An Update On Afghanistan Logistics

March 6, 2009

[D]eep concern has arisen at the Pentagon about supply lines, reflected in the following private comment to us from an official at the policymaking level in the Defense Department: “The idea that we can wage an effective military campaign in this landlocked country without safe and dependable logistical support is crazy."
Swoop

WaPo's Ann Scott Tyson has some new information and numbers about logistics in Afghanistan:

[General] McNabb said 130 contract drivers have been killed trucking American supplies through Pakistan, for example. Once inside Afghanistan, he said, some roads are so dangerous that the U.S. military will have to fly over them to carry in supplies and personnel.
…

The U.S. military is seeking to expand its flow of ground cargo into Afghanistan by at least 50 percent, to more than 100 containers a day, to meet the needs of the initial increase of 17,000 troops this year ordered by President Obama last month, McNabb said. About 38,000 American troops are currently in Afghanistan, and U.S. commanders have asked to increase that number to as many as 60,000 to combat an intensifying Taliban insurgency.

Up to 90 percent of American military ground cargo, which consists of nonlethal supplies such as food, fuel, water and construction materials, currently flows through Pakistan, defense officials said.
…
The goal is for the northern route via the Russian rail system to handle about 20 percent of the ground cargo destined for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, or about 100 20-foot containers a week, compared with about 500 a week through Pakistan, officials said.

According to the second graph, "more than 100 containers a day" are needed. The numbers in the last quoted graph only add up to 600 per week. The military continues to obfuscate these numbers.

Also note that fuel does not come in containers but is trucked in with tankers. Using official U.S. solicitations for fuel I calculated that 33 tankers need to deliver in Afghanistan each day to keep the U.S. troops supplied. The number of trucks that have to arrive per day is thereby over 133. Nice, big targets – all of them.

With the total needs increasing adding the Russia route at such a low rate as 20% means that the total traffic through Pakistan will increase due to the reinforcement, not decrease.

Sure, the truck losses in Pakistan have gone down last month. The last news I find of attacks on the route through north Pakistan is from February 7 and the last bad logistic news from the route through Quetta is from February 8 when a truck driver was shot. My assumption is that early in February someone spent real money to buy off the locals in Pakistan who facilitate the earlier attacks – Anbar tactics. But that will not hold for long. You can rent the Pashtuns, but you can not buy them. As soon as someone is willing to pay better, they will again be your enemies.

A
25-year-old man we will call Shakir has told IRIN he rues rejecting an
offer of “work” from a Taliban agent whereby he would get 500 Afghanis
(about US$10) a day for carrying out attacks on government offices in
Farah Province, southwestern Afghanistan.
…
“The Taliban pay 500-1,000 Afghanis [$10-20] for a day of action against government and American forces,” said Lutfullah, 23, from Helmand Province.

By contrast, government employees get less than $2 a day.

When the Russian route was announced the U.S. said that it could eventually carry up to 20-30 trains per week with about 100 containers each. That would be much more than the total needs are. So why not use more of the Russian route? Yes that route is currently only for non-military goods. But Russia has offered to open it for military goods too and even offered Russian military air-transport.

Was the political price it demanded for that too high? I suspect the real reason to not use that new route in its capacity is institutionalized Russophobia.

Gareth Porter has this nugget for us:

[T]he Pentagon has made contingency plans for the use of the Iranian route, according to one well-informed former U.S. official. That suggests that the Russian-Central Asian route was regarded as far from certain.

Can someone send me those contingency plans please? I am really interested to flip through these.

But back to the WaPo piece:

Apart from the ground cargo, all lethal and sensitive U.S. military supplies, as well as all personnel, travel into Afghanistan by air. Such supplies include ammunition, weapons and vehicles with sensitive communications and other gear. Air cargo demands will increase significantly as fresh troops move into Afghanistan, according to McNabb. For example, when the Army's Stryker combat brigade heads to Afghanistan this summer, all of its vehicles will be flown into the country, he said. The military's mine-resistant armored vehicles are also flown in to avoid attacks, he said.

A Stryker brigade has (pdf, page 66) 309 Stryker vehicle that each weighing about 20 tons. Additionally it has some 1,200+ other vehicles from HMMVEE's over artillery pieces to large transport trucks. Let's assume that these vehicles have an average weight of 7.5 tons.

Then the total tonnage that will have to come in by air for the hardware of one Stryker brigade is 15,000 tons (indeed such a number is corroborated here). To bring one ton to Afghanistan by air costs $14,000. To move the Stryker brigade in by air will thereby cost $210,000,000. (Transport by rail through Russia would be $500 per ton or $7,500,000 in total for the Stryker brigade.)

A Stryker brigade is only 3.900 soldiers strong. The total reinforcement now is 17,000 and may grow to 30,000. Barracks will have to be build for them too and mess halls. They will need fuel, food and ammunition. The financial costs are staggering.

The Taliban are reinforcing too and it is now estimated that 15,000 are active in Afghanistan with the same number available in Pakistan and ready to cross the border. At $10 per day for each of them they are less than an tenth as expensive than U.S forces. Donations from the Gulf countries and taxing the drug business sustains them.

Isn't one of the alleged al-Qaida aims to hurt the U.S. finances and eventually bankrupt it? If so, they are indeed succeeding in that battle.

Then again we noted that other folks are even more successful in achieving that goal.

—
earlier coverage of Afghanistan logistics at MoA:
Iran Should Offer Fuel To DESC, Feb 21, 2009
The New Route Plus Iranian Jet Fuel Supply To Afghanistan, Feb 20, 2009
The Pink Route To Afghanistan, Feb 3, 2009
The Costly New Supply Route To Afghanistan, Jan 26, 2009
New Supply Routes To Afghanistan, Nov 19, 2008
Fuel for War in Afghanistan Aug 20, 2008
The Road War in Afghanistan Aug 16, 2008
Fuel Tanker Attacks in Afghanistan Mar 24, 2008

Posted by b on March 6, 2009 at 20:54 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Hence Clinton’s Ctrl Alt Del; restart moment with Lavrov today, interesting that BBC, SKY, CNN, Euronews et al., could not find a live translational person for what Lavrov said in Geneva.

Posted by: Cloned Poster | Mar 6 2009 22:15 utc | 1

Al Qaeda, as well as Russia, China, Iran and a good portion of the Arab world , must be watching the US paint itself into a corner with bated breath.
Now if someone would only explain why it is that the US is so intent on painting itself into the corner…

Posted by: JohnH | Mar 7 2009 0:06 utc | 2

JohnH,
b answered that question for me in a comment on his earlier thread, “The Pink Route to Afghanistan”.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 7 2009 0:56 utc | 3

b,
Again, this may be a dumb question but instead of air transport for the Stryker vehicle brigade, why not move them under their own power along with supply trucks as a convoy? How open to attack would they be? Having 3900 soldiers, along with supply trucks and some air support, would seem quite safe. Just asking.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 7 2009 1:17 utc | 4

Rick if an army has to fight for its supply lines there is a problem indeed.
What does the US want to achieve in Afghanistan – keeping its supply lines?
The US problem started when they thought they had won the cold war, and were the only World Power left.

Posted by: outsider | Mar 7 2009 3:23 utc | 5

Rick, in addition to what outsider mentioned about having to fight for your supply lines showing that you have a problem, what do you think a bunch of Strykers interspersed with fuel and supply trucks looks like to a mix of determined enemies, opportunistic enemies, general bandits along a very long route?
Opportunity on a plate, is what they look like.
Strykers and their armed support vehicles are now grinding through some pretty nasty and marginal “roads” limited to the pace of their heavy (and UNARMORED) supply vehicles. Many stops along the way since it takes quite a few days to navigate those roads. The Strykers and their escorts gulp fuel, as do the supply vehicles. So all are dependent on the fuel tankers in the supply train.
Now, if I were a particularly nasty character able to move (or signal) faster than a long (or short) convoy of heavy vehicles, what could I do with that?

Posted by: Butch | Mar 7 2009 4:05 utc | 6

@Rick – why should the Pakistani or others allow a U.S.brigade to cross their country?

Posted by: b | Mar 7 2009 4:38 utc | 7

b, for money I guess.
Butch, Outsider, – Yeah I agree – if things are that bad why bother with the whole endeavor. I was thinking that a few bandits could be taken out after the first few attacks.
U.S. leaders must have rocks for brains.

Posted by: Rick | Mar 7 2009 5:02 utc | 8

1) I’d like to know what the timeline is for the loss of truck drivers in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
2) I’d like to know WHO those truck drivers were, who they were paid by, etc.
Now, aside from that triviality, our supply lines are a joke, we have been, and are now MORE so, waging a losing war for many reasons, and the supply line issue is gonna set us up for our own Dien Bien Phu sooner than later in Pakistan AND Afghanistan as long as we have troops in the north of both countries . . . notably in The Peshwar.
So, one HAS to ask, if WE know it’s a loss, the Pentagon knows it’s a loss, Obama knows it’s a loss, Bush knew it was a loss . . . . then why are we DOING it?
1) To leverage Russia, somehow? I don’t THINK so (only a bit)
2) To leverage China? Uh, well, um . . . I don’t have THAT scenerio, either.
3) Leverage Israel? Iran? Nope, that can’t be it.
4) India? Un, well, a part of it all, but not the raison d’essence for our failing folly.
Why would we lose money, troops and set ourselves up for a HUGE wipeout?
The nukes in Pakistan? Nah, they are easily controlled, monitored and kept in check not ALL by USA but by also and MOSTLY by Russia and China . . .
So, why? As always, Cui Buono?
To whom?
Well, if it ain’t USA, and it ain’t Russia, and it ain’t China, Israel, Iran or anyone else, then who the fuck DOES benefit from this initial useless waste and the inevitable WASTE of our troops and materials that’s gonna come? Like A Dien Bien Phu?
I don’t see little, teeny and disparate turf gains being waged here, the big dogs are all about.
I also reject the ‘intricacies of international and geo politics at hand’ . . .
The ONLY intricacy at hand we’ve had at hand since ’98 when the Taliban booted Cheney and Halliburton out of a pipeline deal and started to play with Germany, France, Russia AND China and India, is some supposed USA goal of controlling both production AND distribution of all natural resources.
I think it’s pretty clear that we’ve LOST that fucker, long ago. And we’re NOT gonna get THAT goal back in our sights with present/existent policies, practices and plans.
So WTF could it be?
All I got is a global breakage of all power and might, so a handful of a few who run the money world wide can step in and run it.
Now Who The Fuck could THAT be, who can, or WOULD, do that?
Banking and financial interests. The same one’s who have been feeding both sides in all wars since at LEAST WW1. The one’s who armed Germany, while prodding the rest of Europe and the Mid East, to wage that one.
The one’s who paid and helped to rearm Germany, Japan and all the while proddig the rest of Europe AND the USA ot wage WWW2. We came in kinda later than wanted, in both, ya think?
And now? We are the SOLE superpower . . . we COULD easily rule by military force with our nukes. Drop a few, it’s over. But we haven’t.
So why are we, in pursuit of global hegemony and One World Order, wasting our troops, our economy and our country on these failing follies?
Cuz WE ain’t running the show.
Someone else is.
And like the war, and the terrorists, they know no country’s borders, they can’t be identified with a national cause or cause celebre.
Anyone else got a better explanation for this folly of shit the USA is pursuing?
I’d like to hear it.
And I always like what you folks in here at MOA bring to the table. It’s always pretty detailed and wide in scope . . . And I appreciate that.
But there’s no answers for our folly . . . and YOU folks have long laid out the folly(s).
But no one’s ‘splainin it, Lucy . . . maybe only bit by bit, no one’s ‘splained the big picture.
A disparate group of various entities that have existed thru history, and other that emerged more recently since the mid 50’s as I suggested before? Maybe . . . I’m not sure of that, either.
So TELL me wizards, who’s causing, creating and doing this, if it’s all such folly? And why?
*G*

Posted by: Larue | Mar 7 2009 6:14 utc | 9

“A disparate group of various entities that have existed thru history, and other that emerged more recently” should read “and others that emerged more recently”.
My bad.

Posted by: Larue | Mar 7 2009 6:20 utc | 10

“A disparate group of various entities that have existed thru history, and other that emerged more recently since the mid 50’s” should read “and others that emerged”.
My bad.

Posted by: Larue | Mar 7 2009 6:22 utc | 11

The Parviz / John Lund UK post heree takes a stab at your question.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 7 2009 7:03 utc | 12

that would be comment #65

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 7 2009 7:05 utc | 13

Larue 9) We’re doing it because even five Stryker brigades mobilized at $860M, at 95% “administrative overhead and profit” is only $16,340M, and that can easily be hidden as “emergency job retention and creation, and other undisclosed national security purposes” because to bring 17000 Fallujah ex-Marines back to Hellhole of CONUS, you’d have a drugs and bank robbery blood bath on the streets. They just caught some captain or major with $700G’s of the baled $100’s from Iraq, he’ll turn States evidence unless they disappear him, we’ll find out where that Chinook with $100M disappear to on its way to Kirkuk, and nobody will care, as long as we keep their kids employed and working towards their campaign ribbons and their advanced online degrees and their military pensions in some sandbox, somewhere, anywhere but CONUS. Afghanistan is the NeoZi’s version of Works Progress Administration, that’s what “five years more” is all about. “$100B here, $100B there, now you’re talking!”

Posted by: Gerald McBoingBoing | Mar 7 2009 7:33 utc | 14

GM 14) We’re doing it because $16,340M is chump change for the 100 billion cubic meters of gas the Soviets found in northern Afghanistan, the world’s largest copper mine being developed by the Chinese (gung hoi fat choy with that) outside Kabul, coal deposits everywhere they level a mountain, strategic minerals up the kazoo everywhere they drill a hole, and a new oil pipeline and rail line, dreamed of since the British Raj, is back in the planning, if you know where to look for translations, the Afghan government will be building them using US taxpayer monies pledged for “security” and “five more years” to deliver the ‘stan’s oil before they rejoin the Soviet, siphon off gas before Russia does, grab the coal and the strategic minerals to the coast, or maybe Iran now, who knows the deals being cut by Hillary? Afghanistan is just a NeoZi version of Alaska, except without the royalty payments.

Posted by: Chen Chillah | Mar 7 2009 7:42 utc | 15

The TAPI pipeline has been discredited by many including Jerome of Paris and held up as proof by many more for at least one reason to invade and occupy Afghanistan. I too thought it was dead but reading this article in CTV it seems that the project is indeed alive and well.
I think others have shown that the military bases in Afghanistan seem to be all very close to the path of the pipeline.
It may seem that US leaders have rocks for brains but they are playing the long game while trying to pass it off as a quick thing to the unwashed back home. Looks like they are doing a pretty good job as it applies to public relations. The pesky press stays out of it and most of the public willingly embrace the occupation as just.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 7 2009 9:07 utc | 16

please strike all very close and replace with some are very close to the path of the pipeline.

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 7 2009 9:11 utc | 17

Regarding the “Iran alternative” route: It would involve several hundred kilometres through Iranian territory and then another 1000 km through Afghanistan up to Herat, unless an additional 1000 km of Iranian territory were used (even up to as far North-East as Mashhad) before sending the goods due East. This would require enormous cooperation by Iran, and by the Farsi-speaking, Iran-friendly feudal warlords in West Afghanistan.
Using between 1000 – 2000 km of Iranian territory as a NATO-U.S. supply route (as short-cutting through Pakistan and Kandahar would be unsafe) would mean a sea change in U.S. thinking and cooperation with Iran.
Maybe this is the key to rapprochement.

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 7 2009 10:26 utc | 18

PARVIZ@18
The art of our necessity is strange that can make vile things precious.

Posted by: jlcg | Mar 7 2009 11:06 utc | 19

Several good comments here on why were are engaged in what Chas Freeman calls the “quixotic” adventure in Afghanistan. I have the range of ambitions pretty well identified in my own mind: resources, pipeline routes, geo-strategic position, and perhaps even opium.
But it doesn’t much matter what I think. What’s crucial here is for the American people to realize that the Occupation of Afghanistan, like the Occupation of Iraq, has NO goal that can be stated publicly. The stated goals are all extremely flimsy. Which is why I keep raising the issue at every opportunity.
The more people realize that these wars are being fought for no good reason, the more likely the politicians will be forced to account and/or to dial back their ambitions.

Posted by: JohnH | Mar 7 2009 15:24 utc | 20

A similar phenomenon is happening with the bailout. Like the wars, there is no credible reason given for doing what they’re doing:
Krugman writes, “Why do officials keep offering plans that nobody else finds credible?…by using taxpayer funds to subsidize the prices of toxic waste, the administration would shower benefits on everyone who made the mistake of buying the stuff…most of the benefit would go to people who don’t need or deserve to be rescued.” But, of course, they can’t say that!
Just like they can’t say why we’re occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is why the grassroots has to raise awareness of this BS with as many people as possible and delegitimize these bandits.

Posted by: JohnH | Mar 7 2009 15:34 utc | 21

I just wanted to give my two cents on the situation. Trains derail all the time, even in less hostile conditions than interior Russia. That in itself can delay other trains that follow behind, as those spilled containers need to be picked up and righted again.

Posted by: The Key | Mar 7 2009 16:21 utc | 22

The PKK terrorist organization is dangerous to the U.S. and Turkey, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minster Ali Babacan, the TRT2 reported.
“We discussed with Turkey our common enemy – the PKK terrorist organization,” she said. Clinton said the U.S. supports Turkey’s accession to the European Union.
“The U.S.-Turkey relations are developing within a friendly and fraternal framework. The relations will be improved even more, as we expand US military bases surrounding Iran and Syria,” she said.
Following the meeting with Babacan, Clinton is expected to meet with Turkish President Abdullah Gul.
President Obama is expected to revise the GWOT ‘Axis of Evil’ list by replacing Iraq, as a newly CTJ-pacified state, with the PKK as a renegade breakaway.

Posted by: Thwenny Threeskiddo | Mar 7 2009 17:45 utc | 23

Interesting responses to my posits . . . thanks all.
Still, no one to address “who is doing this to us” . . .
Cuz the military sure aren’t in charge of these marching orders abroad or here in our econ misery.
So, who is?
Who’s at the top of this pyramid scam to scheme us workers out of our sweat equity and funnel it all upwards?
Is it one group of folks, or a disparate grouping of many folks all seeking THEIR singular hand on the whole pie?
Cuz it’s hard for me to believe any of this is simply a multiplicity of competing forces vying for the pie . . .

Posted by: Larue | Mar 7 2009 20:49 utc | 24

trial post
to determine whether my content was rejected or…

Posted by: rapt | Mar 7 2009 23:27 utc | 25

Larue: “Is it one group of folks…?”
Yes but they’re not really human. Advanced and smart but lacking the human trait of empathy; we call them psychopaths when the trait shows though but usually it is well hidden by social skills. Rumsfeld is a good example; he had to be pulled back out of the limelight as he could muster too little self control. (I have seen him lose it when the cameras were rolling. His true colors showed for a short view, and I was relieved to have it confirmed that he wasn’t just an asshole with a few screws loose, but a true alien being.)
Naturally there is a strict hierarchy in this species, compartmentalisation, need-to-know, etc. similar to the military or the intelligences services. Did you ever wonder who designed these top-down and secretive structures? A number of names have been placed near the top of the hierarchy, like Bush, Harriman, Rothschild, Windsor, but the true top is way above those folks, and entirely invisible. The earthly representatives are in human form; their bosses are something else.
The other part of your question is WHY? What is their objective when it has become obvious that destruction of economy, infrastructure, biosphere helps nobody in the end. I’ve been led to believe that the goal is to reduce the human race to a state of powerless slavery, with greatly reduced population numbers, and use our planet for their own “home”. It is a pretty nice spot after all, and we the inhabitants are quite innocent and weak, as has been shown recently. Ripe for a takeover – the ripening has been going on for hundreds of years or longer.
All this has to be taken with some tempering though. For one thing, this species, for which I have no name, is acting, mimicking human traits, so the individuals, and the entire lot, is in danger of exposure at any time. Or maybe more likely, over a period of time. And although they have excellent technical skills in some areas, pertinent to their task, they also have serious weaknesses or shortcomings that they can’t really compensate for, or learn to overcome. Like a champion race horse in a senate seat for example; he tries hard but he is really out of his element.
Another very positive angle in all this is that there are other alien species (with plenty of power?) who prefer to leave the human race to develop, with help, on our own earth. I think these good guys have some limits to their power and/or their will too, which puts us as sorta primitives in the position of self-determination. We can’t rely on Mama to bail us out; we have to defeat the bad guys on our own but with Mama’s help.
In any case, the universe isn’t waiting forever for earthlings to make up their minds. Shit is coming down whether we like it or not.

Posted by: rapt | Mar 7 2009 23:28 utc | 26

You know, I travel in an armored Hummer with a gun turret, just in case somebody takes issue with my attitude.

Posted by: rapt | Mar 7 2009 23:31 utc | 27

There are more than two dozen national government departments in Afghanistan, paid for with US:UK taxpayer seed money and IMF:IBRD:IDA loans being slowly repaid as the national government tightens the noose on the population, and which repayment demand will soar by a factor of 20 within the life of the Obama Administration, about the time US:UK makes the national government a royalty-free deal they can’t refuse for cheap leases on all the natural resources, the lease payments of which will just cover the IMF:IBRD:IDA payments and aid to keep the government in power. Fewer words, I guess, US:UK “ran the numbers” and figured out the break-even to rent Afghanistan back to the Afghan people, just enough to always be in debt, and same for US as the unwitting seed money donors, the ‘I sold my soul to the company store’, kind of thing. NGO’s are all there for the profits, and rolling donations into advertising, don’t kid yourself, it’s a living like any other. Being a beat cop in Trenton, some days are good, some days are bad, work so you can die retired, they shovel your shit out to the can to make room for the next Renter Nation homey, or if you’re unlucky, they’ll harvest your organs on life support. tik…e.e.e.e.
e

Posted by: E E Cummings | Mar 8 2009 4:35 utc | 28

Afghanistan Timeline
[2006] Undiscovered petroleum in the region re-estimated at 1.6 billion barrels!
Updated estimates for natural gas reserves now 15.4 trillion cubic feet! [USGS]
[Flashback]
[2001] BushCo Oil Corporation, WADC, ignores (abets?) growing rumor of terrorist activities against NYC target. On the day before 9/11, Rumsfeld announces $2.3T is missing from the Department of Defense budget audit. Defense sends all East Coast fighter cover off to Canada to play at war games on 9/11. Everyone knows the rest.
Osama bin Laden, son of the wealthy Saudi bin Laden family, business partners with the BushCo Oil Corporation and Carlyle Group oil and arms investor, is the alleged perp, and the names of the Saudi and Egyptian plotters are released within hours.
US immediately invades Afghanistan, were neo-Taliban were trained and indoctrinated by Omar’s deeni madaris, originally established by Pakistan dictator General Zia as a counterfort defense against the anti-religion Soviets next door in Kabul.
[2002] Karzai selected president June sets up republican form of ‘government’
in a global dog-and-pony show bearing resemblance to drug cartel banana republic.
Nobody asks where the $2.3T in Defense fraud went, nobody asks where the SEC/IRS investigation Y2K backup files for the Dot.con fraud went, nobody asks who set up
the NORAD/AF mock drills that turned off the entire East Coast defense network:
[link]
[2004] “The writing of a modern Afghanistan Petroleum law has been ongoing
for more than two years. World Bank is funding this activity; ‘government’
approval of the new law was expected by the end of 2004″. (and that happened).
The first thing Cheney-enko did after Tora Bora, was push a Petroleum Law!!
“The Environment for hydrocarbon exploration was greatly enhanced today when a “hydrocarbons law” was approved by the Afghan cabinet. World Bank helped draft the regulation that gives the Afghan government ‘full ownership’ of oil and gas wells, but allows foreign investment in exploration through shared-production service agreements (PSA’s). A similar “Minerals Law” will be approved in July 2005.”
[Afghanistan’s iron & copper reserves are each the largest reserves in Asia.
Google “Iraq PSA’s” if you want to understand how that PSA con game is played.]
[2006] Bush makes his public promise of $10B in development for Afghanistan,
right after USGS announces previous oil and gas estimates were low by 1800%!
World Bank and International Finance Corps then happily *loan* the NeoCon Karzai intelligentsia of Afghanistan US$1.28B to start gentrifying up a middle-
class of tax toadies, who will ‘govern’ the country (that used to govern itself), while disingenuously denying to the Afghan population any “resource royalties”.
Licenses go directly to the national government, with no local re-distribution.
There was no land ownership in Afghanistan except irrigated agricultural land,
now all non-titled uplands and drylands are seized by the national government.
[2008] nothing came of Bush’s $10B, and this year’s US:EU promise of $10B more.
A USAID Chief stated, “‘Afghanistan’ is just a money pot for Congress to fill.”
$1.28B in World Bank loans for PSA access to 1.6 billion barrels of oil ($50B) and 15.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas ($60B) is a pretty good ROI!!
1% for neo-intelligentsia to ‘govern’ the prol’s, that’s how WADC rolls!
That’s how Beijing rolls too. Australian natural resources are being bought out
on the back of a *deliberately-engineered* commodities inflation boom-and-bust.
Very few resource companies were deliberate enough in investing, to survive this.
JP Morgan would’ve been proud to be part of the 21st Century Robber Baron Cartel.
to put a face on it.

Posted by: Shah Loam | Mar 8 2009 21:45 utc | 29

A good one from McClatchey: China’s thirst for copper could hold key to Afghanistan’s future

U.S. troops set up bases last month along a dirt track that a Chinese firm is paving as part of a $3 billion project to gain access to the Aynak copper reserves.
…
Beijing faces enormous challenges in completing the project and gaining access to the estimated 240 million tons of copper ore that are accessible through surface mining.
…
China may hope that the Aynak deal will help it position it to compete for more projects in Afghanistan, where three tectonic plates converge. The region is thought to hold some of the world’s last major untapped deposits of iron, copper, gold, uranium, precious gems and other raw materials.
“It’s the last frontier,” said the second Western official.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Afghanistan also has more than 1.5 billion barrels of oil — almost untapped since soldiers of Alexander the Great discovered pools of oil in the north more than 2,000 years ago — and 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Two other major copper deposits are close to Aynak, and the government is preparing to solicit bids for a lease to develop the Hajigak iron mine, which Minister of Mines Ibrahim Adil last year said contains an estimated 60 billion tons of ore.

Posted by: b | Mar 9 2009 15:40 utc | 30

b,
If it’s true that China plans to exploit Afghanistan for its copper reserves, then China, not the US, should be wasting blood and treasure in a war against the Taliban. But then, I suppose it’s possible that China plans to give a cut of its copper revenues to the Us in exchange for American military support…

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 9 2009 18:48 utc | 31

I am curious Cynthia, why do you think of the Taliban as an enemy that must be defeated militarily? The US has made deals with the Taliban and they even came to Texas to visit Enron when george the lesser was governor there.
they certainly had/have some harsh ways and the destruction of those huge stone monuments was pretty stupid though all cultures have done that. a lot of books have been burned in places that are now quite familiar to all of us.
they were able to bring some unity to a country that has been living with civil strife for a long time. it seems to be a hard country and I suppose it takes some pretty stern people to effectively rule it. We mortals admire and respect strength so why would it be any different for the Afghanis?
I guess what I am saying is that you might want to take a step back and think about why you instinctively know the Taliban are bad. How much of the opinion is based on what you heard and read from corporate media these last 8 years?

Posted by: dan of steele | Mar 9 2009 19:23 utc | 32

Come on, dan of steele! No one can deny that the US is doing its damnedest to pretend that it is at war against the Taliban. And I deeply resent the fact that you think I’m so damn stupid as to become brainwashed into believing that the war on terror is for real.

Posted by: Cynthia | Mar 9 2009 20:55 utc | 33

U.S. Eyes Iran for Resupply of Afghan Forces

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is mulling a plan that would use Iranian territory to rescue the deteriorating logistics network currently used to supply U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, administration officials said.
…
The idea of using Iranian commercial purchasers and Iranian transportation channels is gaining in momentum as the U.S. and NATO logistics network rapidly deteriorates, U.S. officials said.
…
With Obama recently planning to boost U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the U.S.-NATO forces will require some 3,500 tons of fuel and 250 tons of water per day, U.S. officials said. The pressing urgency of the need was made worse when the government of Kyrgyzstan recently denied the United States the use of its vast base at Manas to backstop the air war and help with resupply.
…
According to the director of research for the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy, Pat Clawson, the Obama plan would have Iran make commercial purchases of food, water, toilet paper, and other “non-strategic items,” then send them into Afghanistan via its “own commercial channels,” he said.
If approved, the bilateral arrangement using Iran “would substantially reduce the logistics burden of the United States,” said Clawson.
The arrangement makes sense. In spite of all the squaring off between the United States and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program, Iran has its own strategic interests in Afghanistan and is unremittingly hostile to the Taliban and al-Qaida. Both countries exchanged intelligence on both groups during the 2001 war, Cannistraro said.
…
A former CIA official said that what Iran is looking for is “a quid pro quo” – an end to the covert activities set afoot by the defunct George W. Bush administration. These included a plan to set off a small electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) explosion near key Iranian nuclear sites that would fry the electronic grids essential to the operation of the program.
Using Iran as a base for U.S.-NATO resupply may already apply to more than “non-strategic goods.” Although diesel fuel for allied forces is brought in from Pakistan, one U.S. intelligence source said that some 10,000 tons of jet fuel per month is already entering Afghanistan via Iran.

Posted by: b | Mar 10 2009 10:53 utc | 34

For War Supply Routes, U.S. Looks Even in Iran

The United States is seeking new supply routes for the war in Afghanistan that would bypass Russia, and has even had logistics experts review overland roads through Iran that might be used by NATO allies, according to military planners and Pentagon officials.
…
In an interview in February with The Associated Press, General Craddock said NATO would not oppose individual member nations’ making deals with Iran to supply their forces in Afghanistan. “Those would be national decisions,” he said. “NATO should act in a manner that is consistent with their national interest and with their ability to resupply their forces. I think it is purely up to them.”
Outlines of potential alternatives to routes through Russia emerged in greater detail this week, as the American military hosted a conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, for transportation officials and private contractors from two former Soviet republics — Azerbaijan and Georgia — and from Turkey to examine new supply routes into Afghanistan.
The route would be a west-to-east swing across the Caucasus region and into Central Asian states to the north of Afghanistan.
…
Mr. Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, said late Wednesday that the Kyrgyz government had agreed that American negotiators would travel there in coming days and engage in talks on extending access rights to the Manas base. The question of additional payments is expected to be central to the discussion. Even so, the Air Force is working on contingency plans to move the tanker fleet to bases in the Persian Gulf if it loses basing rights to Manas.
The Azeri capital, Baku, is emerging as a leading candidate to substitute for Manas, should the Kyrgyz government refuse to reconsider its withdrawal of the basing rights.
American and Azeri officials said that the focus of the discussions on Monday and Tuesday was a surface route that would move supplies from the Georgian port of Poti on the Black Sea and overland to Baku, where they would cross the Caspian Sea to Aktau, Kazakhstan, and then overland across Uzbekistan into Afghanistan.
A second potential route would land cargo at the Caspian seaport of Turkmenbashi, in Turkmenistan, for transit into Afghanistan. Talks on supply routes have also been held with officials in Tajikistan, another neighbor to the north of Afghanistan.

Posted by: b | Mar 12 2009 7:06 utc | 35

[spam deleted – b.]

Posted by: Nazir ah yarzada | Mar 29 2009 14:39 utc | 36

and we have also big security co with 200 guards
These wouldn´t by any chance be the ones banned from operating in Iraq?

Posted by: Parviz | Mar 29 2009 15:37 utc | 37

Back to Main