Cost of Afghan supplies since Pakistan closed the border

**Heinz Guderian** · January 20, 2012, 09:28 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...6BQ_story.html

The Pentagon has just released the updated figures for war supply cost in Afghanistan.

Before the Pakistanis closed the border it cost $17 million a month to get war supplies into Afghanistan.

Then Pakistani soldiers were killed by American helicopters and so the Pakistanis closed the border to war supplies coming up from Karachi.

Now the cost of supplies is $104 million a month. So if we take the latest figure of 104 then divide by 17 we get 6.11, then if we times that by 100 we get 611% which is the increase in cost of supplying troops in Afghanistan. I will illustrate thusly:

104
---- = 6.11 , 6.11 x 100 = 611%
17

Can someone check my figures? Am i a go?

Does this seem quite a large increase to anyone else? Is someone stealing/extorting the Americans on the way? Could it be Kazakhistan? If it is Kazakhistan, is there any way to punish them?

**hellheaven1987** · January 20, 2012, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Heinz Guderian

Does this seem quite a large increase to anyone else? Is someone stealing/extorting the Americans on the way? Could it be Kazakhistan? If it is Kazakhistan, is there any way to punish them?

Probably is the Russia, which cargo that need to pass Kazakhistan require to pass.

Ok, be serious, I don't think Russia has agreement that allows ISAF supply pass through their land, so if ISAF does use an alternative route, such as from Turkmenistan, Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, the only route probably is air route, which is massively more expensive than sea route. The reason why Pakistan is a good choice is because it has sea port directly connecting with ocean, so no need to pass through Chinese or Russian territory.

But some TWC members had mentioned that ISAF is trying to change this difficulty now with some good success, so God knows.

Edit: By the way why you pick Kazakhistan? It is not even bordering with Afghanistan.

**Phier** · January 20, 2012, 11:36 AM

Is ther truely a greater punishment than living in Kazakhistan?

**s.rwitt** · January 20, 2012, 02:26 PM

Pakistan raises the cost of war.

The cost of war being one of the strongest arguments for leaving Afghanistan, causes US and rest of ISAF to leave Afghanistan.

Pakistan gets a Taliban stronghold next door again. Way to go Pakistan. You never fail to shoot yourself in the foot.

**Kanaric** · January 20, 2012, 03:57 PM

What's odd is that its like pakistan wants a lawless border region.

**white-wolf** · January 20, 2012, 04:27 PM

I am curious; how American personnel come and go to/from Afganistan? By Pakistan?

**s.rwitt** · January 20, 2012, 04:28 PM

Kyrgystan.

**Kanaric** · January 20, 2012, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by s.rwitt

Kyrgystan.

Since I havnt been by where di they reach that landlocked nation?

Also is the AFB there still going to be closed?

**s.rwitt** · January 20, 2012, 05:25 PM

No, they said they would a few years ago after China offered them money to do so but then we offered more and the Kyrgystan parliment changed their minds.

**mrmouth** · January 20, 2012, 06:51 PM

Hidden in all of this is that the US is now bringing in vital supplies for multiple NATO partners. At the time of closure, 75% of US supplies were coming in via the NDN (Northern Dist Network), compared to roughly 30% for everyone else. That 30% did not make up the time sensitive, vital loads, that are now being squeezed through the NDN, at great cost. Its raises costs all around.

The idea is that it becomes cheaper over time as the infrastructure builds, and as troop numbers go down.

As Im sure we all know, there has been a change it strategy to let the Afghans take a security/policing role in areas we have already cleared, just trying to keep the lid on tight. And we move into the east and finally deal with the instigators on the border. That all takes less people, in theory.

**Heinz Guderian** · January 21, 2012, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by BarnabyJones

Hidden in all of this is that the US is now bringing in vital supplies for multiple NATO partners. At the time of closure, 75% of US supplies were coming in via the NDN (Northern Dist Network), compared to roughly 30% for everyone else. That 30% did not make up the time sensitive, vital loads, that are now being squeezed through the NDN, at great cost. Its raises costs all around.

The idea is that it becomes cheaper over time as the infrastructure builds, and as troop numbers go down.
.

excellent point. it will interesting to see the monthly cost in 6 months time, especially if Pakistan shows no inclining in opening up the southern route again

**ivan_the_terrible** · January 21, 2012, 01:56 AM

Originally Posted by Heinz Guderian

Could it be Kazakhistan? If it is Kazakhistan, is there any way to punish them?

I heard Nazarbayev has many weapons. Plus he, like, totally cheats in elections!

Originally Posted by s.rwitt

No, they said they would a few years ago after China offered them money to do so but then we offered more and the Kyrgystan parliment changed their minds.

Yep. Stuffing their pockets is the one thing they do very, very well.

**~~Exarch~~** · January 21, 2012, 01:58 AM

do they get mcdonalds and dairy queen in bagram? does that mean fries doubled in price?

**s.rwitt** · January 21, 2012, 03:22 AM

Probably. They had TGIFridays and Pizza Hut at Khandahar Air Force Base.

**Roboute Guilliman** · January 20, 2012, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by bbc

don't you think naming yourself after a nazi general discredits you in pretty much everything you do around here, in past, present & future?

He was great educated general, if anything it adds a lot more to what he says.

And General Heinz sir, your calculations are correct. Should have put a Q.E.D. behind it to make it look even more academic.

On topic with nato soldiers being lurred into corners to get massacred by supposed afghan friends and this waste of money just to supply our troops among them also are surely these afghan friends, one wonders what the hell we are doing there. Time to go home.

Maybe it would be cheaper to supply Iran, to take control over Afghanistan. They surely know how to deal with the sunni heathens aka the taliban.

**~~bbc~~** · January 20, 2012, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by Gattsu

He was great educated general, if anything it adds a lot more to what he says.

And General Heinz sir, your calculations are correct. Should have put a Q.E.D. behind it to make it look even more academic.

On topic with nato soldiers being lurred into corners to get massacred by supposed afghan friends and this waste of money just to supply our troops among them also are surely these afghan friends, one wonders what the hell we are doing there. Time to go home.

Maybe it would be cheaper to supply Iran, to take control over Afghanistan. They surely know how to deal with the sunni heathens aka the taliban.

EDITED.

as for the OP: of course now, without pakistan's gov't support, we're going to have to bribe our way through like we did countless times in the past
not a chance in hell that we're not going to pay 611%
it'd be cheaper to just invade pakistan