US pays $400 per gallon for gas in Afghanistan

By John Byrne
Friday, October 16th, 2009 -- 8:08 am
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

free gasoline prices US pays $400 per gallon for gas in AfghanistanCorrection: An earlier version of this story incorrectly attributed the $400 figure to the Congressional Research Service. The number is from the Pentagon.

Last year, the price of gasoline in the United States topped the $4 per gallon mark.

This year in Afghanistan, the price has topped $400.

The stunning revelation emerged Thursday in a report from the Pentagon to House officials. The information conveyed offers new insight into a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, which found that the US spends $1 million per year for each servicemember on the ground in Afghanistan.

Why so much? The cost includes shipping, which sometimes includes the pricetag of a helicopter flight. Sending fuel by helicopter is woefully inefficient, because it uses up almost as much fuel as it carries.

Story continues below...

Speaking to the Capitol Hill newspaper The Hill, House Appropriations chairman John Murtha (D-PA) said the figure was “worrisome” and "we started looking into it.”

Afghanistan is also landlocked, meaning that fuel must be transported in ways that stretch the limits of economic reason.

Because the country has no seaports, fuel is shipped to Karachi, in Pakistan, then carried across land by commercial trucks through Afghanistan. For remote bases, gasoline is sometimes transported by air.

"One of the most expensive ways to supply fuel is by transporting it in bladders carried by helicopter; the amount that can be flown at one time can barely satisfy the need for fuel," the Hill notes.

The paper notes that the $400 pricetag is referred to in Pentagon argot as the “fully burdened cost of fuel.”

The government's Defense Energy Support Center provides fuel to the military at $2.78 per gallon, the conveyance of which then grows exponentially more expensive as it travels through dangerous combat zones.

Gen. James Conway, who runs the Marine Corps, told a Navy forum that perilous risky routes up gasoline that originally cost $1.04 gallon up to $400.

“These are fairly major problems for us,” Conway was quoted as saying.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Story comments are below...

  • namerequierd
    END THE GLOBAL MILITARY EMPIRE AND GIVE ME BACK MY FUCKING MONEY
  • lousgirl84
    YEAH ME TOO
  • staunchdem
    Amen brother. This is just bullshit times ten.
  • 'NO'...

    (*staunchdem*)...

    'ITzs'...!MoRe`LiKE!...

    $400./2.78=$143.00

    SOooo...BS`X~150, BRO.

    ANDddd...'THaDtzs' !ReaL!

    Bbbb`bah`!?BuLLS.H.iii.t.e.!?!

    ];@~
  • AdamT
    These "wars" are such a wasteful joke. Obama is a joke for not stopping them.
  • Dan
    How long has this been going on? Why am I reading about it here, this morning?

    wtf? - over
  • Douchebag
    What economic crisis?
  • bobdevo
    As if we needed another reason to get the fuck out of Afghanistan while the getting is good. Yesterday, a story detailed how it costs us $1,000,000.00 annually to keep one soldier in Afghanistan. I guarantee you we could hire the Taliban for $10,000 a year NOT to screw around with us.
  • tvfreezone
    Just another major reason to get out and stay out.
  • turnip
    How much does withdrawal cost?
  • edwards_com
    Bring all the troops home & end this madness. Our nation is sinking too it's knees.
    Civil violence is on the horizon.
  • Satan
    "Child Bombers - Afghan War's Latest Weapon" - Why doesn't Raw tell us how many children have been murdered by U.S. forces in Afghanistan rather than running these emotionally based appeals to support Obama in his continuation of perpetual war?
  • lousgirl84
    You are indeed aptly named
  • erroll
    Lousygirl84

    What you do not acknowledge is that Satan is indeed correct as Obama, through his orders, is responsible for the slaughter of countless Afghan children and grandmothers who have been ripped to shreds by American 500 lb. and 2000 lb. bombs.
  • lousgirl84
    Were you just as angry at Bush who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men women and children and got us into both wars. Obama has the rotten task of trying to clean up a fucking mess, but you would ignore that and just blame him.
  • erroll
    Lousygirl84

    What a bizarre comment. Apparently you did not see the bumper sticker that I had had on my car a couple of years ago which proclaimed: BUSH, CHENEY, ASHCROFT: THE GREAT AXIS OF EVIL which merited the wrath of many a conservative who lives in my area. What you are also ignoring is the fact that although Obama has inherited Bush's mess, as you put it, that does nothing to obviate the fact that he has escalated, not withdrawn, American soldiers and mercenaries from Afghanistan. This despite the fact that Obama has, like something from a George Orwell novel, just won, of all things, the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Obama has it within his power to remove American soldiers and civilian contractors from Afghanistan. Obama has it within his power to remove all American soldiers and civilian contractors from Iraq. Obama has the ability to stop drone missiles from tearing to pieces innocent Pakistani civilians. But he refuses to do all these things which is why I will continue to blame him for all those people who have been slaughtered and maimed and crippled under his watch and why I will continue to criticize him most vociferously for his egregious actions.
  • lousgirl84
    Two words in response to all idiots like you

    Fuck you.
  • erroll
    Lousygirl84

    My God. That is the type of response that one would expect from a neoconservative, i.e. a visceral statement which is totally devoid of any kind of intellectual argument while paradoxically claiming that I am an idiot. Apparently you are either unwilling, or, more likely, unable to refute what I had said which, again, is the fact that Obama is slaughtering many innocent people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This simply begs the question: What about those people? What about those people whom Obama has torn to pieces and whose families will never see their loved ones again? What about the Afghans and Pakistanis who have been blinded and whose arms and legs have been ripped from their bodies? Do their lives not matter? Or do we raise these questions only when a Republican is in office?

    If I may say, try not to become caught up in the adulation of Obama by realizing that he is just as much of a warmonger as was Bush.

    Again, what about those people?
  • lousgirl84
    What about FUCK YOU don't you understand. I have better things to do than debate you on this. You should get a life.
  • erroll
    Lousygirl84

    Debate? What debate? Your argument, such as it is, is reduced to vacuous, insipid, juvenile, vile comments which are based totally on emotion and are devoid of logic and reason. Again, your rantings are what one would expect from a viewer of Fox "News" than from someone who reads a progressive web site like The Raw Story.
blog comments powered by Disqus