The position of the US/NATO troops in Afghanistan has become far worse in recent months. The root cause (as with the woes of most distantly deployed militaries) is logistics. As I have chronicled here numerous times in recent months.
The latest logistical nightmare is the decision Kyrgyzstan has made not to renew the arrangement under which the US has been able to use the massive Manas air-base to backstop the air war and a good portion of the resupply effort in Afghanistan.
Bernhard of Moon of Alabama has a great new post up today detailing some of the effects of the Kyrgyz decision.
And Gareth Porter, who has been cultivating some excellent sources within the US military and the new administration, tells us that Obama,
- decided to approve only 17,000 of the 30,000 troops requested by Gen. David McKiernan, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, and Gen. David Petraeus, the CENTCOM commander, after McKiernan was unable to tell him how they would be used, according to a White House source.
In fact, as Gareth tells it, McKiernan and Petraes were unable to tell Obama even how the first tranche of 17,000 troops would be used. He attributes to Larry Korb of the Center for American Progress the explanation for their deployment that,
- Obama’s decision not to wait until the key strategic questions were clarified before sending any more troops was based on the belief that he had to signal both Afghans and Pakistanis that the United States was not getting out of Afghanistan… “There are a lot of people in both countries hedging their bets,” said Korb.
This strikes me as a militarily meaningless and politically almost circular argument for sending these troops– very expensively and quite possibly also provocatively and/or dangerously– into harm’s way in distant Afghanistan.
Obama deploys them simply “as a signal to the Afghanis and Pakistanis that the US is not quitting Afghanistan”? Excuse me? But what is their military mission? Or are they supposed to stand around in peacock feathers to make an even more eye-catching “signal”?
For his part, Bernhard notes this about the cost of resupplying the US/NATO troops in Afghanistan:
- To keep a brigade in Afghanistan costs twice as much than to keep one in Iraq. On wonders how much of this luxury is sustainable. To bring in supply by air costs $14,000 per ton. For the new railway supply line the costs per ton are expected to be $300 to $500.
He then suggests that in fact, the cost of the rail-supply effort may end up being very much higher than that.
He tells us that the new Russian route for (“non-military”) US/NATO supplies was inaugurated today, with the departure towards Afghanistan of a train from Riga hauling 100 containers of goods via the Russia-Kazakhstan-Uzbekistan route. He writes, “If the route is working as planed there will be some 20 to 30 trains per week.”
That is a heck of a lot of trains. And hefty transit and customs fees for all the countries being shipped through…
B notes, too, that once in Afghanistan, most of the goods will have to be on-shipped by road to the war-zones in the middle and south of the country. To do that, they’ll most likely be taken through the Salang Tunnel— built by the Soviets and used by them as a major route for the resupply of the troops in their ill-fated military adventure in the country 20 years ago.
B writes:
- When the Soviet supply ran through there, the Salang route was under constant attack by the Mujaheddin.
I expect the same to happen when the majority of goods will pass through the new supply route.
But here’s another intriguing detail that he adds:
- The ‘western’ forces in Afghanistan also need some 3,000 tons of fuel and 250 tons of drinking water per day. With additional U.S. troops arriving those numbers will increase. Most of the diesel fuel comes from Pakistan but curiously some 10,000 tons of jet fuel per month is now said to come from Iran! (link in his original.)
I’ve seen quite a few references in recent days to the NATO allies’ desire to increase the amount of materiel they can ship into Afghanistan through Iran. For example, in this Feb. 17 article in Der Spiegel, three writers reported thus:
- The best road networks among all neighboring countries are to be found in Iran, a country neighboring Afghanistan that has recently had significant issues with the West, though for other reasons. These problems with Iran have made this alternative taboo. But NATO is desperate to find a solution and, according to diplomatic sources in Pakistan, it is also negotiating with Tehran “at a lower level.”
In a comment on his own blog post, Bernhard writes this:
- So some realignment between Iran and the U.S. with Afghanistan as the catalyst is clearly coming and that makes the jet fuel supply [story] linked above believable. Afghanistan does not need the 10,000 tons per month. Those are likely used by U.S. planes.
The Zionists will scream over this and with a Netanyahu government in Israel this may well lead to a split of Israeli and U.S. interests with lots of (positive) consequences…
I’m pretty sure he’s right in his the broad outline of his analysis– though I don’t rule out some combination of NATO members finding that they are able to buy a bit more time from Kyrgyzstan, after all…
But it’s important to remember too that the entire “American” campaign to topple the Taliban government in 2001 succeeded so rapidly only because of the great support the US received from the broad anti-Taliban networks already assembled in the country by Russia, Iran, and India.
But even with the new trans-shipment help from Russia, a number of ‘Stans, and even Iran, there is still no way that NATO can ever “win” this very distant and very expensive war. If Obama’s as smart as he seems to be, he is probably starting to realize this. But the next big step of going cap-in-hand to the other members of the Security Council and saying, “Uh, guys, I’m sorry to bother you but NATO can’t do this alone and we really need your help here” won’t be an easy one. It’s a step that really requires a whole new way of looking at the relationship between the US and the rest of the world…
How come that in the current public/media preoccupation with economic downturn and the paltry stimulus of 8 billions for cities -nobody mentions that EVERY MONTH about 8 to 10 Billions are spent on the “war effort” to “win” the “war on terror”? It makes one sick to see how the aspect of current fiscal misery is linked to the stupid wars… And no accountability. The Russians will see to it that the logistics will break the back of US’taxpayer. It looks like it will be worse than Vietnam.
Iran is not an exporter of gasoil… it lacks enough refining capacity to meet domestic demand in gasoil and gasoline and imports huge quantities of each.
http://www.payvand.com/news/08/feb/1018.html
The idea that Iran would be supplying gasoil or jet fuel to anyone, much less the NATO forces in Afghanistan, is very peculiar.
Vadim:
Iran lacks refining capacity, after decades of US sanctions. So Iran has to import fuels of all sorts.
Iran imports fuel.
This means that Iran has a supplier of fuel and that, should Iran have an opportunity to re-export imported fuel, it simply needs to import more fuel. It may adjust the price it charges to its customer accordingly.
If the customer in question is ready to pay a premium, perhaps because other import options are more expensive, less reliable, it will do so.
The important point is not that Iran has limited refining capacity but that it offers a safe, short route. Unless of course, US/NATO backed sabotage teams in Iran intercept the convoys.
I agree that Iran is offering one of the most practical alternate supplying route for the warrying parties in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But does that necessarily imply that the US herself will have to strike a deal with Iran and change her attitude toward Iran ?
After all, there are other EU states in the NATO and these states could be the ones discussing with Iran and obtaining rights of passages.
Unless Iran use that as a bargain to establish better relationships with the US.
To make it short, Iran has a choice, she can make a deal with the other countries participating in the NATO forces and get more immediate economic advantages, or she can try a more difficult road and put pressure on the US to reconsider her relationships with the Mollah’s Republic..
If the Afghan situation urges, the NATO allies may put pressures on both Iran and the US to choose the first alternative.
Iran may also choose the first alternative with the hope that she could than later establish better relationships with the US.. If the NATO was using the Iran supply road, Iran could also threaten the US t put more pressure on the US, threatening to cut this road again.
Whatever the outcome, Iran and Russia have better cards in hands than the US and NATO.
Given that situation, EU allies of the NATO should get out of the Afghnistan/Pakistan war as fast as they can. Nothing good can come out of it.
Just a few thoughts..
EU allies of the NATO should get out of the Afghnistan/Pakistan war as fast as they can. Nothing good can come out of it.
Obama backs ‘no rights’ policy 21 Feb 2009
US President Barack Obama’s Justice Department has shocked human rights activists by backing the former Bush administration in saying detainees in Afghanistan had no constitutional rights.
In a two-sentence court filing, department lawyers said the Obama administration agreed that detainees at Bagram Air Base could not use US courts to challenge their detention.
The filing left human rights lawyers stunned.
Nothing good can come of it. More of the stink of torture and death.
If the US sat down with Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan “we” could cut a deal with those three nations: in return for the US’ normalization of relations with Iran, the repatriation of its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, an end of its criminal attacks on Pakistanis, and its renunciation of Israeli’s expansionist plans, illegal settlements in the West Bank, and embargo of Gaza, those three nations would partner with the US, doing all they could publicly to denounce terrorism and working to end it.
All of those results are in our and the world’s best interests… and even in the real interests of the Israelis, the only “apparent” losers in such a deal.
Bevin, Iran’s refining deficit is a result of its long war with Iraq, specifically the destruction of plants at Abadan and Kermanshah. Iran imports fuel, but not enough at present to serve its own internal needs. These will be more important to Iran than any fee from shipping fuel that NATO could easily buy itself and import by air, as it does with many thousands of tons of fuel every day.
Considering the original “source” is an unsigned document posted to ‘scribd.com’ I don’t see why anyone should take it too seriously.
Iran’s refining deficit is a result of its long war with Iraq, specifically the destruction of plants at Abadan and Kermanshah.
vadim, Iraq/Iran war ended more than 21 years ago although the distractions caused on both sides big in all account.
Iran had 21 years I don’t think your argument that Iran’s refining deficit purely of that war, its more about planning and other things like corruptions
Refining Deficit
The other issue here Iran’s internal demands of gasoline and fuel deepen the Iran’s refining deficit problem.
As of Iran today, Iran’s hidden fingers were playing in the region as been approved for long time, Iran’s interferes in the region been long time issue with her neighbours, been approved in Iraq, it took three high level meeting between US officials and Iranians official inside Iraq to make what you believed the Surge Worked for US, in fact it was Iran hidden hands that made the flip case in Iraq without Iran bloody help inside Iraq US was on edge of lose the war in Iraq.
Now Iran offers her “Experiences” and “Trusted” help for Iraq and Afghanistan!
Iran in ‘backroom offers’ to West
By Bridget Kendall, BBC diplomatic correspondent
former CIA case officer Robert Baer analysis of Iranian intentions in the region is spot on. When he said:
Import fuel to support an army and air force by air as a realistic long term option? What are you smoking? Do you know anything about logistics?
The logical course would be for the U.S.to enter into discussions with Iran at intermediate levels, in order to determine just what common interests the two countries do have.
The logical course would be for the U.S.to enter into discussions with Iran
Of course you expected that, but US playing behind the curtain with Iran.
Us accusing Iran all the problems may or may not Iran have things to do but this just a playing cards for US to get Iran to give more than US offer to them.
Jack, I didn’t propose replacing the army’s entire fuel supplies by air, only the 10,000 tons a month that NATO is supposedly buying from Iran. And yes, this amount could easily be transported by air. Is this surprising to you?
Whereas it would be surprising if even this fraction of US oil demand in Afghanistan could be permanently threatened by IEDs and guerrillas on horseback. And it’s downright ridiculous to propose that NATO source any fraction of its gasoil and jet fuel from a country facing a major shortage of those very commodities.
Iran had 21 years I don’t think your argument that Iran’s refining deficit purely of that war, its more about planning and other things like corruptions…
It’s more about the US embargo and economic lock out of Iran than anything else.. get real Salah!
As of Iran today, Iran’s hidden fingers were playing in the region as been approved for long time…
Well Iran has certainly been doing all she can to protect herself from the US/Israeli Axis. But let’s keep things in perspective here: the US/Israeli Axis is the aggressor in the Middle East, not Iran. It’s as simple as that.