$400 per gallon: The cost to fuel combat vehicles and aircraft in Afghanistan

[charlie]

So, a full tank in my little beep-beep-mobile would be $4400. Good thing I'm regularly reminded this is another "war of necessity" or I might freak out or something.

Fucking nuts.

The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.

The statistic is likely to play into the escalating debate in Congress over the cost of a war that entered its ninth year last week.

Pentagon officials have told the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee a gallon of fuel costs the military about $400 by the time it arrives in the remote locations in Afghanistan where U.S. troops operate.

“It is a number that we were not aware of and it is worrisome,” Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense panel, said in an interview with The Hill. “When I heard that figure from the Defense Department, we started looking into it.”

The Pentagon comptroller’s office provided the fuel statistic to the committee staff when it was asked for a breakdown of why every 1,000 troops deployed to Afghanistan costs $1 billion. The Obama administration uses this estimate in calculating the cost of sending more troops to Afghanistan...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63407-400gallon-gas-another-cost-of-war-in-afghanistan

Addendum:

US marines in Afghanistan run through some 800,000 gallons of fuel a day. That's a higher burn rate than during an initial invasion, and reflects the logistical challenges of running counter-insurgency and other operations in the extreme weather conditions of Afghanistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/13/us-marines-afghanistan-fuel-efficiency

$320,000,000. Per. Day.

[DefenseLawyer]

1. That's good money if you can get it.

Makes me want to hit myself in the head with a $500 hammer.

[Telly Savalas]

8. This isn't so much like a $500 hammer as it is a $12 hammer

that you have to pay a buttload to UPS to ship to a remote combat zone. The article says the DoD is paying $2.78 a gallon for the fuel itself, which isn't outrageous. (Beyond the outrage that we're still engaged in combat operations over there, that is.)

Even if you take out all the folks skimming money off the operation, it's still going to be extremely costly to transport.

[robinlynne]

2. glad somebody's is becoming "aware" kbr, no doubt?

[Oregone]

3. I don't get it?

So before you put it in a tank, you gotta transport the fuel (which takes fuel), guard it, then lace it in gold?

Ug. You gotta hope the enemy doesn't catch on and try and start stealing it (or at least destroying it). Reminds me of something I read in Art of War

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Well, it's not like we could use the money here. It might be wasted on something useful.

[RC]

5. Yeah, like health care for us peons.

[valerief]

6. Of course, this must be a deficit-neutral expense.

:sarcasm:

[Christa]

7. Let them DARE say Healthcare will be too exspensive

:evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown: :evilfrown:

[Jazzgirl]

9. Is this what's paying for the heroin coming out of there?

I mean, that is the only thing I can think of that would cost that much. Jeez....we are pitiful aren't we??!!??

[TheCowsCameHome]

10. Maybe it's 93 octane.

:rofl:

Seriously, it sucks.

[Edweird]

11. So... cars over there run on pixie dust? Or is that they ship the oil here and we refine it

and then ship it back... which would also be incredibly stupid - especially with profiteering private enterprises involved.
A while back one of the airports here in South Florida was getting a major re-work. They (the government) decided it would be cost effective to build a concrete plant on site given the amount of concrete that would be needed on a daily basis. Maybe if somebody in the pentagon got a copy of that article a light bulb would go off... nah, they are all getting kickbacks from their buddies for giving them these contracts.