Hundreds of Millions of Gallons of Jet Fuel Used in Support of U.S. Ops in Afghanistan

Maybe Trump will “make the Afghans pay for it”. /sarc

“(Excerpt) Read more at tradeaidmonitor.com ...”

Uhh.. okay..
Why would I want to take traffic off FR to a blog that is whining about how much fuel we’ve used in Afghanistan?
FR is not a bloghit farm.

Humble, Pog Blimping in progress?

Hello, Mr. Peacock.

I’m pleased to meet you.

What seems to have prevented you posting the full content here?

Hmmm.... Stevie-Pea signed up less than a month ago. Retread?

Maybe.
We’ve had so many do it and I’m not gonna lay odds on it.
Humble and sidebar would eat my lunch and then set loose “mongo” the coffee deer on me.
As it sits, I have to head off for the night.
Let me know what the resolution of this confusion is.

« $250 Million Contract-Ceiling Set for Global Small-Arms Destruction | Main
05/10/2011
SNAPSHOT: Hundreds of Millions of Gallons of Jet Fuel Used in Support of U.S. Ops in Afghanistan

AF-brightsun
Occasionally U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor will take a look at various facets of government spending; a snapshot, if you will, of a particular use of taxpayer funds. Today, the Monitor looks at how much the federal government spends on jet fuel in support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.

Calls to speed up the withdrawal of U.S. troops from and Central Asia have increased since Osama bin Laden’s death, but decision-makers have made clear that such a drawdown of troops is not happening any time soon. As the White House, Congress, and media pundits ponder and expound upon what, if any, changes should be made to U.S. policy on the issue, one thing is certain: U.S. military jets will continue to fly into, out of, and around Afghanistan.

But how much will this cost U.S. taxpayers?

A review of contracting documents obtained via federal database research sheds light on that question.

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), for example, currently is soliciting bids to provide close to a half-billion gallons of jet fuel over two years, beginning December 2011, to the Manas Transit Center in Kyrgyzstan. Manas is a primary support base for U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere in USCENTCOM’s area of responsibility.

“The Transit Center at Manas has four missions: Air Refueling, Airlift, Onward Movement of Troops and Humanitarian Assistance,” the U.S. Air Force says in its official description of the base. “They do this with the help of 850 military members and 750 U.S. and host nation civilian employees and contractors—the vast majority belong to the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing and others to various tenant units.

Although the solicitation did not provide an estimated cost, DLA is requesting bids on the provision of 208 million gallons of jet fuel for a one-year period, with two potential six-month option periods for an additional 104 million gallon each.

Those totals include 36 million gallons that the contractor would hold in reserve monthly—a service that enables the contractor to assess an additional multi-million dollar fee.

DLA in Nov. 2010 awarded to Mina Corp. a one-year contract for 240 million gallons of jet fuel—which, calculated at the then-going price of $3.24 a gallon, brought the value of the contract to $778 million, according to a Transit Center Jet Fuel Procurement document.

The contract price-per-gallon on Feb. 1 was upped to $3.80 a gallon to “reflect current market conditions,” according to the document.

In 2009 DLA awarded a contract valued at $327 million (plus a $3.7 million fuel-reserve fee) for 105 million gallons. That contract also had gone to Mina Corp.

Placing these expenditures into context—and indirectly confirming that such costs will continue to be borne by U.S. taxpayers into the foreseeable future—are remarks that Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.) made during this morning’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing “Steps Needed for a Successful 2014 Transition In Afghanistan.”

Committee Chmn. Kerry emphasized that the terrorist leader’s death marked a turning point in U.S. policy for Afghanistan—but when and how the U.S. will make that turn remains unknown.

“Osama Bin Laden’s death was more than a critical triumph in our fight against terrorism,” Kerry said. “It provides a potentially game-changing opportunity to build momentum for a political solution in Afghanistan that could bring greater stability to the region and bring our troops home.”

Despite this acknowledgement, Kerry made clear that he was not referring to an abrupt departure of U.S. forces.

“A precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a mistake and I, for one, would take that option off the table,” he said. “Instead, we should be working toward… a presence that puts Afghans in charge—and presses them to step up to that task—at the same time that it secures our interests and accomplishes our mission of destroying Al Qaeda and preventing Afghanistan from ever again becoming a terrorist sanctuary.”

Kerry said it was “unsustainable” for the U.S. to continue spending $10 billion monthly on military operations there.

He also said that the Afghanistan government was even less capable, financially and otherwise, of filling a void that would be left by a hasty U.S. exit.

My apologies, folks. I was merely letting the public know about some stuff I’ve come across in my research. I just habitually place excerpts plus a link in various fora out of respect for the copyright holder — and subsequently extend that habit to my own content.

Anyhow, I stand corrected and apologize for my ignorance of the rules of the road. You will never see me post anything but full articles (insofar as they are my own) here on FR. I would appreciate a second chance.

You got me. I wanted to know what you were apologizing publicly about. I hit your blog to see. Maybe that was all part of your grand diabolical scheme. I feel dirty and used. I don’t know if I will ever look at you the same again.