Supplies on way out of Afghanistan
KABUL, Afghanistan — The United States began its withdrawal from Afghanistan in earnest, officials said on Monday, sending the first of what will be tens of thousands of containers home through a once-blocked land route through Pakistan.
The shipment of 50 containers during the weekend occurred as a new commander took control of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan to guide the coalition through the end stages of a war that has so far lasted more than 11 years.
The containers were in the first convoys to cross into Pakistan as part of the Afghan pullout, said Marcus Spade, a spokesman for forces in Afghanistan.
Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, meanwhile, faced his first headache a day after taking command when an Afghan government panel acknowledged that detainees taken off the battlefield by coalition and Afghan troops face widespread torture at the hands of local security forces — although it denied systematic torture in government-run prisons.
Dunford's predecessor, Marine Gen. John Allen, had urged the Afghan government to investigate allegations of detainee abuse.
Allen had to deal with the delicate task of improving relations with Pakistan, which closed two key land routes from Afghanistan to its southern port of Karachi to U.S. and NATO cargo for seven months. The Pakistani move occurred in retaliation for airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani troops at a post along the Afghan border in November 2011. Islamabad reopened the route when Washington apologized for the deaths.
During the closure of the Pakistan route, the United States had to use a longer, more costly path that runs north out of Afghanistan through Central Asia and Russia. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last year that the rerouting was costing more than $100 million a month.
It's unclear what took the United States so long to begin withdrawing equipment through the Pakistan route, which runs south out of Afghanistan to the Pakistani port city of Karachi. Supplies have been flowing into Afghanistan since the route reopened in July, and the United States signed a deal with Pakistan governing the shipments that same month. There have been temporary disruptions at several points since then because of security concerns and strikes by truckers over compensation.
The abuse allegations are just some of the diplomatic land mines that Dunford will have to deal with as he guides the coalition through its final 23 months in Afghanistan. U.N. complaints about the torture of detainees in Afghan facilities last year prompted the U.S.-led NATO coalition to stop many transfers of detainees to the Afghans, a key part of the transition process.
The planned transfer of the Parwan detention facility at Bagram from the United States military to the Afghan army has been delayed, apparently because of administrative problems. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has for months demanded the full transfer of the facility, threatening not to sign a bilateral security agreement with the United States if the handover doesn't take place. That agreement is key to keeping military forces here after 2014.
The majority of the prison was handed over with much fanfare last September, but the two sides remained locked in a dispute over the fate of hundreds of Taliban and terror suspects behind bars. The United States is withholding the transfer of scores of inmates, reportedly out of concern that Afghan authorities may torture some or simply let some political detainees go for reasons of expediency, and no longer hold dangerous prisoners without charge.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.