DL says at the moment there are only two routes that can be used for supplies and both go through Pakistan: so the bottom line is that there's no other way to get large amounts of equipments in and out of Afghanistan right now. (So we've got two routes and we're reliant on Pakistan. When you were there, was it as dangerous as it appears now?) No, when I was there 2003-2005, the security situation was more permissive. The weather will also soon become a factor and snow can back up these routes for miles. (As we look towards the next administration and as Obama has promised to ramp up the presence in Afghanistan, that presumably means an increase in supplies as well. Is the U.S.'s presence on the ground held up by the difficulty of getting provisions and supplies to the troops?) Not necessarily, although it's obviously a consideration. We do have an air bridge in as well. (Why aren't more supplies flown in right now then?) Air is expensive. Air transport can't move the short tonnage either, particularly fuel. Air is no way to supply a war. Over the long haul it's sea and ground transport that support these large operations. (Tell us one more thing that we'd need to understand in terms of supplying the troops in Afghanistan.) It's probably one of the most difficult logistical operation an army has ever undertaken. From an infrastructure perspective, this is a 17th century country. There are no major roads, it's extremely forbidding terrain. The Soviets found this out when they conducted their war in Afghanistan.
GlobalPost.com is now PRI.org
GlobalPost and PRI have joined forces to expand in-depth global news reporting to create a more informed, connected and empathetic world.Learn why See GlobalPost stories Dismiss