Are we there yet?
"Land routes crucial in US withdrawal from Afghanistan" by Craig Whitlock and Karen DeYoung | Washington Post, July 05, 2012
WASHINGTON — Even with the reopening of critical supply routes from Pakistan, the US military confronts a mammoth logistical challenge to wind down the war in Afghanistan, where it must withdraw nearly 90,000 troops and enormous depots of military equipment accumulated over the past decade.
We sure seem to get into them quick enough.
Assuming Pakistan does not seal its border again, US and NATO commanders still face the prospect of pulling out at least a third of the cargo from northern Afghanistan on a winding, makeshift network of railways and roads that cross the former Soviet Union.
Those routes carry strategic risks of their own. Access to the transit lines depends on the whims of several authoritarian Central Asian leaders as well as President Vladimir Putin of Russia, a longtime nemesis of NATO.
Related: Putin signs papers to enter WTO
Some nemesis.
Moreover, the cost of shipping goods along the northern routes is about triple that of the much-shorter Pakistani lines.
To the tune of $100 million dollars a month as YOU FACE AUSTERITY, American!
The only other option for departing landlocked Afghanistan is by air — an even more expensive alternative, costing up to 10 times as much as the Pakistani ground routes.
Related: Border Opened, But NATO Trucks Still in Karachi
I'll give you one gue$$ as to what is $talling thing$.
All told, US military logisticians are preparing to bring home 100,000 shipping containers stuffed with materiel and 50,000 wheeled vehicles by the end of 2014, when US and NATO combat operations are scheduled to cease.
The US military has increasingly relied on the supply lines that cross the former Soviet Union to deliver cargo into Afghanistan since those routes opened in 2009.
They must be laughing at us along the way, failing to learn from the history we gave them with "Al-CIA-Duh."
After Pakistan sealed its border in November last year to protest an airstrike that killed 24 of its soldiers, the US military shifted about 60 percent of its supplies to the northern routes, with the remainder arriving in the war zone by air. Although delivery disruptions were largely avoided, the move resulted in extra expenses of about $100 million a month.
Yeah, yeah, it was those darn Pakistanis that cost you American citizens, yeah, yeah.... oh, wait a minute, they have nuclear weapons. Nope, don't want to start a war with those guys (already a covert war up in those hills).
And what is a hundred million in a time of austerity anyway?
The importance of the northern routes will become even more acute when the traffic is reversed....
You know what, readers? I'm going to get back to you when that starts happening because until it actually does I'm sick of the mass-murdering exercises, the empire-expanding "embassies" -- CIA stations is more like it -- and the bulls*** shoveled forth by my mouthpiece media. Sorry.
--more--"
At least the roads are safer:
"US troops reduce danger of IEDs" July 07, 2012
WASHINGTON — US troops in Afghanistan achieved an important victory over the past year: They found and avoided more homemade bombs meant to kill and maim them than a year ago, thanks to a surge in training, equipment, and intelligence.
So when we shrink.... sigh. And one other thing: I'm so sick of the internalized war terminology passing itself off as news.
Bomb-planters have picked up the pace during the summer, planting improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, along roads and footpaths. But the explosives are no longer the leading cause of death and injury in Afghanistan.
In the first three months of this year, only 5 percent of the bombs planted across Afghanistan hit their mark, according to Lieutenant General Michael Barbero, director of the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Organization. That’s down from 10 to 12 percent over the same three-month period a year ago.
Meaning civilians casualties are down, right?
The new figures show a slow but steady decline, from a high of 368 deaths caused by IEDs in 2010 to 252 in 2011, according to the privately run icasualties.org.
That decrease has happened even as the military has begun to withdraw 30,000 troops. Troops are often more vulnerable as they withdraw from an area.
Officials concede that the rate of bombs that cause casualties has risen slightly from April through June, as NATO troops attacked Taliban-held areas in a return to heavy fighting with the summer months.
Which flies in the face of the headline, and YET I sense something....
But the year is on track to be lower than each of the previous three years, with 77 deaths from IEDs so far out of 162 total troops killed, halfway through 2012, according to Icasualties.org.
Always a BUTT with my Boston Globe.
Barbero credits the slow turnaround to three years of an increase in intelligence-gathering equipment such as towers and aircraft outfitted with an array of cameras and other detection technology that have given US commanders an edge, enabling them to spot the bombers as they approach often-traveled routes.
Yup, and they are bringing it on home!!
The good news is tempered by the looming drawdown of troops from Afghanistan by 2014, which will spell tough choices for commanders trying to balance keeping enough combat troops on the ground to challenge the Taliban with keeping enough intelligence support teams on the ground to keep combat troops safe.
Translation: withdrawing troops is bad (sob).
Related: Afghan local police group deserts to Taliban
Oh, that's a good sign.
Court convicts Afghan soldier in attack on allies
Sort of makes it all worth it, huh?
--more--"
And yeah, those roads are MUCH SAFER!
Also see: Afghanistan attack leaves 10 dead
See what happens when we leave?
Rape alleged after forced Afghan marriage
And we better bomb them into oblivion to prevent that.
I mean, they even bomb wedding parties:
"Taliban blamed for bombing at Afghan wedding" July 16, 2012
KABUL — The Taliban have not claimed responsibility for the attack, nor have they denied that they carried it out.
A hallmark of the CIA when you think about it!
The grisly attack showed again how militants still have the capability of causing havoc in Afghanistan, despite a decade-long US-led military campaign in Afghanistan....
But we have been winning and.... (blog editor exhales a long, deep sigh)
The apparent target of the blast in the provincial capital of Aybak was Ahmad Khan Samangani, a well-known ethnic Uzbek who commanded forces fighting the Soviets in the 1980s and later became a member of Parliament....
Translation: He was a CIA asset -- thus they would KNOW WHERE he is going to be!
Also killed were Mohammad Khan, the intelligence chief in the province, and Mohammadullah, an Afghan National Army division commander who uses only one name....
Oh, THIS STINKS! Guess we will JUST HAVE TO STAY, 'eh, AmurKa?
The interior minister said a government-appointed delegation was still investigating, but evidence already collected indicates the Taliban and terrorists had orchestrated the bombing.
Honestly, I'M TIRED of GOVERNMENT-SHOVELED S***!!!
--more--"
Yeah, THERE IT IS AGAIN!!
I seem to remember peace talk once:
"Karzai needs the minority groups, loosely known as the Northern Alliance, to back his efforts to reconcile with the Taliban."
Unbelievable propaganda! Yeah, he needs the CIA-sponsored Northern Alliance to back the peace process -- and thus, unsurprisingly there is NEVER ANY PEACE! Which is why I no longer pay attention to crockers full of crap.
