A Breakdown in Transporting Supplies to Afghanistan

[Imran Khan]

U.S., NATO seek less dependence on supply routes



Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:33pm EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States and NATO, hit by an upswing in attacks on Afghan-bound supply convoys in Pakistan, are stepping up efforts to secure alternative routes amid signs militants have chosen a troubling new tactic in their war with the West.

U.S. defense officials said militant attacks on the main overland supply route through Pakistan, from the seaport of Karachi to the Khyber Pass, had recently grown more frequent and intense, culminating in two daring assaults near the city of Peshawar last weekend.

The attacks, which occur beyond the reach of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, have become more spectacular with the arrival of insurgents driven out of former militant safe havens in the Bajaur region by Pakistan's army and paramilitary Frontier Corps, U.S. military officials said.

Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged growing worries about the security of the vital overland route, saying vigorous discussions with Pakistan had been taking place for some time.

"We're all increasingly concerned. But in that concern, we've worked pretty hard to develop options," the top U.S. military officer told reporters Wednesday.

About 75 percent of the vehicles, parts, weapons, fuel, water and food needed to sustain more than 60,000 Western troops against Afghanistan's Taliban insurgency move through the Khyber Pass and a second overland supply route farther south between Quetta and Kandahar.

NATO and the Pentagon have played down recent attacks, calling their effects insignificant. "They were barely measurable on the graph of what goes into Afghanistan on a daily basis," NATO spokesman James Appathurai said.

But analysts warn that while the immediate impact has been negligible, convoy attacks constitute a developing threat that could easily become more serious.

'ECONOMIC LIFELINE'

"If you look at the growth of Taliban influence, they could extend this type of attack over a much broader area," said Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Security and International Studies.

"And it's not simply our supply route. They're attacking the economic lifeline between Kabul and the outside world."

Military planners have examined a number of options, from building up the southern route into Kandahar to flying supplies to countries north of Afghanistan and trucking them south.

But U.S. planners have placed an emphasis on finding new routes by sea and land, possibly across the Black Sea and Caspian Sea into Afghanistan's northwest, outside the grasp of Pakistan-based militants.

The objective would not be to abandon the overland routes through Pakistan but to make U.S. and NATO forces less dependent on them by adding routes beyond the reach of insurgents.

A senior U.S. official said NATO had been talking to Afghanistan's three northern neighbors -- Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan -- over the past six to 12 months and that fuel was already entering the country from the north. Continued...

 

[daredevil]

U.S., NATO Seek Afghan Supply Routes Other Than Pakistan


by Ron Synovitz

Taliban fighters in recent months have been increasing the number and intensity of their attacks on NATO convoys that pass through Pakistan.

Several bold attacks in recent weeks have targeted not just trucks, but also a key terminal near Peshawar where trucks and cargos are kept before making the final part of their journey into Afghanistan.

Those attacks have focused international attention on NATO's so-called "Lines of Communication" project with Russia and former Soviet republics in Central Asia.

But NATO spokesman James Appathurai has downplayed the significance of the attacks on NATO's supply system.

"First of all, it's not that dangerous. These [attacks] are high-profile events. But they are, from what I understand from the military, statistically and strategically insignificant if you look at the bulk of the logistics effort," Appathurai tells RFE/RL.

"They are of concern. But they basically make no statistical difference to the supplies going into that country," he says. "But of course, the Taliban in that region is trying to undermine logistics to that area to the extent that they can."

Appathurai says NATO's interest in building alternative overland supply routes into Afghanistan can be dated back more than two years -- long before the Taliban started targeting convoys and cargo terminals.

"My understanding is that these discussions are going quite well. They are supported by the Russian Federation. Is there any change in the last few months? No. I think they are going forward," he says. "We always hope for them to go forward more quickly. But I understand that there are no political problems. Only technical ones. And those are being addressed."

New Routes Needed


There currently are about 65,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan -- including soldiers in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force as well as U.S.-led coalition forces.

About 75 percent of the supplies for those foreign troops -- military equipment, food, fuel and other vital provisions -- arrive from the West by ship at the Pakistani port of Karachi. From there, those supplies are loaded onto trucks and driven hundreds of miles across Pakistan to cargo terminals on the outskirts of Peshawar. Finally, convoys of trucks carry the supplies into Afghanistan through the Khyber Pass.

Matthew Clements, the Eurasia analyst at the London-based publication "Jane's Country Risk," says he agrees that the amount of NATO supplies destroyed in Pakistan by the Taliban in recent months has been insignificant compared to the total amount of supplies moving through that route.

"It wasn't a large percentage," Clements says. "However, the theory is that if these attacks continue on this sort of scale and become more regular, it is going to impact on the supplies reaching NATO forces. Hence, I think there is a genuine concern within NATO of the need to diversify its [supply routes]."

Clements has been closely following developments on possible alternative supply routes. He notes that Russia and Uzbekistan both signed an accord with NATO in April that calls for cooperation on delivery of supplies into Afghanistan.


"They've been in discussions and there was an agreement indeed signed at the April [2008] NATO summit in Bucharest between Russia and Uzbekistan with NATO for the overland delivery of supplies to NATO forces [in Afghanistan]," Clements says.

"This would be nonlethal military supplies, so obviously not ammunition or war machines, etc. It would be more like food and fuel and these kind of things. Now, this was signed although it still has not been implemented. And little progress has been made on it," he adds. "Obviously, some damage was done to any progress by the downturn in relations between Russia and the West -- especially following the August conflict between Russia and Georgia."

Overland Through Russia

Clements also says that Moscow, despite its disagreements with the West over the conflict in Georgia and the U.S. missile-defense shield, continues to pledge support for NATO operations in Afghanistan because it is in Russia's best interest, as it realizes "the risks that [failure in Afghanistan] could pose to its own southern borders and also the risk posed by the expanding drug production and exports from [Afghanistan.]"

"There are a number of options [for alternative overland supply routes] on the table. But I think [NATO] would bring supplies to the Baltics. The access to ports is quite important. So to the Baltics and then through Russia, and overland through mainland Europe [into Russia] as well. These are all possible options," Clements says.

"Russia does offer the most direct overland route from Europe -- and across, obviously the Black Sea or the Caspian Sea and through Central Asia to Afghanistan," he adds. "Russia also has a more advanced infrastructure than the Caucasus or Central Asia."

But Clements says other supply routes are possible that would not pass through Russia -- including a Caucasus route with supplies arriving from the Black Sea and moving across the Caspian Sea into Central Asia -- perhaps with Turkmenistan or with Uzbekistan's involvement.

However, he notes that the situation "has changed quite a lot in recent years. Obviously, the [use by U.S. forces of an air base] was closed by Uzbekistan following the harsh criticism [by Washington] of its actions in Andijon. But I think since then that Uzbekistan has become slightly frustrated with the fact that its turning toward Russia hasn't received quite what it thought it would do. I think [Uzbekistan] has realized that there is an opening again for U.S. influence and for U.S. aid. And it has opened itself up to a degree.

"But at the moment, it still remains fairly embryonic, and few other details have emerged on what could happen. I certainly haven't seen anything suggesting there would be a reopening of an air base," he says. "But it does show that Uzbekistan is open to more cooperation with NATO and the United States."

Clements says Turkmenistan also has become a more feasible option since the death of President Saparmurat Niyazov in 2006, as "the new administration has opened itself up -- not just to the West but also to Russia and China. And it is seeking to expand its best relations," he says.

"One of the things it has put forward is a kind of opening toward the United States and Western aid and investment," Clements adds. "And a part of this could obviously be through military cooperation -- although, again, this does remain embryonic, and no concrete deals have been put forward in terms of bases or overland [supply] routes."

Clements concludes that it is the lack of transport infrastructure in Central Asia and the Caucasus that is the biggest hurdle to overland supply routes through those regions.

He says there needs to be a lot of investment in the restoration of old railroads and highways, and the building of new ones. That means it could take years and millions of dollars before a reliable alternative overland supply route can be established for NATO forces in Afghanistan.

 

[QADRI]

i have a suggestion for them......adopt the supply route through Iran...lolz

 

[daredevil]

It might be possible if Ahmedinejad loses in the coming elections.

 

[Awesome]

Good riddance.

 

[Jihad]

Have them clean up their own mess.

 

[kidwaibhai]

ok, i know people think that this is a burden but i think that this will harm our economy. the only business that is working in NWFP these days is the trucking business so we have to beef up the security for these routes. but i still think that it will take a long time for them to develop the land routes and it will also take a very longtime for goods to reach their destination. so i think they will primarily depend on pakistan for supplies for a long time to come

 

[Awesome]

ok, i know people think that this is a burden but i think that this will harm our economy. the only business that is working in NWFP these days is the trucking business so we have to beef up the security for these routes. but i still think that it will take a long time for them to develop the land routes and it will also take a very longtime for goods to reach their destination. so i think they will primarily depend on pakistan for supplies for a long time to come

What is wrong is wrong.

This thing will dramatically kill the need for terrorists to target Pakistan. Plus the bigger picture states that we shouldn't be helping hostile nations. The quicker America doesn't need us any more the quicker we'd stop fitting into her "future plans".

Today the #1 problem with Pakistan is not its failing economy. It is the freakin security! I can live with anything of Pakistan. The poverty, the electrical outages, the small cars, the rikshaw noise, the lack of smooth roads... But what I cannot accept is giving the life of my loved ones for it.

The price of the trucking industry is just too high my friend. I say good riddance and I hope the Americans and Nato can go into amnesia mode and forget all about Pakistan. Go through Iran, Russia, or anywhere. Maybe we should pay them some money to set it all up even. Just get this nuisance out of Pakistan.

 

[Awesome]

Taliban torch another 53 US, NATO vehicles near Peshawar

Look Pakistan is such a bad option. They should just leave. Go through wherever.

 

[fatman17]

why have we started a duplicate thread?!!!

 

[Evil Flare]

It might be possible if Ahmedinejad loses in the coming elections.

Lolz !!!!


Man You Really dont know about Politics of IRAN


Dont you know abt Supreme Leader ...

Iran has Partial Democracy

 

[Awesome]

why have we started a duplicate thread?!!!

I was thinking about merging it, but then let it go. I think its an angle that would develop a lot more in due time.

 

[fatman17]

From The Times

December 13, 2008

Nato hard at work making deals to beat the Khyber Pass convoy trap

Jeremy Page, South Asia Correspondent

Nato plans to open a new supply route to Afghanistan through Russia and Central Asia in the next eight weeks following a spate of attacks on its main lifeline through Pakistan this year, Nato and Russian sources have told The Times.

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 sources said.

“It'll be weeks rather than months,” said one Nato official. “Two months max.”

The “Northern Corridor” is expected to be discussed at an informal meeting next week between Dmitri Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to Nato, and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, Nato's Secretary-General.

The breakthrough reflects Nato and US commanders' growing concern about the attacks on their main supply line, which runs from the Pakistani port of Karachi via the Khyber Pass to Kabul and brings in 70 per cent of their supplies. The rest is either driven from Karachi via the border town of Chaman to southern Afghanistan - the Taleban's heartland - or flown in at enormous expense in transport planes that are in short supply.

“We're all increasingly concerned,” Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on Wednesday. “But in that concern, we've worked pretty hard to develop options.”

The opening of the Northern Corridor also mirrors a gradual thaw in relations between Moscow and Nato, which plunged to their lowest level since the end of the Cold War after Russia's brief war with Georgia in August.

However, Nato and the United States are simultaneously in talks on opening a third supply route through the secretive Central Asian state of Turkmenistan to prevent Russia from gaining a stranglehold on supplies to Afghanistan, the sources said. Non-lethal supplies, including fuel, would be shipped across the Black Sea to Georgia, driven to neighbouring Azerbaijan, shipped across the Caspian Sea to Turkmenistan and then driven to the Afghan border.

The week-long journey along this “central route” would be longer and more expensive than those through Pakistan or Russia and would leave supplies vulnerable to political volatility in the Caucasus and Turkmenistan.

The US and Nato are, though, exploring as many alternatives as possible as America prepares to deploy 20,000 more troops - three quarters of them by the summer - to add to the 67,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan. Turkmenistan represents the only realistic alternative that bypasses Russia. A route through Iran is out of the question because Washington does not have diplomatic relations with Tehran. Afghanistan's border with China is too remote to be used.

An agreement with Georgia has already been signed and negotiations with Azerbaijan are “ongoing”, a Nato official said.

Nato began exploring alternative supply routes in response to political instability in Pakistan last year and reached an informal agreement with Russia on the Northern Corridor at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April. At the same meeting President Berdymukhammedov of Turkmenistan offered to allow Nato to take supplies across its territory and to establish logistics bases there, according to Nato sources.

Negotiations stalled after the Georgian crisis, as Nato suspended high-level contacts with Moscow and Central Asian countries grew wary of angering the former Soviet master.

They have since shown their independence by refusing to back Moscow's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

Russia, meanwhile, has been offering preferential treatment to Nato members that it considers “friendly”, such as France and Germany, the only Nato members allowed to fly supplies to Afghanistan through Russian airspace. In November Germany also became the first Nato member allowed to bring supplies for Afghanistan through Russia by railway.

Russian officials say that Moscow is ready to open the Northern Corridor to all Nato members as soon as the alliance finalises its agreements with Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. The agreements cover non-military supplies such as fuel, food and clothing, and some non-lethal military equipment.

“All Nato countries will be able to use the Northern Corridor,” one Russian official familiar with the negotiations told The Times. “As far as we understand, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan have agreed to it and sent the relevant papers to Brussels. We're just waiting for Nato to sign the agreements. We've done our part.”

BORDER WOES

A spate of attacks by Pakistani militants on supply convoys to Nato and US forces has caused backlogs and border closures. More than 1,000 trucks are stalled on the Afghan border and haulage costs are up by almost 70 per cent.Pakistani authorities have closed the border at Torkham, near the Khyber Pass, after militants set fire to at least 260 vehicles, including American Humvees, last weekend and attacked two cargo terminals in Peshawar on Thursday.

Times Online | News and Views from The Times and Sunday Times

 

[neo_revo]

Good for NATO. Pakistan was being underpaid anyways.

 

[fatman17]

Good for NATO. Pakistan was being underpaid anyways.

how so???
pls explain!