The reason we can't do much more is that while the frontier areas of Pakistan across from Afghanistan are our front line, that same border region is our rear area that we rely on for supplies. That's right, we shoot in the same direction our supplies come from.
And given the state of Pakistani public opinion that seems to applaud Pakistani use of force against our forces if we cross the border in pursuit of terrorists, I don't think we can count on rational decisions by Pakistan's leaders to keep our supply lines open if we intrude into the tribal areas too much. No matter how much the Pakistanis know they need our military and economic help, losing that aid is a long-term problem. Losing the support of the Pakistani people is an immediate problem that could lose Paksitan's leaders their jobs or even lives.
So there you go, we have a mobius war that twists and turns back on itself. Our front line is our line of supply. That's the real distraction in the war on terror.
That supply line provides 75% of our supplies, I believe. And after recent enemy attacks on that supply line, we are working to reestablish the flow:
A Pakistani decision to temporarily bar some trucks from a key passageway to Afghanistan threatened a critical supply route for U.S. and NATO troops on Sunday and raised more fears about deteriorating security in the militant-plagued border region.
The suspension of oil tankers and trucks carrying sealed containers came as U.S.-led coalition troops in eastern Afghanistan reported killing five al-Qaida-linked fighters and detaining eight others, including a militant leader.
Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters are behind much of the escalating violence along the lengthy, porous Afghan-Pakistan border, and both nations have traded accusations that the other was not doing enough to keep militants out from its side.
Remember, we already have to feed a lot of NATO war tourists whose troops just sit around playing HALO, or whatever they do. Adding more American troops, even though our troops will fight, will add to our supply problems and place our troops at risk if Pakistan fails to protect our supply lines.
In case you are thinking we can expand our alternate supply route, consider that it goes through Russia. Nifty, huh?
UPDATE: Instapundit links to a post at the Captain's Journal that dismisses the supply issue by saying that defeating the Taliban will reduce the threats to our supply problem, adding troops to Afghanistan will defeat the Taliban there, so therefore adding troops to Afghanistan decreases our supply problem.
That reasoning is ridiculous. Even in its own frame of reference it is ridiculous since defeating the Taliban on the Afghan side of the border doesn't have the same effect on the Pakistan side of the border.
But the argument is flawed more fundamentally by failing to see what the threat to our supply line is. I don't worry about Taliban bands cutting off our supplies. As long as the Pakistani government supports the supply mission, the supplies will get through. The problem is I do not know if the Pakistani government is stable enough to remain committed to the mission.
We risk our troops by putting them in a mountain sack. Right now they are supplied through Pakistan. That might not be the case tomorrow. And the more troops we have in Afghanistan, the bigger our problem is if that supply line is cut.
If you don't think this factor should limit our freedom of action in Afghanistan, I don't think you are paying attention.
