The U.S. military quite literally spans the globe, with equipment and personnel in countless locations. Keeping all those locations supplied is a Herculean logistical challenge. A significant portion of the military’s budget and personnel are used for those re-supply efforts. The problems with those re-supply efforts are magnified for remote bases in foreign countries – especially in war zones.
One of the largest, most costly and most dangerous parts of the re-supply efforts is fuel. In Afghanistan, for example, U.S. fuel consumption is about 600 million gallons a year, which requires about 210,000 fuel trucks per year to supply. This is especially significant because an average of one American casualty results from every 24 fuel convoys. (Fuel convoys are difficult to defend and they are frequently attacked and burned).
Military leaders, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, have wisely and prudently undertaken a program to make the military more fuel efficient and reduce the size of the costly and dangerous fuel re-supply effort. This will not only save the lives of American military personnel, it will help reduce the on-going cost of the military to American taxpayers. The program will save over 20 million gallons of fuel per year and reduce the number of fuel trucks by 7,000 in just Afghanistan.
Like every patriotic American, I support the military’s efforts toward greater energy efficiency and reduced fuel consumption. Opponents of the military’s energy efficiency efforts include the Taliban, and Senator James Inhofe (R- Oklahoma).
Please see the related article in Congress Blog.
Mark H. Witte is a strong proponent for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and believes individuals should have more control over how the energy for their homes is produced.
Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has helped lead the U.S. military’s push toward renewable energy sources that can make our energy supply more secure, save taxpayer money and protect the lives of servicemen and women. This month, the Navy is participating in a major international exercise using cruisers, destroyers and jets powered by a biofuel-petroleum blend.
The major issue at stake here for ISAF and U.S. forces is fuel, all of which must be brought in from abroad at high cost. In October 2009 Pentagon officials testified before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that the “Fully Burdened Cost of Fuel” (FBCF) translates to about $400 per gallon by the time it arrives at a remote Forward Operating Base (FOB) in Afghanistan. Last year, the FBCF reached $800 in some FOBs following supply route bombings in Pakistan, while others have claimed the FBCF may be as high as $1,000 per gallon in some remote locations. For many remote locations, fuel supplies can only be provided by air – one of the most expensive ways being in helicopter fuel bladders.