I am really against in the afghan war against Nato. What they want to prove ???

They should leave the country and go away from every where..! they want to make all the countries like USA.
Look at this..
"NATO recently literally shot itself in the foot, imperiling the resupply of International Assistance Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan by shooting up two Pakistani border posts in a “hot pursuit’ raid.

Given that roughly 100 fuel tanker trucks along with 200 other trucks loaded with NATO supplies cross into Afghanistan each day from Pakistan, Pakistan’s closure of the border has ominous long-term consequences for the logistical resupply of ISAF forces, even as Pentagon officials downplay the issue and scramble for alternative resupply routes.

Pakistan, long angry about ISAF/NATO cross border raids, has apparently reached the end of its tether. Following the 26 November NATO aerial assault on two border posts in Mohmand Agency in Pakistan’s turbulent NorthWest Frontier Province, Islamabad promptly sealed its border with Afghanistan to NATO supplies after the allied strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The U.S. military insists a joint patrol with Afghan forces was fired upon first and only responded with return fire and calling in airstrikes on the posts, which a commander mistakenly identified as Taliban training camps, after reportedly checking that there were no Pakistani military forces nearby. Pakistan Major General Ishfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, rebutted Washington’s assertions one by one, commenting, “The positions of the posts were already conveyed to the ISAF through map references and it was impossible that they did not know these to be our posts.”

So, what does this mean for logistical support of ISAF forces? According to Nesar Ahmad Nasery, the deputy head of Torkham Customs, around 1,000 trucks cross into Afghanistan on a daily basis, nearly 300 of which are NATO contractors carrying NATO supplies in sealed containers. Khyber Transport Association chief Shakir Afridi said that each oil tanker has a capacity of 13,000-15,000 gallons. In October 2010 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said that fossil fuels are the number one import to Afghanistan.

Noting the obvious, as Afghanistan has no indigenous hydrocarbon supplies, every drop must be brought in, with transit greatly increasing the eventual cost. For 2001-2008, almost all U.S. and NATO supplies were trucked overland to Afghanistan through parts of Pakistan effectively controlled by the Taliban.

Ground supplies are shipped into Pakistan’s Arabian Sea Karachi port and offloaded onto trucks before being sent to one of five crossing points on the Afghan border, the most important being Torkham at the Khyber Pass and Baluchistan’s Chaman. The recent attack has put all these routes at risk, perhaps permanently. Pakistan, being the shortest and most economical route, has been used for nearly a decade to transit almost 75 percent of the ammunition, vehicles, foodstuff and around 50 percent of fuel for coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan.On 27 November Interior Minister Rehman Malik, addressing journalists at the Ministry of the Interior’s National Crisis Management Cell, after strongly condemning the NATO attack on Pakistani forces, stated that the resupply routes for NATO via Pakistan have been stopped “permanently,” adding that the decisions of the Defense Cabinet Committee (DCC) on the NATO forces attack inside Pakistan would be implemented in letter and spirit, stressing that “The decisions of the DCC are final and would be implemented.”

The major issue at stake here for ISAF and U.S. forces is fuel, all of which must be brought in from abroad at high cost. In October 2009 Pentagon officials testified before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that the “Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel” (FBCF) translates to about $400 per gallon by the time it arrives at a remote Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Afghanistan. Last year, the FBCF reached $800 in some FOBs following supply route bombings in Pakistan, while others have claimed the FBCF may be as high as $1,000 per gallon in some remote locations. For many remote locations, fuel supplies can only be provided by air – one of the most expensive ways being in helicopter fuel bladders.

The majority of U.S. tonnage transported into Afghanistan is fuel – 70 percent, according to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Alan Haggerty. The Marines’ calculate that 39 percent of their tonnage is fuel, and 90 percent is either fuel or water.

According to ISAF spokesman Colonel Wayne Shanks, there are currently nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan, ranging from the massive Bagram airbase outside Kabul down to camps, forward operating bases and combat outposts.

The Pakistani supply lines have come under increasing attack by militants. Baluchistan Home Secretary Akbar Hussain Durani noted that last year, 136 NATO tankers were destroyed in 56 attacks in the province, with 34 people killed and 23 wounded in the assaults.

But NATO and the Pentagon have a backup plan – since 2009 they have been shifting their logistics to the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a railway link running from Latvia’s Riga Baltic port through Russia and Kazakhstan terminating in Uzbekistan’s Termez on the Afghan border.

The NDN is a joint initiative of multiple Department of Defense agencies, including the US Transportation Command, CENTCOM, the US European Command, the Defense Logistics Agency and the Department of State. The NDN’s first shipment was sent on 20 February 2009 from Riga 3,212 miles to Termez, with U.S. commanders stating that 100 containers daily would be transported via the NDN. The supply trains have been given preferential right-of-way to speed the trip to about nine days. According to Pentagon officials, its goal is eventually to be able to bring 75 percent of its equipment into Afghanistan from the north.

But the true number of forces to be resupplied is far higher. Last year the Pentagon’s Central Command put the number of contractors for the U.S. military at 107,000.

According to ISAF spokesman Lieutenant Gregory Keeley in Kabul, the NDN now accounts for 52 percent of coalition cargo transport and 40 percent for the U.S., which also receives around 30 percent of its supplies by air.

Cost?

According to the FMN Logistics, the Washington DC-based logistics company that oversees the NDN and provides “full supply-chain management to ensure the smooth transit of(European Union) government cargo from various Ports of Entry including Riga, Latvia;
Poti, Georgia; Mersin, Turkey and Bandar Abbas, Iran, through to multiple NATO/ ISAF camps in North and South Afghanistan,” in January Russian Railways increased rail tariffs for freight by 10 percent and is suggesting an additional increase of 11.7 percent in 2011 to cover “operating costs.” Further east, Uzbekistan increased rail tariffs twice last year.

NATO recently literally shot itself in the foot, imperiling the resupply of International Assistance Forces (ISAF) in Afghanistan by shooting up two Pakistani border posts in a “hot pursuit’ raid.

Given that roughly 100 fuel tanker trucks along with 200 other trucks loaded with NATO supplies cross into Afghanistan each day from Pakistan, Pakistan’s closure of the border has ominous long-term consequences for the logistical resupply of ISAF forces, even as Pentagon officials downplay the issue and scramble for alternative resupply routes.

Pakistan, long angry about ISAF/NATO cross border raids, has apparently reached the end of its tether. Following the 26 November NATO aerial assault on two border posts in Mohmand Agency in Pakistan’s turbulent NorthWest Frontier Province, Islamabad promptly sealed its border with Afghanistan to NATO supplies after the allied strikes killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

The U.S. military insists a joint patrol with Afghan forces was fired upon first and only responded with return fire and calling in airstrikes on the posts, which a commander mistakenly identified as Taliban training camps, after reportedly checking that there were no Pakistani military forces nearby. Pakistan Major General Ishfaq Nadeem, director general of military operations, rebutted Washington’s assertions one by one, commenting, "The positions of the posts were already conveyed to the ISAF through map references and it was impossible that they did not know these to be our posts."

So, what does this mean for logistical support of ISAF forces? According to Nesar Ahmad Nasery, the deputy head of Torkham Customs, around 1,000 trucks cross into Afghanistan on a daily basis, nearly 300 of which are NATO contractors carrying NATO supplies in sealed containers. Khyber Transport Association chief Shakir Afridi said that each oil tanker has a capacity of 13,000-15,000 gallons. In October 2010 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said that fossil fuels are the number one import to Afghanistan.

Noting the obvious, as Afghanistan has no indigenous hydrocarbon supplies, every drop must be brought in, with transit greatly increasing the eventual cost. For 2001-2008, almost all U.S. and NATO supplies were trucked overland to Afghanistan through parts of Pakistan effectively controlled by the Taliban.

Ground supplies are shipped into Pakistan’s Arabian Sea Karachi port and offloaded onto trucks before being sent to one of five crossing points on the Afghan border, the most important being Torkham at the Khyber Pass and Baluchistan’s Chaman. The recent attack has put all these routes at risk, perhaps permanently. Pakistan, being the shortest and most economical route, has been used for nearly a decade to transit almost 75 percent of the ammunition, vehicles, foodstuff and around 50 percent of fuel for coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan.

On 27 November Interior Minister Rehman Malik, addressing journalists at the Ministry of the Interior’s National Crisis Management Cell, after strongly condemning the NATO attack on Pakistani forces, stated that the resupply routes for NATO via Pakistan have been stopped “permanently,” adding that the decisions of the Defense Cabinet Committee (DCC) on the NATO forces attack inside Pakistan would be implemented in letter and spirit, stressing that "The decisions of the DCC are final and would be implemented."

The major issue at stake here for ISAF and U.S. forces is fuel, all of which must be brought in from abroad at high cost. In October 2009 Pentagon officials testified before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that the "Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel" (FBCF) translates to about $400 per gallon by the time it arrives at a remote Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Afghanistan. Last year, the FBCF reached $800 in some FOBs following supply route bombings in Pakistan, while others have claimed the FBCF may be as high as $1,000 per gallon in some remote locations. For many remote locations, fuel supplies can only be provided by air - one of the most expensive ways being in helicopter fuel bladders.

The majority of U.S. tonnage transported into Afghanistan is fuel - 70 percent, according to Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Alan Haggerty. The Marines' calculate that 39 percent of their tonnage is fuel, and 90 percent is either fuel or water.

According to ISAF spokesman Colonel Wayne Shanks, there are currently nearly 400 U.S. and coalition bases in Afghanistan, ranging from the massive Bagram airbase outside Kabul down to camps, forward operating bases and combat outposts.

The Pakistani supply lines have come under increasing attack by militants. Baluchistan Home Secretary Akbar Hussain Durani noted that last year, 136 NATO tankers were destroyed in 56 attacks in the province, with 34 people killed and 23 wounded in the assaults.

But NATO and the Pentagon have a backup plan – since 2009 they have been shifting their logistics to the Northern Distribution Network (NDN), a railway link running from Latvia’s Riga Baltic port through Russia and Kazakhstan terminating in Uzbekistan’s Termez on the Afghan border.

The NDN is a joint initiative of multiple Department of Defense agencies, including the US Transportation Command, CENTCOM, the US European Command, the Defense Logistics Agency and the Department of State. The NDN’s first shipment was sent on 20 February 2009 from Riga 3,212 miles to Termez, with U.S. commanders stating that 100 containers daily would be transported via the NDN. The supply trains have been given preferential right-of-way to speed the trip to about nine days. According to Pentagon officials, its goal is eventually to be able to bring 75 percent of its equipment into Afghanistan from the north.

But the true number of forces to be resupplied is far higher. Last year the Pentagon's Central Command put the number of contractors for the U.S. military at 107,000.

According to ISAF spokesman Lieutenant Gregory Keeley in Kabul, the NDN now accounts for 52 percent of coalition cargo transport and 40 percent for the U.S., which also receives around 30 percent of its supplies by air.

Cost?

According to the FMN Logistics, the Washington DC-based logistics company that oversees the NDN and provides “full supply-chain management to ensure the smooth transit of(European Union) government cargo from various Ports of Entry including Riga, Latvia;
Poti, Georgia; Mersin, Turkey and Bandar Abbas, Iran, through to multiple NATO/ ISAF camps in North and South Afghanistan,” in January Russian Railways increased rail tariffs for freight by 10 percent and is suggesting an additional increase of 11.7 percent in 2011 to cover “operating costs.” Further east, Uzbekistan increased rail tariffs twice last year.

Bringing supplies overland on the NDN costs two or three times as much as shipping them by sea and moving them up through Pakistan.

And the NDN is not without problems of its own. On 16 November Uzbek media reported an explosion on an NDN railway line on a railway bridge on the Galaba-Amuzang section of track on Uzbekistan’s border with Afghanistan.

Besides the NDN, the Pentagon also uses a supply route through Georgia’s Black Sea Poti port via Azerbaijan’s capital Baku, where goods are transshipped across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan, where the goods are carried by truck into Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. While shorter than the NDN, it is also more expensive because of the constant on-and-off loading from trucks to ferries and back onto trucks. A third supply route, a spur of the NDN, bypasses Uzbekistan from Kazakhstan via Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, but poor road conditions in Tajikistan limit its usefulness.

So, given Pakistan’s shutdown, can the NDN absorb the increased railway traffic?

Probably, but it won’t be cheap, and will take some time to implement.

NATO’s investigation of the Mohmand attack, led by a one-star general, will release its findings on 23 December. What does Pakistan want to resolve the issue? A formal apology and resolute action taken against those responsible for the deadly cross border air strike.

The U.S. military's Transportation Command deputy commander Vice Adm. Mark Harnitchek said of resupplying Afghanistan, "This is the logistics challenge of our generation."

If the Pentagon does not issue an apology, then the U.S. military had better expect “the logistics challenge of our generation” to continue.

Or get out and push and push the HUMVEES and helicopters.

Thanks

Admin of wall clock | Kettles

Heh, America may have the upper hand in conventional warfare but they are totally inexperienced when dealing with guerilla warfare. Look at what happened to them during the Vietnam war? Some people never do learn!

Agree with your points MENJ.Virtual Offices

This is a great report.

I'm just puzzled why the link to the topic of forced child labour in Uzbekistan, which you would expect to be generic, in fact takes you to a two-part article at the Jamestown Foundation by a known supporter of the Uzbek government who in fact discounts concerns about child labour as mere Western politicization, saying they are misrepresented and exaggerated. She argues that children helping their farmer families is a cultural legacy and a good one, although in fact it's the state organizing their labour, not farmers, and they are being taken out of state schools to pick cotton.

Here's a response:

http://www.cottoncampaign.org/2011/05/11/us-g-tip-policy-on-uzbekistan-sparks-conservative-critique/

US has been destabilizing the whole region by selectively choosing the regions which it sees most profits in (Oil Profits that is).

All this is coming at the cost of innocent lives of the civilians. Any further attacks are going to destroy the region more.

It is evident that US is preparing for more attacks. Obama’s announcement of new basing arrangements for US Marines in northern Australia, along with greater access for American warships and warplanes, is part of a broader military build-up within the region to maintain American dominance and undercut China’s growing influence. No longer able to wield the economic clout that it once did, US imperialism is recklessly deploying its military power in a confrontation with China that potentially will have far more disastrous consequences than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

Obama’s declaration to the Australian parliament last Thursday that he had made “a deliberate and strategic decision” to refocus US foreign policy on the Asia Pacific reflects a process that has been underway for the past two years. Speaking in Hawaii a year ago, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton employed military jargon to sum up her task. She spoke of using “forward deployed diplomacy” to “sustain and strengthen America’s leadership” by sending “our diplomatic assets... into every corner and every capital of the Asia Pacific region.

- From web designer who is concerned about these pointless wars.

"Heh, America may have the upper hand in conventional warfare but they are totally inexperienced when dealing with guerilla warfare. Look at what happened to them during the Vietnam war? Some people never do learn!"

Whilst I agree with your statement, I do feel that the Americans are more than prepped in terms of their inteligence. However the idea of cutting deals with local militias seems tenuous to say the least. I suppose it purely coems down to the idea of what is the greater good.
audio-technica

It is a sad fact that we really have no choice other than appeasing President Islam Karimov- even though he is renowned for his atrocities. Unfortunately, our troops need safe passage of good and supplies. So once again, we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils and in so doing we end up contributing to a regime that contradicts our values and ethics. Buy Lifecell

Before reading this report, I thought we had already figured out how to supply our troop and everything was working beautifully. If the report is accurate with no exaggeration, I am thinking we are really NOT capable of fighting this war in long term.

Pakistan is angry at us. We don't talk to Iran. China and Russia don't let us to use them to supply. The rest of Afghanistan's neighbors are unstable at best. We have to kiss brutal dictators to keep the NDN open. How are we going to win a war like this?

While the memory of the nations' tough talk against Pakistan is still fresh, I am wondering Congress and leading politicians, such McCain, know what they are talking about.

While the memory of the nations' tough talk against Pakistan is still fresh, I am wondering Congress and leading politicians, such McCain, know what they are talking about.Tigari electronice

i Agree in Afghanistan War before reading this report, I thought we had already figured out how to supply our troop and everything was working beautifully. I am thinking we are really NOT capable of fighting this war in long term.

It is evident that US is preparing for more attacks. Obama’s announcement of new basing arrangements for US Marines in northern Australia, along with greater access for American warships and warplanes, is part of a broader military build-up within the region to maintain American dominance and undercut seslichat China’s growing influence. No longer able to wield the economic clout that it once did, US imperialism is recklessly deploying its military power in a confrontation with China that potentially will have far more disastrous consequences than the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya

The first four paths require only one nation, but the last two require extra participants. Additionally, overflight rights must be guaranteed. The only option that does not need other countries would be to reactivate the space shuttle service fleet and expand it. Then, all of us build a landing remove, manufacturing facilities, along with a launching pad in Afghanistan. Nobody owns transit paths in space, however the US budget might not support the resupply effort.

People in America should read Caesar's publications on the wars within Gaul and the civil conflicts. 90% of them discuss their baggage trains: creating baggage trains, discussions for supplies, moves to protect baggage locomotives, moving them throughout rivers, and putting them in safety along with guards before fights. Napoleon said "an army marches upon its stomach.Inch Sherman marched to sea in order to deprive rebels of materials. visit my site for more information.

Look at what happened to them during the Vietnam war? Some people never do learn! America may have the upper hand in conventional warfare but they are totally inexperienced when dealing with guerilla warfare.
massagistas
aeronaves