closure of supply routes costs US 6 times more

[Musafar]

Finally some good news. But makes you wonder how damn cheap we were transporting their diet pepsi and fries for them compared to others!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is paying six times as much to send war supplies to troops in Afghanistan through alternate routes after Pakistan’s punitive decision in November to close border crossings to NATO convoys, the Associated Press has learned.

Islamabad shut down two key Pakistan border crossings after a U.S. airstrike killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in late November, and it is unclear when the crossings might reopen.

Pentagon figures provided to the AP show it is now costing about $104 million per month to send the supplies through a longer northern route. That is $87 million more per month than when the cargo moved through Pakistan.

While U.S. officials have acknowledged that using alternate transportation routes for Afghan war supplies is more expensive and takes longer, the total costs had not been revealed until now. The Pentagon provided the cost figures to the AP on Thursday.

U.S. officials said Thursday the elevated costs are likely to continue for some time, as U.S.-Pakistan tensions remain high and Pakistan has not yet offered to restore the transport arrangement or to begin negotiations on the matter. Until the closure, the U.S. had relied on Pakistani routes to move about one-third of all war supplies for Afghanistan.

washingtonpost.com

 

[VCheng]

Where is the problem? An extra $100 million per month is trivial!

 

[fatman17]

Where is the problem? An extra $100 million per month is trivial!

then why the repeated 'requests' to open the supply route!?

 

[fatman17]

Date Posted: 10-Feb-2012

Pakistan considers higher charges for reopening ISAF land supply route

Farhan Bokhari JDW Correspondent - Islamabad


Key Points
•ISAF's land supply route through Pakistan was closed following a US helicopter attack that led to the deaths of 26 Pakistan Army soldiers

•The route may be resumed, officials have indicated, but Pakistan is likely to charge higher tariffs for the ISAF supplies passing through the country

Pakistan Defence Minister Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar has publicly supported lifting the ban on 'essential supplies' passing through the country's land route for International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops in Afghanistan. The move signals a growing intent among the country's leaders to resume a relationship that was cut off in November 2011 after the killing of 26 Pakistan Army soldiers in a US helicopter attack.

A log-jam of oil tankers builds up in Karachi on 8 December following Pakistan's closure of the ISAF land supply route through Pakistan in November.

The November incident immediately prompted Pakistani authorities to order the closure of the ISAF land supply route through Pakistan. In recent years the US-led international NATO force has tried to build an alternative supply route through the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, but Pakistani officials claim the route through the country still accounts for more than half the supplies headed into Afghanistan.

For Pakistan's influential army, the November attack marked the violation of "an essential red line", according to senior army officers who stated that: . "An attack of this kind, where our troops were targeted without any provocation, is simply not acceptable," one senior Pakistan Army officer said in December.

On 8 February Mukhtar stated : "I am personally in favour of allowing essential supplies like food and medicines to go through." However, he repeated his earlier assertion that the supplies "must not be allowed to pass through without a realistic cost [in transit fees]". He added that: "We must consider ways of taking our relationship with the US forward."

A senior Pakistani Foreign Ministry official said that the Pakistani parliament's Committee on National Security, which has been reviewing the country's relations with the US, "is close to making its findings public".

Although the Foreign Ministry official refused to be drawn into the committee's expected recommendations, he confirmed that it "will definitely seek to slap much higher tariffs on trucks than in the past".

Pakistani officials previously stated that each ISAF truck paid an average of USD10 for each trip through Pakistan.

Mukhtar stated : "The rules of future conduct will have to be different than in the past," adding that "a much higher tax will have to be a very important consideration".

 

[Masterio92]

Beside high tarrif, there should be strict screening of weapons too.

 

[regular]

Where is the problem? An extra $100 million per month is trivial!

Yes it is money for US but not for us...USA sholdn't care for $$$ cuz they can print it for free.The US sholdn't care if it even costs it 6 times more from the route other than Pakistan...

 

[BATMAN]

WTF... did Zardari knew that he was taken for a cheap ride for last 4 years!!!!

This revelation would un-necessarily put pressure on transit aid to Indians.

 

[Tshering22]

Beside high tarrif, there should be strict screening of weapons too.

Dude, NATO will transport mostly be transporting weapons. And it is a war zone. All prime weapons would go through the region. What are you going to prove by scanning the weapons?

 

[Masterio92]

Dude, NATO will transport mostly be transporting weapons. And it is a war zone. All prime weapons would go through the region. What are you going to prove by scanning the weapons?

Weapons' scanning mean check on all those weapons which can be used against other country rather than used in fighting insurgency.. like anti aircraft guns, radar jam tech and others which i dont know.. and i fink talibs dont have aircrafts etc...

 

[Irfan Baloch]

Dude, NATO will transport mostly be transporting weapons. And it is a war zone. All prime weapons would go through the region. What are you going to prove by scanning the weapons?

weapons/ ammo are not transported through Pakistan.
if that was happening then there would have een a serious setback to NATO fights recently. these are mostly supplies/ rations, spares and light vehciles that are transported through Pakistan.

if you have read the phrase, army moves on its stomach then you will understand that just the weapons cant get you far.

so, although the supplies from Pakistani side are not essentially weapons + ammo but they are the part of the logistics that make this operation happen. from humble AAA batteries and toilet paper to generators, fuel, disposable equipment and the light vehciles.

 

[ares]

If a simple cost-benefit analysis is done, American are paying less than what they use to, when they were shipping their supplies through Pakistan.
American supplies through Pakistan was accompanied by American aid to Pakistani armed forces and civilian sectors.

When American supplies through Pakistan was cut off ..so was its aid ..Under KLB alone Pakistan would be receiving $ 125 million per month.($ 1.5 B/yr)
Now Americans are spending $87 millions which still less than $125 million Pakistan was receiving.

Bottom line here is NATO is still receiving its supplies but the money which was being pumped into Pakistan is being routed to other countries.

But money is not everything to Americans ..they require Pakistani intelligence co-operation to achieve their objectives ..hence the stress on resuming the ties.

 

[iajj]

well, pakistan can slap a 499% tariff on all u.s. transports over its land and call it a favor done to the u.s.

americans, be thankful and stop betraying those to whom you ought to bear gratitude!

 

[ares]

well, pakistan can slap a 499% tariff on all u.s. transports over its land and call it a favor done to the u.s.

americans, be thankful and stop betraying those to whom you ought to bear gratitude!

Well if they do that .. northern supply will become cheaper than pakistani ones and Pakistanis still wont earn anything.

At max they can levy a tariff of $87million/month to keep their route competitive but they were already getting $125million/month in form aid ..it will still be a loss for them.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

If a simple cost-benefit analysis is done, American are paying less than what they use to, when they were shipping their supplies through Pakistan.
American supplies through Pakistan was accompanied by American aid to Pakistani armed forces and civilian sectors.

When American supplies through Pakistan was cut off ..so was its aid ..Under KLB alone Pakistan would be receiving $ 125 million per month.($ 1.5 B/yr)
Now Americans are spending $87 millions which still less than $125 million Pakistan was receiving.

Bottom line here is NATO is still receiving its supplies but the money which was being pumped into Pakistan is being routed to other countries.

But money is not everything to Americans ..they require Pakistani intelligence co-operation to achieve their objectives ..hence the stress on resuming the ties.

thank goodness for a better post after a while
its never about money.

It is very short sighted for one party to think that by forcing the other party to incur most transportation cost is somehow going to benefit it. Likewise its also very counterproductive if the other party shows little to no regard about the constraints and limitation of the fisst party and the resulting lost of life and thinks that its every action is justifiable because it can get away with it.

Why short-sighted and why counter productive? Because both are declared allies and share the same goal. Elimination of terrorist elements that used Afghanistan and Pakistani tribal areas to plan and launch terrorism in the region and rest of the world.

I only commented once because I was forced to because I didn’t think this thread is even worth commenting. Why should we celebrate that its costing Americans more due to closure of Pakistani land routes when its also indirectly hurting us because we need their cooperation in nailing the TTP and BLA in Afghanistan. If their past performance was dismal even when the routes were open and we had good relations then imagine what Americans are doing right now? Looking at the spike of the BLA terrorist attacks on FC and civilians and the renewed TTP activities only suggest that they have suddenly found some more willing support from Afghanistan side.


While the US drones attack funerals and normal public gatherings in Pakistani tribal areas, TTP leadership makes training videos out in the open in Afghanistan where their leader makes death threats to Pakistan while brandishing guns out in the broad day light. I mean things are so blatant now that the Bughti terrorists are openly smuggling weapons from Afghanistan and when they are caught red handed they don’t hesitate to call the American conciliates to get themselves released (the audacity of both the Bughtis & their American sympathisers is shocking and so is the submission of the FC and Baloch authorities). I have written at length on this with pictures in case you want to read more but I don’t want drag the discussion anymore.

All in All, am saying that the current blockade is not going to be a permanent thing if we are to achieve peace in the region and end the American occupation of Afghanistan in the near future. I only see it any further if Americans today also include Pakistan in their future invasion plan like Iran.

 

[BATMAN]

There you go, alternate routes just got busted:

Now some body tell me how army can stop an over flight?