Withdrawing forces from Afghanistan

camlans

New Member
How hard will it be to withdraw military equipment from Afghanistan over the next couple of years, if relations with Pakistan do not improve?

I cant imagine it would be feasible or cost effective flying all equipment back to the USA or Europe.

Would be interested in your opinion on the options that would be available to ISAF?
 
Last edited:

Vanguard

New Member
Leave it there, most of the military units have already said that it is the present plan. Most of the equipment out there are vehicles like MRAPs, armoured cars etc that are either specially designed for Afghani conditions or so well worn and cheap to replace that its not worth bringing them back so they will go to the ANA.

The larger equipment; helicopters, MBTs and the like will probably start drifting out by air but somewhere along the line an arrangement with a port will have to be made. If not then the likelihood is that they wont fly them all the way back to Europe or America, probably only Cyrpus at the furthest, from where they will board ships for the long leg of the journey.
 

PCShogun

New Member
I think that in many cases, the equipment will be flown to the closest port, and shipped home the rest of the way. This is the easiest and most cost effective way as Afghanistan is land locked, as you probably already know.

If things don't improve relations wise over the Strait of Hormuz, we may just be able to drive them over to Chabahar, and ship them home from there.

MRAPS are not particularly cheap vehicles, I don't see us leaving them there, at least not all of them. The ANA could sure use them though.
 

surpreme

Member
I do see US leaving some equipment but not all. The way the US brought the equipment in is the way it will bring it out. The different I see it will not be going threw Pakistan. The US has the largest fleet of ships and planes in the world so I don't see any problem in getting the equipment out.
 

PCShogun

New Member
Agreed, the equipment will be removed. Flying it out will take forever and cost a fortune though. Better to make an agreement with Pakistan to transport the equipment over land to a port and load it on ships. That's how it got in country and is still the best way to get it out.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Well Italy just signed a deal with Russia that allows air transit of military cargo. The document says that this can be done for the purpose of "reconstruction in Afghanistan" and Russia retains unilateral rights to pull the plug on the agreement. Any weapons being transported have to make a mandatory stop in Russia for inspection, personnel can travel without such stop. The agreement lasts 1 year, after which it's automatically extended if neither side expresses a desire to terminate it.

Италии разрешили транзит через территорию РоÑÑии — ÐžÐ Ð£Ð–ИЕ РОССИИ, Информационное а³ÐµÐ½Ñ‚Ñтво

Seems like a nice model for finding cheaper routes out of Afghan, for the European nations at least.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
I have read that collectively, NATO will be abandoning equipment with a value of up $2 Billion.

Not exactly the best of news especially for nations caught in the grip of austerity!

The reason given is that it costs too much to bring it home, which is rather a surprising claim given the cost of most military equipment these days. There is very little doubt that the cost is either being raised by punitive tariffs on the nations through which they would need to transit, if not actually banned.

It does create a PR disaster as well, as the overall image: Enemy still in the field, troops leaving by the shortest route and weapons left abandoned, is one as old as warfare itself.

NATO has been trying to mitigate that image by present the equipment as military aid to some Central Asian countries, but Russia has objected very strongly to this, which makes pretty clear that it is determined not only to control what equipment leaves Afghanistan but also the way it is disposed of.

I also strongly suspect that the awarding of Afghanistan by the US as "Key none NATO ally (or somesuch)" the other week along with the billions worth of aid, is a package to help the disposal of the equipment in a dignified manner.

Much of above was being discussed while only the Central Asia, Russia exit route was the only one available. Since then Pakistan has reopened its routes, which reintroduces other factors, but of course it is politically precarious and only ever one drone strike away from being closed again.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
It does create a PR disaster as well, as the overall image: Enemy still in the field, troops leaving by the shortest route and weapons left abandoned, is one as old as warfare itself.
Prince Khalid, in his 'Desert Warrior' claimed that Allied armies, after the liberation of Kuwait, left stocks of ammo in the Saudi desert, rather than take them back home.
 

Sampanviking

Banned Member
Prince Khalid, in his 'Desert Warrior' claimed that Allied armies, after the liberation of Kuwait, left stocks of ammo in the Saudi desert, rather than take them back home.
Not really the same situation.

Desert Storm was an unqualified mission accomplished and a lot of ammo and other equipment was kept in Saudi as a forward supply in the case of further rapid deployment. The US had easy access and could retrieve anytime it wanted.

Nothing could be further from that situation in Afghanistan, irrespective of how it is spun.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Prince Khalid, in his 'Desert Warrior' claimed that Allied armies, after the liberation of Kuwait, left stocks of ammo in the Saudi desert, rather than take them back home.
If it'd been issued and then returned from active units, then certainly in UK service, it can't be put back in stores - it'd have to be destroyed or expended. You can't drive around with a bunch of live ammo in the field, then park it back in the armoury.

There's a vivid account from one of the various Desert Storm books about the SAS firing off hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of ammunition after the war in training - including Milan, HMG rounds, cannon, the lot.


As far as vehicles, I can't comment on the US position but the UK bought a whole load of UOR vehicles to fit various roles and there's every intention on streamlining matters by gifting a chunk of them to the Afghanistan government - it's cheaper than repatriating them, only to then sell them off at auction. I'm saving up for a Coyote myself, ideal for urban driving....
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I have read that collectively, NATO will be abandoning equipment with a value of up $2 Billion.

Not exactly the best of news especially for nations caught in the grip of austerity!

The reason given is that it costs too much to bring it home, which is rather a surprising claim given the cost of most military equipment these days. There is very little doubt that the cost is either being raised by punitive tariffs on the nations through which they would need to transit, if not actually banned.

It does create a PR disaster as well, as the overall image: Enemy still in the field, troops leaving by the shortest route and weapons left abandoned, is one as old as warfare itself.

NATO has been trying to mitigate that image by present the equipment as military aid to some Central Asian countries, but Russia has objected very strongly to this, which makes pretty clear that it is determined not only to control what equipment leaves Afghanistan but also the way it is disposed of..
I've not heard of weapons being left behind, & $2 billion sounds very low for what the Yanks are likely to abandon. Their bases have a hell of a lot of stuff on them, from tumble driers to exercise bikes, which really aren't worth the cost of shipping home. Even the buildings are prefabs put together from imported sections.

There's going to be a bonanza for the locals, as they move in & loot abandoned bases.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I do see US leaving some equipment but not all. The way the US brought the equipment in is the way it will bring it out. The different I see it will not be going threw Pakistan. The US has the largest fleet of ships and planes in the world so I don't see any problem in getting the equipment out.
The US doesn't have the largest fleet of ships in the world (it has the largest navy, which is a very different thing), & in any case, ships can't get to Afghanistan: it's landlocked.

The cost of flying out low-value equipment is more than the cost of buying replacements. Nobody air freights a washing machine unless they need it in a place which can only be reached by air - and then you don't fly it back out unless there's a very important reason for not leaving it behind.
 

Twain

Active Member
All that equipment that will be left behind is probably going to be put to use.

Konar police Chief Ewaz Mohammad Naziri said 1,960 shells, mostly artillery rounds, have hit various districts of the province in recent months. Pakistan denies that accusation. The shelling comes days after Pakistani Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul to discuss joint efforts to persuade Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan to join peace talks and end the cross-border shelling.

On Sunday, the deputy Afghan foreign minister, Jawed Ludin, met with Pakistan’s ambassador to Kabul and issued a warning. “Any continuation of such reported shelling against Afghan villages could have a significant negative impact on bilateral relations,” Ludin told Ambassador Mohammad Sadiq, the Foreign Ministry reported.

A day after Kabul’s warning to Pakistan, more cross-border shelling reported - The Washington Post

NATO may be ending their large scale involvement in Afghanistan but the war is far from over. India, Pakistan, Iran and to a lesser extent China are all going to be pursuing their interests in Afghanistan in 2015. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see significant fighting between Pakistan and Afghanistan in the not too distant future.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
Not really the same situation.

Desert Storm was an unqualified mission accomplished and a lot of ammo and other equipment was kept in Saudi as a forward supply in the case of further rapid deployment. The US had easy access and could retrieve anytime it wanted.
The author of the book was not referring to stuff kept in FOBs but stuff just left/abandoned in the desert without the Saudis being informed.
 

Pendekar

New Member
I think it's relatively safe for US forces to evacuate their vehicles by land into Karachi Port, and from there by ships.
 

Teindva

New Member
Preventing being a Vast Battleground

Afghanistan possesses Ethnic Afghans(Pathan), Persians(Tajik, Badakhshi,etc), Hazara Mughols and Turkic(Turkoman and Uzbek) factions. If U.S retreats like that of Russia then all these factions will come out to gain supremacy. The largest faction is that of Ethnic Afghans but by the time of the dismantling of Mughal Empire they have proved themselves as unable rulers being cruel, cunning and shortsighted in designs. Non other faction is ready to accept such a popeye regime in their land again putting their children in trouble as they and their forefathers had suffered. Thus,Instead of letting different countries to choose a faction of their choice each and turn the region into a battleground, a mixed Islamic or a South Asian force is needed to be deployed there to monitor upto the formation of a future reasonable government. (Taliban is only an Ethnic Afghan Freedom fighting force, it will never as before be able to manage a country. )
 

explorer9

New Member
Flying back arms, ammunition & other goods from Afghanistan is a futile exercise, the best possible scenario for the Americans is to bring back Pakistani Military on fold and ask them to provide safe passage for withdrawl. Then they will leave lot of ammunition for the ***** against the security of their withdrawal through Pakistani ports. Only high value items should be brought back and rest must be left for Afghans and ***** to be used in future .;)
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
IIf U.S retreats like that of Russia then all these factions will come out to gain supremacy.
All the factions cannot 'come out to gain supremacy', as some, like the Turkmens and Hazaras, are too small in number. What they will or might do, as in the past, is to align themselves with a larger ethnic group.

The largest faction is that of Ethnic Afghans but by the time of the dismantling of Mughal Empire they have proved themselves as unable rulers being cruel, cunning and shortsighted in designs. Non other faction is ready to accept such a popeye regime in their land again putting their children in trouble as they and their forefathers had suffered.
Despite what has happened in the past, as the largest enthic group, the Pashtuns will continue to play a large part in any Afghan government, this is a fact that all enthic groups understand. To do otherwise would be courting disaster again and ignoring the lessons of history.

a mixed Islamic or a South Asian force is needed to be deployed there to monitor upto the formation of a future reasonable government.
There is neither the political will or the funding for a South Asian force. Besides, a South Asian force will be seen by ordinary Afghans as just another foreign occupying power, irrespective of the fact that this forces is not Western. The time has come for Afghans to be able to solve their own issues, by themselves.

We tend to forget that Najibullah's government lasted for quite a while after the Soviet pullout, and if the Soviet's had not cut their aid to his government, Najibullah might have lasted longer than he did. When the U.S. pulls out, it will not cease providing support and aid to Afghanistan - the government in Kabul is unlikely immediately to collapse after the withdrawal of foreign troops. The danger is what happens in the coming years.
 
Last edited:
Top