeat insurgents in its tribal areas. Some Obama administration officials say the U.S. must be more forceful with Pakistan to make it clear that Washington wants more direct action against militants. Other say the public and private criticism of Islamabad is likely to backfire.

Pakistan says its forces are stretched too thin to fight all militants—particularly with some soldiers redeployed to aid relief efforts from massive flooding this summer.

The ISI helped bring the Taliban to power in Afghanistan in the 1990s. After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, Islamabad officially broke with the movement and sided with the U.S.

U.S. officials have said since then that some ISI elements maintained links to the Taliban and other Islamist extremist groups to guarantee Pakistan’s influence in Afghanistan after an eventual American withdrawal.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly said elements within the ISI have had ties with extremist organizations and has called on the intelligence agency to “strategically shift its focus.”

But the U.S. has generally muted its concerns about ISI cooperation, in part because senior U.S. officials remain divided on whether it is coming from rogue elements within the intelligence agency or is fully sanctioned.

Some U.S. officials say the top levels of the ISI are committed to trying to reform the agency. “It is difficult to know how much the lower levels of ISI answer to senior leadership,” said a military official.

Other officials are more skeptical, saying such work couldn’t go on without sanction from the ISI’s top officers. “I haven’t seen evidence that the ISI is not in control of all of its parts,” said a senior U.S. defense official.

U.S. officials say Pakistani pressure on midlevel Taliban leaders is part of Islamabad’s effort to make sure it has significant leverage in peace efforts.

Those efforts range from the U.S.-backed strategy to woo the Taliban rank-and-file to attempts by the Afghan government to open high-level talks with the insurgency’s leadership.

U.S. officials consider wooing Taliban fighters to be a critical part of their strategy to pacify large swaths of Afghanistan by next summer, so they can begin handing over territory to Afghan security forces and drawing down American forces.

To drive up the number of militants willing to give up the fight, the Afghan government has promised jobs or cash payouts. U.S. special operations forces also hope to organize some former militants into local police forces. And they are trying to give the process a boost by targeting militants—in effect, scaring them into defecting.

U.S. officials also say that wooing fighters could weaken the insurgency to the point where Taliban leaders would opt to open substantive peace talks with the Afghan government on terms acceptable to the West.

Much of the Taliban’s top leadership is believed to live in Pakistan, and Taliban field commanders say many of their colleagues are close to the ISI.

“The ISI is supporting those under its control with money, weapons and shelter on Pakistani soil,” said a Taliban commander from the southeastern province of Paktia.

U.S. officials concede that it would be hard, if not impossible, to cut a peace deal in Afghanistan without Pakistan.

But in recent months, Pakistani officials have voiced frustration with U.S. and Afghan officials for keeping them in the dark about reconciliation efforts. Pakistani officials, fearful of an Afghan regime that enjoys warm relations with archenemy India, insist they have a role in brokering any peace settlement.

*********************************************************************
But then, I reckon that most of us already had that one figgered out.
At least I did. Time to send Richard Holbrooke back with a briefcase full of cash to buy off a few of those Militants to hold off until the Withdraw Timeline before the Taliban takes over the Stans, executes those Allies that trusted US and returns the place to the Stone Age.

The Neville Chamberlain School of Diplomacy rides again, much to my dismay.

But WTH, as Bob Woodward calls it “This is Obama’s War”

0

Another good synopsis of the situation, aptly titled: “Screw Pakistan”.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlog/articles/20101003.aspx

They keep this shit up, they are going to be left out of the equation, other than becoming a potential target of opportunity.

0

PATTVAN: hi, MAY I point out that most of those route are in MUSLIM COUNTRYS who are not to be trusted because they can decide or be convince any time to stop those transits as PAKISTAN did,
ON a spur of the moment, SEEMS like IRAN has a big INFLUENCE on those particular CONTRYS is even more concerning. as security is so important in the WAR STRATEGY
bye

0

Pakistan…..can you trust one word out of the mouths of their ”leaders?”

Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit assures us: “Let me reiterate that Pakistan is committed not to allow its territory for terrorist actions anywhere in the world.”

NEXT…..

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence leaders are pressing Taliban field commanders to fight the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan.

So, do you understand the Islamic teaching called ”Bid’a?”

On page 467 of al-Bariqa and 696 of Majma al-anhur, it is written that the ‘ulema [spiritual teachers] said, “It is permissible to use them* to deceive (khud’a) the disbelievers in dar al-harb. ”

“It is permissible to use Bid’a [innovations] to deceive the disbelievers in dar al-harb” [the realm of non-Muslims/war].

*Bid’a is innovation in Islamic doctrine or practice. It is considered a serious sin, since Islamic doctrine and practice is supposed to have been set entirely by Allah through Muhammad. This idea discourages Islamic reform, including reform of the aspects of Islamic doctrine that call for warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. But this explanation of bid’a allows for the appearance of innovation, so as to deceive unbelievers.

0