NATO and U.S. military officials have said raids on the supply line from Pakistan to Afghanistan have not significantly affected their operations. "This is nothing new," said Lt. Col. Rumi Nielson-Green, a U.S. military spokeswoman in Afghanistan. "Bandits and insurgents have long proclaimed that they will attack our supply lines, though nothing they have done has caused any real impact to the military operations here."
Yet the scramble to find new routes appears to indicate the attacks have had some effect. The United States has already begun negotiations with countries along what the Pentagon has called a new northern route. An agreement with Georgia has been reached and talks are ongoing with Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, according to an Oct. 31 Pentagon document. "We do not expect transit agreements with Iran or Uzbekistan," the Transportation Command told potential contractors.
The enemy attacks are operationally insignificant, we say. The article states that because we are seeking alternate routes, the attacks must be having an impact. This logic is faulty. The problem isn't the Taliban attacks. We can get supplies through despite attacks.
The problem is not knowing whether Pakistan's government will always support our supply line defenses. That higher level vulnerability and not tactical successes by the Taliban against individual convoys is what could kill a US/NATO army in landlocked Afghanistan.
Mind our limits of action out there.
Oh, and pity we can't arrange for an alternate supply line through Iran. Our freedom of action would be greatly enhanced.
