U.S. Explores Pakistan Supply Route Alternatives

[SpArK]

U.S. Explores Pakistan Supply Route Alternatives​

A shutdown of the supply routes that run through Pakistan would pose problems for the U.S. military but would not halt Afghan operations, according to the Army's chief logistics officer.

"We would overcome it," Army Lt. Gen. Mitchell Stevenson, deputy chief of staff for logistics, told the Senate Armed Services readiness subcommittee during a May 18 hearing. "It would not stop Afghanistan operations, but it would be a challenge."

Several lawmakers have voiced concern about the U.S. relationship with Pakistan following the capture of Osama bin Laden. A key part of that relationship is Pakistan's permission for the U.S. to move supplies for Afghanistan through the country. If those supply routes were shut down for any reason, lawmakers wanted to know what would happen.

The Army keeps 45 days worth of fuel on the ground in Afghanistan so that operations can withstand severe disruptions to its supply lines, Stevenson said.

If the southern routes were shut down, the U.S. would increase its use of airdrops and flow more in from the north. However, that route takes much longer and is more expensive, Stevenson said.


Smaller disruptions already frequently delay the delivery of supplies. For example, a sit-down strike in Karachi is keeping supply trucks from getting to the port, Stevenson said. He expects the strike to last a couple of days.

Of the supplies it delivers by land, the U.S. brings in 60 percent to Afghanistan from the north through Central Asia and the Baltic states and 40 percent from the south through Pakistan. There, supplies arrive in the port of Karachi and travel over land by contractor-driven trucks.

The goal is to increase supplies coming in from the north to 75 percent, Stevenson said. "We're not there yet."

The U.S. relies on airlift for all of its "sensitive" and "high-tech" equipment, Stevenson said. This is due to restrictions placed on the U.S. by countries along the northern route, as well as frequent attacks on supply trucks.

To keep supplies off the roads, the U.S. also relies on a large pool of "theater-provided" equipment. The challenge there is that the equipment requires major overhaul and refurbishment about every two years. The capability to do that in Afghanistan is now available, the three-star said.

The Army is also experimenting with shipping more supplies to a nearby "friendly country" and then flying them into Afghanistan using C-17s. The Army is examining whether this route is cheaper in the long run because it avoids pilferage and other kinds of attacks, Stevenson said.


The general did not name the country. However, Stars and Stripes reported last spring that Bahrain served as a staging area to ship MRAP all-terrain vehicles into Afghanistan. The new vehicles were transported by ship to Bahrain and then flown to theater.

U.S. Explores Pakistan Supply Route Alternatives - Defense News

 

[Conqueror]

If USA could withstand a supply cut from Pakistan, they would never have appraoch for a "reset" of relationship neither got peranoid when one out of their two supply routes were closed by Pakistan. This is good message for the American public consumption but practically they know their existence in Afgansitan would be choked if Pakistan indeed cut their supply lines.

Regarding Airlifting supplies from western sides into Afghansitan, they want to cross few hundred miles of area totally controlled by Taliban? Yes right and airlift everything they need? Buh!

US already have an alternate supply route coming from central asian countries but that is also very dangerous in terms that it has to pass through several hundred miles and their supply line is too prone to attack to be called "dependable".

Concluding.. Pakistan is US's lifeline in Afghanistan and that is US keeps receiving heart-attacks but keeps Pakistan on their side. US likes it or not we hold their Aorta with an iron grip.. if they want to survive or even withdraw respectably.. they are helpless but to keep Pakistan on their side.

 

[Xeric]

May be this would help:

"The Torkham border is used to supply around 50% of non-lethal resources to the US Military’s war against terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The idling convoys stretches over to 3-miles on the border as the following video shows;

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=485430526250

The Pakistan-Afghan route is the most shortest and economical route for the US-NATO supplies however, The news reports that the Americans are trying to secure three different routes;

According to Islamabad-based diplomatic circles, the Americans are now trying to secure three different alternative supply routes for Afghanistan. The first one is the northern route, which starts in the Latvian port of Riga, the largest all-weather harbour on the Baltic Sea, where container ships offload their cargo onto Russian trains. The shipments roll south through Russia, then southeast around the Caspian Sea through Kazakhstan and finally south through Uzbekistan until they cross the frontier into north Afghanistan. The Russian train-lines were built to supply Russia’s own war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and today Moscow’s cooperation is making them available for use by the US-led Nato/ISAF forces in their own Afghan campaign.

The second one is the southern route, which transits the Caucuses, completely bypassing Russia, from Georgia. Starting from the Black Sea port, Ponti, it travels north to Azerbaijan and its port, Baku, where goods are loaded onto ferries to cross the Caspian Sea. Landfall is Kazakhstan, where the goods are carried by trucks to Uzbekistan and finally Afghanistan. While shorter than the northern route, it is more expensive because of the on-and-off loading from trucks to ferries and back onto trucks.

A third route, which is actually a spur of the northern route, bypasses Uzbekistan and proceeds from Kazakhstan via Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which has a northeast border with Afghanistan. But this route is hampered by bad road conditions in Tajikistan.

However, there are those in the diplomatic circles who believe that it would be hard for the Americans to induce any of the above former Russian states because many of their leaders believe that the American plans to get military supplies via their countries could draw the former Soviet colony into the battle as Cambodia was dragged into the Vietnam war."

 

[Stumper]

if they want to survive or even withdraw respectably.. they are helpless but to keep Pakistan on their side.

Its not a question actually. They have endured your threats for decades and survived, haven't they?

The question, your intellects are pondering over right now is, without those dollar bailouts, will you survive?

 

[Conqueror]

They have endured your threats for decades and survived, haven't they?

They have survived because we have been on their side. We were either their supporters or neutral and never against them.

 

[Hulk]

Why cannot US outsource civil supplies to India. India can use Iran's port for delivery. Little difficult but possible.

 

[Stumper]

They have survived because we have been on their side. We were either their supporters or neutral and never against them.

You either are blissfully unaware or chose to look the other way. As from here, what we see is a picture of Your country depending heavily on foreign aids for its survival.Why more than 50% of your foreign Grants come from USA + UK . Also consider that 80% of your AID is from WB + ADB (Just google who controls both of this bodies). So maybe now you know WHY you have striven to appease them. Why you put up with the drones and raids on your soil.

 

[Evil Flare]

they better explore routes very fast ...

 

[Conqueror]

You either are blissfully unaware or chose to look the other way. As from here, what we see is a picture of Your country depending heavily on foreign aids for its survival.Why more than 50% of your foreign Grants come from USA + UK . Also consider that 80% of your AID is from WB + ADB (Just google who controls both of this bodies). So maybe now you know WHY you have striven to appease them. Why you put up with the drones and raids on your soil.

That still doesn't change the facts on ground. We were either with them or were neutral to them but not against. Existence of a country always important when compared to American supplied aid. Look at the people who with a staggering majority are against America and their wrongdoings in the country. Analysts like you and Americans are mistaken if they think they can still keep Pakistan kill itself because you are paying you for that.

 

[deckingraj]

Why cannot US outsource civil supplies to India. India can use Iran's port for delivery. Little difficult but possible.

what???? We will supply US in AF via Iran....mate are you kidding me???

 

[genmirajborgza786]

they better explore routes very fast ...

you are areabsolutely right & guess what we are exactly doing just that right now

U.S. brings in 60 percent to Afghanistan from the north through Central Asia and the Baltic states

U.S. Explores Pakistan Supply Route Alternatives - Defense News

infact we just need to add another 40% & the job is done which we will be rest assured

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I have better idea , impose a duty on the , tankers, and oil if these duties are not paid for the oil is confiscated

I am sure the oil will help power few hospitals for 1-2 years in Pakistan -

These tankers are blocking normal trade routs and Penelties should be imposed on these tankers

 

[Pak_Sher]

Great news. We welcome trade relations with all countries, but NATO can take their war as north as possible. I think this is a good decision by US Planners.

 

[TruthSeeker]

If the USA concludes that it cannot supply its forces in Afghanistan via Pakistan, then it will simply drastically reduce its footprint in Afghanistan. We have no real strategic interest in Afghanistan now. We only stay out of a moral obligation to try to help the region develop. So, if Pakistan wants to stop co-operating with this effort, so be it. And, too, we can spend the $3B per year we are paying Pakistan's Army on bribing other people on other supply routes.

 

[deckingraj]

If the USA concludes that it cannot supply its forces in Afghanistan via Pakistan, then it will simply drastically reduce its footprint in Afghanistan. We have no real strategic interest in Afghanistan now. We only stay out of a moral obligation to try to help the region develop. So, if Pakistan wants to stop co-operating with this effort, so be it. And, too, we can spend the $3B per year we are paying Pakistan's Army on bribing other people on other supply routes.

Let's be honest here, shall we??? US needs Pak in this war on Terror....period. If they could they would have moved on to other options....Pakistan as a supply route is more of a convenience(shorter and economical route) but their role on WOT is not....Ever wonder why the relation is still intact no matter how deep the suspicion is(from both sides)???? Secondly AF has strategic importance so yes US may decrease the footprint but will never leave the theater(IMHO)...