Tweet
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1188dc8e-c...#axzz1zoaiWA2W
US confronts challenge of Afghan exit
By Craig Whitlock and Karen DeYoung in Washington
Even with the reopening of critical supply routes through Pakistan, the US military confronts a mammoth logistical challenge to wind down the war in Afghanistan, where it must withdraw nearly 90,000 troops and enormous depots of military equipment accumulated over the past decade.
The first lorry carrying supplies to US and Nato troops entered Afghanistan from Pakistan on Thursday morning, news services reported, two days after Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, apologised for a deadly US air strike that convinced Pakistan to end a seven-month diplomatic stand-off over the border crossing.
Assuming Pakistan does not seal its border again, US and Nato commanders still face the prospect of pulling out at least a third of the cargo from northern Afghanistan on a winding, makeshift network of railways and roads that cross the former Soviet Union.
Those routes carry strategic risks of their own. Access to the transit lines depends on the whims of several authoritarian Central Asian leaders as well as Vladimir Putin, Russian president and a longtime nemesis of Nato. Moreover, the cost of shipping goods along the northern routes is about triple that of the much-shorter Pakistani lines.
The only other option for departing landlocked Afghanistan is by air – an even more expensive alternative, costing up to ten times as much as the Pakistani ground routes. All told, American military logisticians are preparing to bring home 100,000 shipping containers and 50,000 wheeled vehicles by the end of 2014, when US and Nato combat operations are scheduled to cease.
The US military has increasingly relied on the supply lines that cross the former Soviet Union to deliver cargo into Afghanistan since those routes opened in 2009.
After Pakistan sealed its border in November in protest at US air strike that killed 24 of its soldiers, US forces shifted about 60 per cent of supply shipments to the northern routes, with the remainder arriving in the war zone by air. Although delivery disruptions were largely avoided, the move resulted in extra expenses of about $100 million a month.
The importance of the northern routes will become even more acute when the traffic is reversed. By the end of September, 23,000 US troops are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan, along with a commensurate amount of material.
At first, Russia and several Central Asian countries approved deals that let the Pentagon and Nato deliver “non-lethal” supplies – no ammunition or armoured vehicles – into Afghanistan, but provided no mechanism to withdraw the equipment. They also opened their airspace for transport aircraft carrying troops.
The deals “focused on the needs of entry and didn’t address the needs of exiting,” said Martha Brill Olcott, a Central Asia specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “All of this changed after Pakistan closed down.”
Security in Afghanistan
This interactive looks at how security in Afghanistan has changed since troops arrived in 2001
Over several months, the Obama administration and Nato have signed two-way transit deals with many of the former Soviet republics. But negotiations continue over a host of side issues, including alternate routes, access to airspace and airports, tariffs and restrictions on what kinds of military cargo are eligible for shipment.
“These countries know it’s the last chance, it’s the last negotiation, so they’re going to squeeze very hard,” said Alexander Cooley, a Barnard College professor and expert on US military relations in Central Asia. “They can escalate their demands in the confidence that this is a one-off transaction.”
Even with Pakistan reopening its border, the northern routes are seen as a vital hedge against a Pakistani change of heart.
From Afghanistan’s north, there are two primary ways out: either by rail into Uzbekistan or by road into Tajikistan. Both are authoritarian countries with chequered human rights records.
Beyond that, shipping convoys – run by private companies – must cross Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan, with most of the land routes then entering Russia before zigzagging to ports in Siberia or on the Baltic Sea.
Negotiating with the Central Asians has often been as difficult as with Pakistan, according to US and Nato officials. The countries distrust, compete with and often try to sabotage each other while simultaneously seeking to exact more concessions from Washington and its allies.
Last month Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary-general, announced that the alliance had forged agreements with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to allow for the withdrawal of equipment from Afghanistan. A Nato spokeswoman declined to release details of the accords, such as transit fees, but acknowledged that weapons and ammunition were still prohibited cargo on the northern land routes.
Nato remains in talks with Russia about establishing an air hub in the city of Ulyanovsk – Lenin’s birthplace – that would accept rail shipments from Central Asia and then load the containers on to Europe-bound cargo planes.
Already, some states have tried to exploit their bargaining power to make special demands.
In April, for example, military officials from Kyrgyzstan asked Marine General James Mattis, head of the US Central Command, whether the Pentagon would be willing to donate drones after its departure from Afghanistan. Gen Mattis was non-committal, saying he would forward the request to Washington, according to a report of the encounter by Radio Free Europe.
Meanwhile, Uzbekistan has sought to capitalise on its status as the only country with a major rail link to Afghanistan by seeking a 50 per cent surcharge on shipments leaving the war zone – insisting on a premium over what its neighbours earn. “Everybody wants to up the prices,” Ms Olcott of the Carnegie Endowment said. “The Kazakhs complain that the Uzbeks get much better terms.”
US confronts challenge of Afghan exit
By Craig Whitlock and Karen DeYoung in Washington
Even with the reopening of critical supply routes through Pakistan, the US military confronts a mammoth logistical challenge to wind down the war in Afghanistan, where it must withdraw nearly 90,000 troops and enormous depots of military equipment accumulated over the past decade.
The first lorry carrying supplies to US and Nato troops entered Afghanistan from Pakistan on Thursday morning, news services reported, two days after Hillary Clinton, secretary of state, apologised for a deadly US air strike that convinced Pakistan to end a seven-month diplomatic stand-off over the border crossing.
Assuming Pakistan does not seal its border again, US and Nato commanders still face the prospect of pulling out at least a third of the cargo from northern Afghanistan on a winding, makeshift network of railways and roads that cross the former Soviet Union.
Those routes carry strategic risks of their own. Access to the transit lines depends on the whims of several authoritarian Central Asian leaders as well as Vladimir Putin, Russian president and a longtime nemesis of Nato. Moreover, the cost of shipping goods along the northern routes is about triple that of the much-shorter Pakistani lines.
The only other option for departing landlocked Afghanistan is by air – an even more expensive alternative, costing up to ten times as much as the Pakistani ground routes. All told, American military logisticians are preparing to bring home 100,000 shipping containers and 50,000 wheeled vehicles by the end of 2014, when US and Nato combat operations are scheduled to cease.
The US military has increasingly relied on the supply lines that cross the former Soviet Union to deliver cargo into Afghanistan since those routes opened in 2009.
After Pakistan sealed its border in November in protest at US air strike that killed 24 of its soldiers, US forces shifted about 60 per cent of supply shipments to the northern routes, with the remainder arriving in the war zone by air. Although delivery disruptions were largely avoided, the move resulted in extra expenses of about $100 million a month.
The importance of the northern routes will become even more acute when the traffic is reversed. By the end of September, 23,000 US troops are scheduled to withdraw from Afghanistan, along with a commensurate amount of material.
At first, Russia and several Central Asian countries approved deals that let the Pentagon and Nato deliver “non-lethal” supplies – no ammunition or armoured vehicles – into Afghanistan, but provided no mechanism to withdraw the equipment. They also opened their airspace for transport aircraft carrying troops.
The deals “focused on the needs of entry and didn’t address the needs of exiting,” said Martha Brill Olcott, a Central Asia specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “All of this changed after Pakistan closed down.”
Security in Afghanistan
This interactive looks at how security in Afghanistan has changed since troops arrived in 2001
Over several months, the Obama administration and Nato have signed two-way transit deals with many of the former Soviet republics. But negotiations continue over a host of side issues, including alternate routes, access to airspace and airports, tariffs and restrictions on what kinds of military cargo are eligible for shipment.
“These countries know it’s the last chance, it’s the last negotiation, so they’re going to squeeze very hard,” said Alexander Cooley, a Barnard College professor and expert on US military relations in Central Asia. “They can escalate their demands in the confidence that this is a one-off transaction.”
Even with Pakistan reopening its border, the northern routes are seen as a vital hedge against a Pakistani change of heart.
From Afghanistan’s north, there are two primary ways out: either by rail into Uzbekistan or by road into Tajikistan. Both are authoritarian countries with chequered human rights records.
Beyond that, shipping convoys – run by private companies – must cross Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan, with most of the land routes then entering Russia before zigzagging to ports in Siberia or on the Baltic Sea.
Negotiating with the Central Asians has often been as difficult as with Pakistan, according to US and Nato officials. The countries distrust, compete with and often try to sabotage each other while simultaneously seeking to exact more concessions from Washington and its allies.
Last month Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Nato secretary-general, announced that the alliance had forged agreements with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to allow for the withdrawal of equipment from Afghanistan. A Nato spokeswoman declined to release details of the accords, such as transit fees, but acknowledged that weapons and ammunition were still prohibited cargo on the northern land routes.
Nato remains in talks with Russia about establishing an air hub in the city of Ulyanovsk – Lenin’s birthplace – that would accept rail shipments from Central Asia and then load the containers on to Europe-bound cargo planes.
Already, some states have tried to exploit their bargaining power to make special demands.
In April, for example, military officials from Kyrgyzstan asked Marine General James Mattis, head of the US Central Command, whether the Pentagon would be willing to donate drones after its departure from Afghanistan. Gen Mattis was non-committal, saying he would forward the request to Washington, according to a report of the encounter by Radio Free Europe.
Meanwhile, Uzbekistan has sought to capitalise on its status as the only country with a major rail link to Afghanistan by seeking a 50 per cent surcharge on shipments leaving the war zone – insisting on a premium over what its neighbours earn. “Everybody wants to up the prices,” Ms Olcott of the Carnegie Endowment said. “The Kazakhs complain that the Uzbeks get much better terms.”