A shiny penny to anyone who can detect the contradiction in one general’s assessment of the Afghanistan supply-line problem. (Emphasis mine.)
Despite dangers U.S. convoys face in delivering supplies to coalition forces in Afghanistan by way of Pakistan, military operations there aren’t susceptible to those threats, the Defense Department’s top uniformed logistician said Feb. 26. Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, commander of U.S. Transportation Command, ensured [sic] members of the House Armed Services Joint Air and Land Forces and the Air Power and Expeditionary Forces subcommittees that troops get what they need, because his command doesn’t rely on one option or system of resupply. … “As we look at that theater … obviously getting into Afghanistan, there’s not a whole bunch of ways to come in, but we make sure we have multiple options,” he said.
Now re-consider McNabb’s assertion in light of the these recent headlines, both highlighting course-reversals on U.S. relations with two former “enemies.” “U.S. looks to China for support on Afghanistan: Pentagon.” “Russia opens Afghan supply route for U.S.”
I’m not saying it’s a bad thing that the need for land lines into Afghanistan has forced us to make nice with Russia and China. I’m just saying that McNabb’s “aren’t susceptible” comment is pure spin. Sure, our supply lines aren’t susceptible, so long as we’re willing to restructure our entire foreign policy around the need for road access to one crappy Central Asian country.
(Photo: via Russia Blog)