A Breakdown in Transporting Supplies to Afghanistan

[slugger]

Russia already refused to help NATO.

Err...what kind of a Newspaper do you read

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the former Soviet Central Asian states that lie between Russia and Afghanistan, have agreed in principle to the railway route and are working out the small print with Nato........The “Northern Corridor” is expected to be discussed at an informal meeting next week between Dmitri Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to Nato,

It had appeared on the 13th December. No report of a refusal since then

 

[Awesome]

"apparantly the pakistani transport co's are moving their logistic depots to punjab! does this means that NATO/ISAF are going to continue the pak supply route??"

This is interesting. First, it's all about trying to find SOME way to keep the business in Pakistan. Thus exploring every possibility seems practical. Staging further away from the militants helps until the militants move east-southeast. Unlikely for the time being though is my guess. Those raids in Peshawar happen where the militants have a nearby community(ies) in support and are readily available to accomodate them. They'll need something similar in Punjab. Until the militant uprising spreads there in more general fashion direct attacks seem less likely.

That said, does the Punjab to Kabul route mark the greatest extent of a one-shot/no refuel convoy range? If so, then my guess would further include the possibility of active convoy assistance by the P.A. Securing this route is more than simply about NATO resupply-however important that may be. The Peshawar-Jalalabad-Kabul link is a key national artery and must remain under government control. Clearly the tribal lashkars once capable of doing so are no longer up to the task.

In the end, these road networks are a nation's circulation system. Commerce moves like blood through these routes. Failure to secure such will increase anxiety among the nation's business owners. Atrophy of the commercial network ensues.

There's a two-fold challenge here. Can logistics depots be more secure in Punjab? Can convoys be secured from there to the Afghan border AND BACK AGAIN? Really that's three questions. All must answer "yes" for a long-term and satisfactory Pakistani response.

Should NATO/ISAF find that Pakistan can't be relied upon to secure safe transit of it's supplies, there will be efforts to find other paths. That's in fact already started. Can these routes wholly replace the goods moving through Pakistan and at what cost and for how long? Should America/NATO be successful in locating new alternatives, that ability to resupply from elsewhere will diminish Pakistan's tangible contribution to the allied effort.

I'm uncertain how that might alter the dynamic of the U.S./Pakistan engagement. I would presume some elements of that relationship would shift.

Which is precisely why its a bad idea to allow them into Punjab. Pakistan should encourage nato to make alternative arrangements. This logistics business costs us more than it profits us.

We're moving a nice juicy target into Punjab the stronghold of Pakistan. I sincerely hope Nato finds an alternative and stops effin up our country further. We should in fact perhaps Pay Nato to leave, help them establish a secure trade route from Russia...

 

[Anwar2]

Dear friends: Lets study a bit of geography of multi-modal transportation.

Afghanistan can be served through the following routes:

1. Karachi Port – Quetta – Chaman – Kandahar = Very dangerous. Good for South Afghanistan only. Taleban have raised their fees.
2. Karachi Port – Peshawar – Jalalabad – Kabul = Safe productive route, but needs higher Fees to Taleban on both sides of border.
3. Gwadar Port – Kharan – Dalbandin – Nimroz – Kandahar = Good route, but lands in the most dangerous area. Needs a good deal with Jandullah group.
4. Bandar Abbas Port – Zaranj – Helmand – Kandahar = Needs Iran’s cooperation and a good deal with Jandullah group.
5. Odessa (Russia) Black Sea Port – Astrakhan – Nukus (Uzbekistan) – Bokhara – Samarkand – Termiz (Uzbekistan) – Mazar Sharif – Kabul = Needs Russian support and throwing away Georgia and Ukraine to the wolves!. Also ridiculously expensive
6. Poti (Georgia) – Baku (Azerbaijan) – by Sea to Turkemanbashi Port – Ashqabad – Merv – Kushka – Herat – Kandahar. Needs Russian cooperation to allow access to Georgia and then through Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Also the most expensive route.
7. From anywhere in Europe - Astrakhan (Russia) – Nukus (Uzbekistan) – Bokhara – Samarkand – Termiz (Uzbekistan) – Mazar Sharif – Kabul = Needs Russian support and throwing away Georgia and Ukraine to the wolves!. Also ridiculously expensive

An objective comparison shows that the cost per Ton to Kabul is by a wide margin lowest through Khyber Pass. The main problem is that US / NATO are miserably stingy with Pakistan. They want PA to guarantee logistics for free. Any other alternate route will set them back by at least US$ 20-30 b / year, plus huge political concessions. Now is the time for Pakistan to ask for a fair price, which is a 50% discount over the alternate route.

 

[waraich66]

Err...what kind of a Newspaper do you read


It had appeared on the 13th December. No report of a refusal since then

Using Russia-CAR route not practical for NATO. They have done before but finally being ask to leave.

NATO move their logistics route to Pakistan since being ask to leave Uzbekistan after being pressure by SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation).

The only hope was Pakistan. All others Aghanistan neighbour nation such as Iran, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and China has several issue with NATO especially US.


After the end of this winter there is possiblity that Afghan Mujahadeen launch decisive attacks.

 

[Awesome]

Dear friends: Lets study a bit of geography of multi-modal transportation.

Afghanistan can be served through the following routes:

1. Karachi Port – Quetta – Chaman – Kandahar = Very dangerous. Good for South Afghanistan only. Taleban have raised their fees.
2. Karachi Port – Peshawar – Jalalabad – Kabul = Safe productive route, but needs higher Fees to Taleban on both sides of border.
3. Gwadar Port – Kharan – Dalbandin – Nimroz – Kandahar = Good route, but lands in the most dangerous area. Needs a good deal with Jandullah group.
4. Bandar Abbas Port – Zaranj – Helmand – Kandahar = Needs Iran’s cooperation and a good deal with Jandullah group.
5. Odessa (Russia) Black Sea Port – Astrakhan – Nukus (Uzbekistan) – Bokhara – Samarkand – Termiz (Uzbekistan) – Mazar Sharif – Kabul = Needs Russian support and throwing away Georgia and Ukraine to the wolves!. Also ridiculously expensive
6. Poti (Georgia) – Baku (Azerbaijan) – by Sea to Turkemanbashi Port – Ashqabad – Merv – Kushka – Herat – Kandahar. Needs Russian cooperation to allow access to Georgia and then through Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Also the most expensive route.
7. From anywhere in Europe - Astrakhan (Russia) – Nukus (Uzbekistan) – Bokhara – Samarkand – Termiz (Uzbekistan) – Mazar Sharif – Kabul = Needs Russian support and throwing away Georgia and Ukraine to the wolves!. Also ridiculously expensive

An objective comparison shows that the cost per Ton to Kabul is by a wide margin lowest through Khyber Pass. The main problem is that US / NATO are miserably stingy with Pakistan. They want PA to guarantee logistics for free. Any other alternate route will set them back by at least US$ 20-30 b / year, plus huge political concessions. Now is the time for Pakistan to ask for a fair price, which is a 50% discount over the alternate route.

So what its not more expensive than losing half your cargo by going through Pakistan. The US can afford it, so go through Russian channels.

 

[batmannow]

Pakistan closes NATO supply route to fight militants
Tuesday December 30, 7:56 PM


PESHAWAR, Pakistan(AFP) - Pakistan on Tuesday cut off supplies to NATO and US forces in Afghanistan via the Khyber Pass as security forces launched a major operation against militants there, officials said.
The offensive comes after a series of spectacular raids by suspected Taliban militants on foreign military supply depots in northwest Pakistan earlier this month in which hundreds of NATO and US-led coalition vehicles were destroyed.
Pakistani security forces backed by tanks, helicopter gunships and artillery units poured into the lawless Khyber tribal region on the Afghan border before dawn, the area's administrator Tariq Hayat told reporters in Peshawar.

"We have launched an operation against militants and armed groups in Jamrud," the gateway to the Khyber Pass, Hayat said.

The main highway linking Peshawar to the border town of Torkham has been shut down until the operation is complete, he said, adding: "Supplies to NATO forces have temporarily been suspended."

Heavy cannon fire was heard in Jamrud, residents told AFP. Helicopter gunships shelled suspected militant hideouts, killing five people and wounding 10 including an off-duty soldier, local security officials said.

The home of local Taliban commander Iftikhar Khan was destroyed, one official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Several other suspected hideouts were razed, he added.

"This is a giant operation. It will continue until we achieve our objective," Hayat said, adding that the operation could be expanded beyond the area near Jamrud -- located between Peshawar and Torkham -- if necessary.

The tribal administrator said the operation was aimed at putting a stop to both attacks on NATO supply vehicles and a spate of kidnappings for ransom in the tribal badlands, where Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants are active.

Troops had already seized a large quantity of arms and ammunition in a raid on a warehouse in Jamrud, Hayat said, adding that a complete curfew had been imposed on the area, with paramilitary troops patrolling the streets.

Residents said they were advised not to leave their homes and that roads in the area had been barricaded to prevent civilian car traffic.

No arrests had yet been reported, but Hayat said: "We will start rounding up people if necessary."

The bulk of the supplies and equipment required by NATO and US-led forces battling the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is shipped to Pakistan's largest port, Karachi, in the south.

From there, the containers of food, fuel, vehicles and munitions are taken by truck to depots outside Peshawar before being transported to Afghanistan via the Khyber Pass.

But the fabled road passes through the heart of Pakistan's lawless tribal zone, where extremists sought refuge after Afghanistan's hardline Taliban regime was ousted in a US-led invasion at the end of 2001.

A spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan, contacted in Kabul, said the Pakistani army offensive had thus far had "no impact" on foreign forces.

"We know about the operation but our information through our logistics experts is that there is no impact on our supplies," British Royal Navy Captain Mark Windsor told AFP.

Some supplies are also transported into Afghanistan by plane or via southwest Pakistan and across the border at Spin Boldak.

Three NATO supply vehicles were gutted prior to the start of Tuesday's operation when militants blew up an oil tanker outside Peshawar with a remote-controlled bomb, security officials said.

Two weeks ago, several haulage companies in Pakistan working for foreign forces refused to ply the 50-kilometre (30-mile) route between Peshawar and Torkham, saying their drivers' lives were at risk.

Senior Pakistani officials said last week that some troops had been redeployed from the tribal areas to the country's eastern border with India, amid simmering tensions with New Delhi over the Mumbai attacks.

The move sparked concerns that the fight against extremists in the rugged border region could suffer.

 

[slugger]

If possible they might just test their alternate route, and if successfull it would be Sayonara Pakistan at least wrt to supply and logistics

Even lesser dependance by the NATO+US on Pakistan

 

[pkpatriotic]

^^^^ Good tactical move indeed..

 

[batmannow]

If possible they might just test their alternate route, and if successfull it would be Sayonara Pakistan at least wrt to supply and logistics

Even lesser dependance by the NATO+US on Pakistan

dear slugger;sir
possibly, & surly! its pakistan putting NATO & CO. in the testing grounds, & what if , the other "alternate route" could not be "successfull ", i guss then its "Sayonara NATO+ALLIES"?

 

[ajpirzada]

if they go for alternate route that might turn out to be gud for pakistan. with supplies coming from north, most of the talibans would move away from pak therefore easing the fight at pak afghan border. also none of the pakistanis want pak land to be used for supplyin goods to US and nato forces.

 

[notorious_eagle]

That would be much better if the alternative route works out, than the taliban will most probablly move away. We have suffered enough attacks from Taliban, i really hope this alternative route works out.

 

[cooldude]

WASHINGTON — The United States and NATO are planning to open and expand supply lines through Central Asia to deliver fuel, food and other goods to a military mission in Afghanistan that is expected to grow by tens of thousands of troops in the months ahead, according to American and alliance diplomats and military officials.

The plan to open new paths through Central Asia reflects an American-led effort to seek out a more reliable alternative to the route from Pakistan through the strategic Khyber Pass, which was closed by Pakistani security forces on Tuesday as they launched an offensive against militants in the region.

The militants have shown they can threaten shipments through the pass into Afghanistan, burning cargo trucks and American Humvees over recent weeks. More than 80 percent of the supplies for American and allied forces in Afghanistan now flow through Pakistan.

But the new arrangements could leave the United States more reliant on cooperation from authoritarian countries like Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which have poor records when it comes to democracy and human rights.

The officials said delicate negotiations were under way not only with the Central Asian states bordering Afghanistan, but with Russia, as well, to work out the details of new supply routes. The talks show the continued importance of American and NATO cooperation with the Kremlin, despite lingering tension over Russia’s August war with Georgia.

American officials said they were trying to allay Central Asian concerns by promising that the supplies would be hauled by commercial shipping companies only and would not include weapons or munitions. Officials also say that no additional American bases will be required on their territory.

Some of Afghanistan’s neighbors, in particular Kyrgyzstan, already serve as staging areas for American supplies bound for Afghanistan, and officials involved in the talks said these countries appeared eager to increase their role, both to help bring stability in the region, and to benefit commercially from the arrangement.

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan share Afghanistan’s northern border, and they have road transport routes into Afghanistan.

Kyrgyzstan, farther to the north, allows American military cargo planes access to its airfields, in a deal that has become more important since 2005, when the government of Uzbekistan ordered the United States to leave a base there in a dispute over human rights issues. American and NATO officials say concerns about Uzbekistan’s human rights record are less important to the current negotiations because no new bases are under discussion and any increased supply shipments would be handled by contracts with commercial trucking companies.

Among other states, Kazakhstan is viewed as a potentially important supply hub, while the Caspian Sea port of Baku, Azerbaijan, could be a potential transit point for shipments of fuel and other goods arriving from Europe by sea or by rail.

Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, chief of the American military’s Transportation Command, quietly visited nations along Afghanistan’s northern border last month, according to American military officials who declined to identify the countries by name because of diplomatic sensitivities.

“These countries of Central Asia recognize that this is their struggle, too, in Afghanistan,” said one State Department official, who said those border nations had responded positively to talks on “how to improve, regularize, expand and find additional routes in.”

NATO officials say the attacks in Pakistan have not yet presented a strategic threat to the American supply lines, but they also say planning for alternative routes is warranted.

“We always want flexibility,” said Gen. John Craddock, NATO’s military commander. “There is work ongoing in NATO to see what can be done about alternative lines of communication.”

President-elect Barack Obama has said that he intends to send more American troops to Afghanistan in the months ahead, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this month that 20,000 to 30,000 American troops could be added to the mission, with a large portion being sent in the first six months of next year.

About 31,000 American troops are currently in Afghanistan, including 14,000 who are part of a NATO-led mission that has more than 51,000 troops. The other 17,000 American troops operate independently of NATO to carry out combat, counterterrorism and training missions.

continued at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/world/asia/31military.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

 

[slugger]

if they go for alternate route that might turn out to be gud for pakistan.

It is a little easy for you to say this with a Union Jack proudly displayed on your profile

Did you...for even the briefest second...stop and consider the loss of livelyhood for the numerous hundreds, maybe even thousands of Pakistanis who derieve their livelyhood

Right from the time the supplies are offloaded at Gwadar/Karachi till the time it enters [whatever passes off as] the Afghanistan border, literally many thousands of Pakistanis are employeed

These Pakistani citizens who otherwise have no other source of income, because industries are shutting down, even those that do function are doing so understrength, exports are quite a matter of humor here, inflation -24% [before anybody asks me how rising inflation is bad - Google] and devalued Pakistani currency meaning absolutely negative "unmentionables"

Try telling these thouands of people it is a good thing that NATO+US will no longer going to go through their land and give them any more money for working for them.

Also easy for the notorious_eagle from canada - none of you are earning your livelyhoods from the passing of these convoys

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Stop being melodramatic slugger - 'thousands of people' associated with trucking NATO supplies are not going to tip over the Pakistani economy.

The arguments made in support of delinking the NATO supply route from Pakistan tend to state that the lack of attacks on NATO supply convoys would be the result of the Taliban finding NATO targets elsewhere, and the resulting drop in violence would more than make up for the loss of revenue from the trucking operations, through stability and increased economic activity in other sectors.

That said, this particular military operation seems to be directed at the groups engaging in attacks on NATO supply convoys, so I doubt the GoP interested in permanently shutting off the supply route.

I also doubt that NATO will shift to a different supply route for a majority of its supplies, so long as the disruptions we are witnessing now do not significantly increase, or the GoP outright refuses.

NATO will explore and utilize other routes, but given the greater expense involved, will likely stick with Pakistan until the Pakistan route becomes completely unfeasible.

P.S: Stop bringing up peoples locations in your arguments. Being directly impacted by an event is not a prerequisite for offering an opinion on a subject, nor does it automatically make the arguments valid or invalid.

 

[Captain03]

what alternative route would they have???
afghanistan is and surrounded by countries that do not favor the u.s
once pakistan's hand is off of the u.s. the u.s. will easily lose the war in afghanistan [not that they are winning right now]