You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
U.S. to Be Allowed New Routes To Supply Troops in Afghanistan
2009-01-21
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus said yesterday that the United States had reached agreements to open "additional logistical routes into Afghanistan" through its Central Asian neighbors to the north, reducing dependence on Pakistan as the main transit route for supplies to U.S. and NATO troops.

About three-quarters of "nonlethal" supplies for the 64,000-strong U.S. and NATO force in Afghanistan -- food, fuel, construction materials and other goods -- travel by road from the Pakistani port of Karachi and across the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border through the Khyber Pass. Pakistani transit convoys have repeatedly been attacked in recent months by Taliban fighters.

During an eight-day trip, Petraeus stopped in Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgystan. "There have been agreements reached" over new transit routes, he said, although he offered no specifics. One possible route includes train and truck convoys through Russia, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC

#7  I'd have to dig my old Soviet railway atlas out of storage somewhere, but methinks that Russia and Ukraine are also on the list, even if Petraeus didn't recently travel there. Don't think you can get (practically speaking) from anywhere our stuff is likely to be available to C. Asia without transiting Ukraine and/or Russia. I suppose trans-shipping by rail from Poti to Baku in the Caucasus, then ferry to Turkmenistan, and thence onward might be possible, but awfully complicated.

The importance of all this would be that we're supplementing our risk of Paki shenanigans or incompetence with risk of Russian blackmail/unreliability in a pinch. That's still diversifying risk, but .....

Another thought is that some of the stuff might be available in Kazakhstan. Fuel I can see (so long as we procure from a refinery with quality controls), other stuff, not so much.

Back in the day we'd always try to procure locally for disaster relief, esp. in C. Asia. Mixed results (dirty fuel, bad grain, etc.) in some cases. But it was cool to buy yurts in one of the 'stans for earthquake shelter relief in another 'stan.
Posted by: Verlaine   2009-01-21 23:39  

#6  "additional logistical routes into Afghanistan" through its Central Asian neighbors to the north

Does this mean Kyrgyzstan and their base is still bought by the Russians or did Petraeus match the offer? Or did we use the russkies for some future quid pro quo?

Questions abound...sick SoS cClinton on it
Posted by: Dino Gleasing8837   2009-01-21 20:44  

#5  Tell the Pakis if they want money we'll buy their nukes.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305   2009-01-21 15:11  

#4  Yah, scale aid to Pakistan at: ZERO. What exactly is the quid pro quo from continued aid?
Posted by: Muggsy Snineger4931   2009-01-21 14:32  

#3  Is it just me...

It is not just you.
Posted by: Spusosh the Prolific6862   2009-01-21 11:40  

#2  Is it just me, or do all these countries have marauding bands of tribal bugbears roaming around their hinterlands?
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2009-01-21 09:26  

#1  we should be scaling back any aid to Pakland since they've done little to secure the logistics route that I can see. They were playing the "you need to pay us so your supplies get through, otherwise bad things can happen" game. Now we can tell em to "FOAD, we have other routes, oh, and that big bag of boodle you were planning on? Get it from your ISI/Taliwhack friends"
Posted by: Frank G   2009-01-21 08:37  

00:00