Pakistan route cut-off costs U.S. $100 million a month

WASHINGTON Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:41pm EDT

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta speaks with US troops during his visit to Kabul June 7, 2012. REUTERS/Jim Watson/Pool

US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta speaks with US troops during his visit to Kabul June 7, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jim Watson/Pool

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistan's closure of supply routes to the Afghan war is costing American taxpayers $100 million a month, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Wednesday, as he recommended possibly setting conditions on future U.S. aid to Islamabad.

Panetta's decision to disclose what had been a closely guarded figure at the Pentagon appeared to be another sign of frustration with Pakistan and will do little to generate sympathy for that country in Congress, which is wrestling with ways to scale back the U.S. budget deficit.

Asked during a Senate budget hearing whether he would recommend halting aid to Pakistan, Panetta said: "I'd be very careful about just shutting it down."

"What I would do is look at conditions for what we expect them to do," Panetta said, without elaborating. He agreed to help write a letter to Congress with his recommendations for how to proceed with aid for the Pakistani military and government.

The comments came less than a week after Panetta, using unusually harsh language, said during a trip to Kabul that the United States was reaching the limits of its patience with Pakistan because of the safe havens it offered to insurgents fighting in neighboring Afghanistan.

The American war effort there has become far more costly, Panetta said on Wednesday, because of Pakistan's decision last November to ban trucks from carrying supplies to NATO forces in landlocked, neighboring Afghanistan.

That forced NATO to use longer, more costly routes through countries to the north of Afghanistan.

"It's very expensive because we're using the northern transit route in order to be able to draw-down our forces and also supply our forces," Panetta said.

"The amount is about ... $100 million a month because of the closure of those (Pakistani routes)."

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed to Reuters that the $100 million figure represented the additional cost of using the northern routes rather than moving supplies on the ground through Pakistan.

Pakistan shut down the supply routes to protest a cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. That strike further fanned national anger over everything from covert CIA drone strikes to the U.S. incursion into Pakistan last year to kill al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The United States on Monday announced it was withdrawing its team of negotiators from Pakistan without securing a deal to re-open the routes, publicly exposing a diplomatic stalemate and deeply strained relations between the uneasy allies.

One of the sticking points in the negotiations has been Pakistani demands that the United States apologize for the November strike, something the Pentagon has been unwilling to do. But Panetta acknowledged at the hearing that the apology wasn't the only issue.

"They're asking not only for that, but there are other elements to the negotiation that are also involved that have to be resolved," Panetta said.

(Editing by Cynthia Osterman, Warren Strobel and Eric Beech)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (5)
gregbrew56 wrote:
It’s about damn time!

Jun 13, 2012 3:22pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JapanViewer wrote:
I think Panetta is being wise to hold his cards close to his chest without revealing his true feelings on Pakistan so as to leave options open for the US and Pakistan, but it seems clear Panetta is toying with the idea of cutting Pakistan aid off.

Jun 13, 2012 5:00pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
mils54 wrote:
This is certainly not the act of a friend, Why we can’t apologize for killing their military personel is beyond me, But being honest we are not involved with Pakistan because we want them as allies, It’s to keep a close eye on their Nukes!, The sneaky bastids might sell some to real bad people and we can’t have that peroid…..I would stop all monetary support to this country today!.

Jun 13, 2012 5:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.