One of the things they tell you as a PhD student is that for those who go on to write books throughout their career, the PhD thesis is never the best book-length piece of writing they produce. Unless you’re Martin van Creveld and your PhD thesis became Supplying war: logistics from Wallenstein to Patton.
The war in Afghanistan receives a lot of attention as a testing ground for COIN, a proving ground for the NATO alliance, and a fertile ground for the development of a crime-conflict nexus. However, in the last few days one of the less glamorous issues has again come into focus: the issue of supply.
On Saturday Pakistan closed the Torkham border crossing point, through which NATO traffic heading from the port in Karachi to the troops in Afghanistan passes. It was only the second time the border had been closed. The first was as a form of punishment for infringing on Pakistani sovereignty. This time around, it was in response to the hijacking of a convoy by the Taliban.
According to an A.P. report:
A U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan insisted Monday that the temporary halting of convoys through the Khyber Pass had not impacted operations.
“We continue to move supplies through Pakistan to Afghanistan,” said Lt. Cmdr. Walter Matthews. “I can’t give you the route.”
Not being an expert on the intricacies of military supply it is hard for me to know just how worried to be about this issue. However, clearly the U.S. is a bit concerned since they’re trying to secure alternate routes for non-lethal supplies via Central Asia. Which could mean depending on Russia or China. In other words, the problem might one day cease to be an operational one and become a strategic one.
I’ve no idea how this will turn out, but history points in the direction of trouble.
Wednesday, 19, November, 2008 at 5:18 pm |
Just to note that securing alternative routes means depending not just on Russia or China, but on the Central Asian states themselves — which presents a different set of operational and strategic problems, but could mostly be characterised as a massive bleeding headache. (Some of the most extreme official corruption in the world, rotten infrastructure, airports that no sane airline flies into, roads of misery, etc, ad infin, you get the picture…)
The US has been using bases in the region of course, but a massive expansion to make up for a loss of capacity down south would, I have to think, be fairly problematic.
Wednesday, 19, November, 2008 at 5:59 pm |
Amateurs Study Tactics. Professionals study logistics.
Some people like to claim that the Afghanistan Campaign was starved of logistical support because the eeeevil Bush wanted to send every thing to Iraq. Not exactly. Afghanistan has been starved of logistical support in comparison to Iraq, because it is a side show, an economy of force theater, and has been from the beginning, because logistically supporting a large American army on the opposite side of the planet far inland from the sea is too hard even for us. It is so hard for reasons of geography, topography, ethnology, criminology and technology that even the nation that put men on the moon can’t do it except at exorbitant cost. Saddam’s misfortune was that bin Laden got away, and we could logistically support major operations in Mesopotamia.
Thursday, 20, November, 2008 at 12:14 am |
I was just wondering, is there an alternative port that might be used instead of Karachi? Could it be possible that under a new administration, Afghanistan (keeping in mind the logistics issue), becomes a serious reconciliation ground for US-Iran relations? Just thinking out loud, is this scenario a complete no no?
Thursday, 20, November, 2008 at 9:50 am |
RC,
I would imagine that if people are (rightly in my opinion) a bit gunshy about relying on Russia and China than any type of solution that requires seriously relying on consistently good relations with Iran is going to be a bridge too far. That said, could Afghanistan be a place where – so long as no one was locked into anything too serious – the two powers could find common ground? That’s happened before. But I would think any steps taken would be seriously tentative and not create any more leverage for one side over another. Even that is probably a ways off though as I’d imagine Obama’s first official act will not be reaching out to Iran.
Thursday, 20, November, 2008 at 9:24 pm |
Do you really think that John Nagl will write a better book than Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife? Blue skies! — Dan Ford