Skip to comments.APNewsBreak: Costs soar for new war supply routes
Posted on 01/19/2012 5:08:53 PM PST by Pan_Yan
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.
The U.S. has given Pakistan more than $20 billion in aid since 9/11, including civilian and military assistance. But over the past year, relations with Islamabad have been strained by a series of incidents, including the U.S. assault in Pakistan last May that killed Osama bin Laden.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
noone could have seen this coming! \s
truck operators making the score of a lifetime down in the stans.
Also related: Russia Considers Blocking NATO Supply Routes. If it wasn't the silly season stories like this would / should be a front page headline with conservatives screaming from the roof tops.
Airdrops. It was cheaper and worked in Berlin.
Some would argue the cost is avoidable, though.
And which countries are we going to fly over? Pakistan? Russia? Iran?
It took the soviets about 10 years to figure out what the Brits and Alexander had learned about Afghanistan, and they (USSR) had the supply routes.
I don’t know enough to render much of an opinion, but it doesn’t seem the Obama administration knows a hell of a lot more.
When you piss everyone off things get more expensive, as a rule. I find it interesting that the Russians are accomodating- there must be something lucrative in it for them.
Pakistan. Tell them to F off.
It’s worth it.
A big chunk of the money spent to use the routes through Pakistan went to Pakistani contractors, and was more subject to attacks on the deliveries from Pakistani Taliban and other militants, inside Pakistan.
Less U.S. money being given to Pakistanis for any reason is a good thing.
95% of Afghanis hate our guts. We should set up a couple of bases to monitor the country to forestall another Al Queda base. Use drones and spies to find out what is going on. Pull the remainder of our troops out of the country.
And US wants to promote investment in Pakistan.
How about we hunt down and annihilate every Talibani in the country -- paying other tribes to help us collect their scalps.
Message is: You allow anybody to set up shop in your country and attack the USA, we'll be back. And we'll exterminate you just like we did the Talibani.
Another sea land connection might be through Validivastok on the asian end then by by rail to Usbeckistan .
I would pay Pakistan alright, with high explosives delivered by airmail.