Progress towards solving Afghanistan logistical issues

As the United States is increasing the size of its forces in Afghanistan while the supply line is being attacked in Pakistan, the development of new means to transport cargo to NATO forces is of critical importance.  In January it was reported that the U.S. had obtained new routes to Afghanistan. Today, we received news of a rail line originating in Latvia being put in use for the first time for the purpose of supplying forces in Afghanistan:

A train carrying non-lethal supplies for the U.S. military in Afghanistan has left a cargo terminal at the Latvian port of Riga for transit through Russia, a source in the port administration said on Thursday.

“The train has left the Riga port heading for transit to Afghanistan through Russian territory,” the source said.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Monday that a consignment of U.S. non-military cargos was being prepared in the Latvian capital of Riga for transit to Afghanistan via Russia, and would soon be dispatched.

Russia and NATO signed a framework agreement on the transit of non-military cargos in April 2008, and a subsequent Russia-U.S. deal was signed in January.

Another article states that up to 700 containers per week could be shipped via this route, which goes through Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. Now, assuming the line could be kept near capacity on a weekly basis, that comes out to 30-35,000 containers per year.  Using the frequently cited number of 70,000 per year, that would reduce dependency on the Pakistan supply route by nearly half.

It remains to be seen if there will also be a “western route”.  One possibility would be from the Black Sea into Georgia to Azerbaijan, then across the Caspian Sea to Turkmenistan. A second, arguably less likely possibility would be to avail new routes linking Afghanistan to Iranian ports. After all the Afghazn Container Transport Company website does say:

The most preferred routing for cargo originating or destined for Afghanistan is via Gateway Bandar Abbas.

i.e. Iran.  (This new route originates in the more southern port of Chabhar).

Establishing and maintaining these lines will be a significant diplomatic challenge, as the U.S. experience with its airbase in Kyrgyzstan demonstrates.  The latest is that the Kyrgyz President is expected to sign tomorrow a bill that would give notice to the U.S. that it must leave within six months.  The State Department states that they remain in discussion with the Kyrgyz government and will remain so until “a final decision is received” (see today’s Daily Press Briefing).

Finger-pointing over Kyrgyzstan

One of the stories I’ve been following over the past few days has been the status of our base in Kyrgyzstan.  Manas Air Base serves as a transit point for troops headed in and out of Afghanistan as well as a base for aerial refueling tankers.  As such, it was disconcerting to read about  the Kyrgyz President announcing the base closure, citing U.S. refusal to pay more for the base, and incidents that had raised hostility towards the U.S.  That statement was re-iterated on Friday.

A post on Foriegn Policy’s The Cable blog gives backstory on Kyrgyzstan from various sources.  Here comes the finger-pointing:

A source involved with the negotiations for the Kyrgyz side told The Cable that the Obama administration was inheriting the brewing Kyrgyz base crisis, which he said had been neglected for years by the Bush administration.

“The U.S. government could have avoided this if they would have been receptive to Kyrgyz complaints,” said the source. “When the new government came into power [in Bishkek] and the [payoff] scheme was uncovered, they approached the Americans and asked them to compensate it for the losses. But the Americans were reluctant to acknowledge that there was anything wrong.”

The thing is, though,the U.S. did cut a new deal with Kyrgyzstan in 2006, which increased the rent several fold and provided supplemental aid.  It’s difficult to say that the issue wasn’t addressed. Maybe not to the complete satisfaction of Kyrgyzstan, but apparently well enough for them to agree to continue renting to us.  Short of giving in to the monetary demand entirely ($200 million per year), it’s not clear what more could have been done.

Like it or not, Kyrgyzstan (and/or Russia) waited until the change of U.S. Presidents to force the issue.

A couple of side-notes

A Defense Department spokesman said, “The actual original negotiations and now modern discussions [on the base] were all done by the State Department. … As far as I know, [the Pentagon] doesn’t normally talk to government institutions like that. We defer to the State Department, and the embassy.”

Contemporaneous reporting seems to back that up.  (See also, this State Department story.)

A State Department spokesman said he would check on such a meeting. In the meantime, he said, the U.S. government position is that it had not officially been notified by the Kyrgyz that they want to close the base.

They seem to be waiting on a vote by Parliament that has been delayed (this story says until Russia makes good on its guarantees, while previous ones suggested the vote would take place later this month).

Stacy Stewart is back from Iraq (and so am I)

After nearly 20 months of active duty, Commander Stacy Stewart has returned to his civilian job as a Senior Hurricane Specialist at NOAA’s National Hurricane Center in Miami.

His biggest adjustment is returning to South Florida traffic. “I was used to driving down the middle of the road in a 15,000 pound Hummer with a .50 caliber machine gun and avoiding any kind of debris,” he said.

A 35-year Navy reservist, Stewart was recalled to active duty in January 2007 to aid in the troop surge in Iraq. He was part of the Coalition Army Advisory Training Team, providing advice and mentorship to three Iraqi Army divisions at An Neumaniyah Military Base. That’s 20,000 Iraqi soldiers. He also assisted in the training of three Iraqi brigades.

NHC welcomes back Stacy Stewart

I’m still in a condition where rain is a novel sight.  Fay hasn’t changed that, yet.

Back in the saddle

Anyone who has been reading my blog recently and is familiar with some of my past blogging, perhaps regarding Ivan
or Katrina is probably thinking “WTF is going on? Since when did Eye of the Storm become the research and analysis arm for brendanloy.com? Where’s the Dean posts? It’s like Charles is actually getting more than 4 hours sleep per day while there’s a major hurricane out there!”

Well folks, yours truly, who served four years in the active duty and another four plus drilling in the Reserves, got word a couple of months ago that he was going to be recalled to active duty. That became effective today.  The journey is rebegun; this time it will feature a stay in Iraq. I won’t be going underway, but there won’t be any liberty calls either.

Ford Class carrier?

I think I saw a blurb about this on the news when I was at work a couple of nights ago, but didn't see the details until I paid a visit to the Navy Times' website.

They report that President Gerald Ford's name may be on CVN-78, which will be the first carrier of the CVN-21 class. This of course, would make the class the Ford class (just as CVNs 68-77 are the Nimitz class).

Disappointing news to me as I had hoped that the name America would grace the first carrier of the new class. Of course, the members of the USS America Carrier Veterans Association feel the same way.

The article notes that this would be the third consecutive carrier named after a Republican president. It would have been worth pointing out that this would be the fourth consecutive named after a president and that the first of the four, USS Harry Truman, was originally named United States. 

More on the new Navy uniforms.

A couple of things noticed since I wrote my New Navy Uniforms post…

I looked for the official message but didn’t find it before writing my post. I obviously did not look very carefully because it was there all along: NAVADMIN 070/06 New Navy Working Uniform and Service/Uniform Concepts Approved

The message makes it sound like that a jacket will be issued along with the service uniform. If that’s the case then it’s a welcome addition (there is a windbreaker available for wear with the current winter blues and summer whites, but since it’s a visible out of pocket expense).

The article in the print edition of the Navy Times points out how the once ubiquitous Dixie cup  hat is further marginalized with this change.  It will be worn only with the dress uniforms once the new uniforms go into affect; the currently optional garrison cap will be worn with the service uniform.

While the Dixie cup is the saltier headgear compared to the garrison cap, the white hat has its disadvantages.  It doesn’t take much for one to become dirty and no matter how you do it a once washed Dixie cup just isn’t as quite as bright as a brand new one.  The upshot is that you’re always buying a new one come inspection time.  I’ve gone through about a dozen dixie Cups in my seven years with the Navy, but still have my garrison cap (that would only need replacing if I were to lose it).

New Navy Uniforms

From various sources comes news of the new uniforms for the Navy, which are perhaps the most sweeping change of uniforms since the 70’s.  My comments are derived from three articles: The Navy Times’ New working service uniforms approved, the Virginian-Pilot’s Unchanged Navy updates its look with new uniform, and  the Navy News Service’s New Navy Working Uniform and Service Uniform Concepts Approved.

 The new uniforms are the result of a three year study that the Navy conducted in which it put out different trial uniforms in different locations throughout the Navy.  I’ll try to clearly describe what the new uniforms are and what they are replacing (and work through some ambiguities in the articles).

The new uniform for all pay grades  (officer  and enlisted) is the battle dress uniform.  It will come in three varieties of color for shipboard, desert,  and forest use.  This  uniform replaces the utility uniform and at least partially supplants the coveralls.

My views on this change are mixed and depend somewhat on exactly how this change affects coveralls.

As far as replacing utilities go, I like it.  The utility uniform started to enter service in 1999 (replacing the bell-bottomed dungarees and denim shirt) and were not liked by most sailors.  They aren’t particularly sailorly or military (they made you look like a postal worker or perhaps a maintenance person).  Also jacket worn with it is not particularly warm; it sounds like the jacket for the BDUs will be a big improvement.  

It is not clear from the articles how the BDUs supplant coveralls; the Navy Times article says "coveralls will be downgraded for use only on ships and when necessary for what officials call ‘dirty work.’  It is not clear if this means ‘only on ships and then only when there’s dirty work’ or if it means ‘on ships, or where there’s dirty work’.  If the meaning is the former, then this will not be well-received.  Coveralls are an extremely comfortable hassle-free uniform.  Nothing can beat them for a uniform to wear while the ship is underway.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— 

The other uniform change affects enlisted personnel from pay grades E1-E6 (Seaman Recruit to Petty Officer First Class) and is probably the more controversial of the two.    It is the year round service uniform.  It consists of the black garrison cap with a khaki shirt and black pants.  This uniform replaces the Summer White and Winter Blue Uniforms.

The controversy derives from two things: One is its resemblance to a Marine’s uniform, and the other is the khaki shirt.  In the enlisted ranks khaki has hitherto been reserved for the Chief Petty Officers. 

My views are split on this change as well, but lean towards favoring it.

As far as replacing the whites go I could not be happier.  The whites seem like they always need washing.  Eating a meal while wearing them is always a dance with danger (and I have to do that twice a month as we wear whites year round in Orlando).  They aren’t particularly  sharp looking, particularly the cotton version that is the standard issue (the Certified Navy Twill version is sharper, but more expensive).   When you are wearing that uniform and haven’t any ribbons yet, you look like an ice-cream man. 

The blues, which have over the years been called the Gestapo uniform and more affectionately Johnny Cashes will be missed by me.  When I was at Fort Meade I always looked forward to the change to winter uniforms as it is a sharp, professional looking uniform.  This view was not shared by all, but I think the degree to which the people who did like it outweighed the dislike that some people had for it.

One plus is that the rank is displayed by metal color devices that are pinned to the uniform.  This replaces the sewn on patches of the blues and whites.  The sewn on patches are always a big hassle (and a somewhat non-trivial expense to have them sewn on) come promotion time.  They will not be missed (although they do live on, of course, for the dress uniforms). 

It sounds like women will welcome the new uniform as it is modified for them. Other than the optional skirts, there isn’t a difference between the men’s the women’s winter blues and summer whites, something that makes them rather unappealing and uncomfortable for women; the Navy Times is correct in noting "…women were particularly dissatisfied
with uniforms that seemed to have been designed with only the male
physique in mind."

 All good sailors that have a fair amount of time in the Navy are of a curmudgeon change-resistant nature.  My father, a retired officer, does not think highly of the changes, commenting that ‘Everyone wants to look like the Army’.  I am sad to see the Winter Blues go but am otherwise fairly happy with the changes.  It will be awhile, however, as the NNS article makes it seem that the uniforms won’t be out in the fleet until 2008, (which means that the current uniforms affected by the changes won’t be gone until at least FY 2009).