The torching of at least 19 oil tankers in Dasht, near Quetta, is an indication that the NATO forces there should look for supply elsewhere, as it seems the resentment against the logistical support given them has roused the ire of the local population. In fact, the simplest solution to the whole problem would be for NATO members to remove their forces from Afghanistan, as the occupation is becoming prohibitively expensive. The location of the incident also indicates why the NATO forces have insisted that there is a Quetta shura and why the USA has wanted to target Quetta with drones. This would serve to secure lines of supply, such an important consideration in warfare. This also makes it clear why the USA has quietly encouraged India to stir the pot in Balochistan. Apart from its loner-term aims of breaking up Pakistan and of using Balochistan against Iran, the USA would also secure supply lines there. There is enough of a differential between Pakistan and Central Asia as supply routes that NATO would prefer to tolerate some losses on the former, but that tolerance cannot be infinite. It would be better for NATO to find an alternative route before the locals raise the cost, by such actions as Mondays, to the point where the route through Pakistan becomes unaffordable. With NATO facing economy cuts in the wake of the US crisis and the UK riots because of budget cuts, affordability is a major issue. Not only should NATO, but also the USA, should end the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, and Pakistan should encourage their departure if it wants to avoid repetitions of the burning of tankers which are after all Pakistani, and represent Pakistani investment, since the tankers are ordered in under a contract system. Pakistan should be clear that its interests demand an end to the provision of NATO forces, and if the NATO forces do not see that their best interests lie in withdrawal, Pakistan must bring to an end a process which is wildly unpopular, as well as its participation in the USAs war on terror.