You know, I've been following the War in Afghanistan closely for about two years and have blogged about it for just over a year...and one thing I have learned is that each day brings more and more craziness to the whole operation. Just when a guy thinks he has a handle on this war, something like this crops up and one is left just shaking his head. Today, the top commander of NATO, an American General named John Craddock approved individual NATO countries' use of Iran as an alternate supply route into Afghanistan - since the current supply route in Pakistan has become treacherous and undependable. I'll express more of my dismay after we look at some of the excerpts from the article at Yahoo News:
Okay, the article talks about how Iran has a history of resisting Taliban rule in Afghanistan - well, that must be just verbal because last time I checked, there has never been an Iranian action aimed at the Taliban and in fact, just a few months ago, more and more reports were coming out that Iranian IED materials were being found in Taliban possession.
But beyond all that...am I losing my mind here? Iran as a NATO supply route?!!! Seriously, this is a country, Iran, that is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons, who has been astrocized in political channels by these SAME NATIONS that want to bring supplies through that same country! I mean good grief! Yeah, let's send our top secret weaponry and munitions through Iran...I'm sure they will just let it all drive by and not sneak a peek whatsoever. Am I just paranoid in thinking there just might be some "missing shipments" along the way?
I noticed in the article that the three NATO countries that would probably opt for this - France, Germany and Italy - well, neither of them is any kind of a force in the Afghan battle to begin with.
No folks, this is all about the U.S. having to bend over just to keep these NATO countries involved in the War in Afghanistan at all. Somewhere along the line of command, it's been decided that if the U.S. were to object to this lunacy, that it would fuel more of the fires of many NATO countries to pull out of Afghanistan. And now, when the U.S. needs the strong leadership to hold NATO together and lobby againt assinine plans like this, we have a President who really can't make up his mind what he wants to do in Afghanistan. As they say....timing is everything.
NATO would not oppose individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan as an alternative to using increasingly risky routes from Pakistan, the alliance's top military commander said Monday.
Gen. John Craddock's comments came just days after NATO's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, urged the U.S. and other members of the Western military alliance to engage with Iran to combat Taliban militants in Afghanistan.
"Those would be national decisions. Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces," Craddock, an American who is NATO's supreme allied commander, told The Associated Press. "I think it is purely up to them."
Some experts suggest that nations with good relations with Iran such as France, Germany and Italy may try to set up an alternate supply route to western Afghanistan via Char Bahar, a port in southeastern Iran.
"NATO is looking at flexible, alternate routing. I think that is healthy," Craddock said, when asked about the possibility of using Iranian territory for supply.
Okay, the article talks about how Iran has a history of resisting Taliban rule in Afghanistan - well, that must be just verbal because last time I checked, there has never been an Iranian action aimed at the Taliban and in fact, just a few months ago, more and more reports were coming out that Iranian IED materials were being found in Taliban possession.
But beyond all that...am I losing my mind here? Iran as a NATO supply route?!!! Seriously, this is a country, Iran, that is on the brink of obtaining nuclear weapons, who has been astrocized in political channels by these SAME NATIONS that want to bring supplies through that same country! I mean good grief! Yeah, let's send our top secret weaponry and munitions through Iran...I'm sure they will just let it all drive by and not sneak a peek whatsoever. Am I just paranoid in thinking there just might be some "missing shipments" along the way?
I noticed in the article that the three NATO countries that would probably opt for this - France, Germany and Italy - well, neither of them is any kind of a force in the Afghan battle to begin with.
No folks, this is all about the U.S. having to bend over just to keep these NATO countries involved in the War in Afghanistan at all. Somewhere along the line of command, it's been decided that if the U.S. were to object to this lunacy, that it would fuel more of the fires of many NATO countries to pull out of Afghanistan. And now, when the U.S. needs the strong leadership to hold NATO together and lobby againt assinine plans like this, we have a President who really can't make up his mind what he wants to do in Afghanistan. As they say....timing is everything.
NATO says members may use Iran for Afghan supplies
KABUL – NATO would not oppose individual member nations making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan as an alternative to using increasingly risky routes from Pakistan, the alliance's top military commander said Monday.
Gen. John Craddock's comments came just days after NATO's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, urged the U.S. and other members of the Western military alliance to engage with Iran to combat Taliban militants in Afghanistan.
"Those would be national decisions. Nations should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces," Craddock, an American who is NATO's supreme allied commander, told The Associated Press. "I think it is purely up to them."
Securing alternative routes to landlocked Afghanistan has taken on added urgency this year as the United States prepares to double its troop numbers there to 60,000 to battle a resurgent Taliban eight years after the U.S.-led invasion.
It also comes at a time when the main supply corridor through neighboring Pakistan is becoming increasingly dangerous as insurgents attack convoys that supply the foreign troops in Afghanistan.
Some political and military leaders have hinted at the need for closer cooperation with the government in Iran over the war in Afghanistan, where some 70,000 NATO and U.S. troops are currently trying to beat back the resurgent Taliban.
The United States has viewed Iran's role in Afghanistan with suspicion, although the Islamic Republic has a long history of opposing Taliban rule.
U.S. officials have previously alleged that Iranian-made weapons and explosive devices were finding their way in the hands of insurgents in Afghanistan. But such criticism has been muted recently as President Barack Obama's administration tries to set a new tone in relations with Iran.
Some experts suggest that nations with good relations with Iran such as France, Germany and Italy may try to set up an alternate supply route to western Afghanistan via Char Bahar, a port in southeastern Iran.
"NATO is looking at flexible, alternate routing. I think that is healthy," Craddock said, when asked about the possibility of using Iranian territory for supply.
"Options are a good thing, choices are a good thing, flexibility in military operations is essential," he said. "What nations will do is up to them," he said, without elaborating.
Craddock's comments came after U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus said last month that America had struck deals with Russia and several Central Asian states close to or bordering Afghanistan to allow supplies to pass through their territory.
No comments:
Post a Comment