|
|
| Next: split from "Dell Inspiron 9300 bios pass.. |
| Author |
Message |
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:36 pm Post subject: US pays $ 400 per gallon for gas |
|
|
in Afghanistan
| Quote: |
The Pentagon pays an average of $400 to put a gallon of fuel into a combat vehicle or aircraft in Afghanistan.
>>>>>>>>
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. |
That is per year....$1 billion every year for each 1,000 troops...
That is about $62 billion at the moment
and if the General gets what he wants
it will go to over $100 billion a year...every year.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
War and recovery is expensive. We all knew that going into this war. It would be a shame to abandon Afghanistan because some are balking over cost.
Now, about the $400/gallon part. If you read the rest of that article:
| Quote: |
...
Afghanistan — with its lack of infrastructure, challenging geography and increased roadside bomb attacks — is a logistical nightmare for the U.S. military, according to congressional sources, and it is expensive to transport fuel and other supplies.
...
The $400 per gallon reflects what in Pentagon parlance is known as the “fully burdened cost of fuel.”
“The fully burdened cost of fuel is a recognition that there are a lot of other factors that come into play,” said Mark Iden, the deputy director of operations at the Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), which provides fuel and energy to all U.S. military services worldwide.
... |
The government uses the "fully burdened" costs all the time when we are trying to be honest. It's only the politicians who try to pretend there are no additional costs other than purchase price.
A prime example - I work for a specific place in the Navy, where we get paid by other parts of the Navy to do work. We charge something like $200/hour for my labor. Let me be the first to say that I make no where even close to that! That "fully burdened" cost includes travel, all my benefits, the cost of giving me electricity, a computer, water, a room, a desk, a phone, security, etc. It all adds up, and if we didn't account for all of that, we'd run a deficit, which is something only politicians are allowed to do.
All that having been said, $400/gallon is a lot, and should be looked into. However, it shouldn't be sensationalized until after the investigation, as that may be a very realistic number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
| All that having been said, $400/gallon is a lot, and should be looked into. However, it shouldn't be sensationalized until after the investigation, as that may be a very realistic number. |
That is what the "fully burdened" cost is..
...the actual price it costs for each gallon used in Afghanistan....
According to the US Army Counter Insurgency Doctrine,
about 500,00 troops are need for a successful campaign over many years,
the "fully burdened" cost would be about $500 billion a year for many years,
in other words the US taxpayer would pay $500 billion a year for many years.
The manpower required for a successful campaign,
would require reinstituting the draft to provide this number of troops,
which would entail even more costs.
I cannot see the US public supporting this draft,
or the US economy supporting the vast long term costs.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:44 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
You know, Ken, you came up with similar numbers to explain why the surge in Iraq was doomed to fail from the start. Funny, even though they didn't follow your advice, it worked.
So, that had me wondering where you came up with that magic number. Have you read the the Counterinsurgency manual?
| Quote: |
...
1-66. The mass base consists of the followers of the insurgent movement — the supporting populace. Mass base members are often recruited and indoctrinated by the cadre. However, in many politically charged situations or identity-focused insurgencies, such active pursuit is not necessary. Mass base members may continue in their normal positions in society. Many, however, lead clandestine lives for the insurgent movement. They may even pursue full-time positions within the insurgency. For example, combatants normally begin as members of the mass base. In tribal- or clan-based insurgencies, such roles are particularly hard to define. There is no clear cadre in those movements, and people drift between combatant, auxiliary, and follower status as needed.
Employing the Elements 1-67. The movement leaders provide the organizational and managerial skills needed to transform mobilized individuals and communities into an effective force for armed political action. The result is a contest of resource mobilization and force deployment. No force level guarantees victory for either side. During previous conflicts, planners assumed that combatants required a 10 or 15 to 1 advantage over insurgents to win. However, no predetermined, fixed ratio of friendly troops to enemy combatants ensures success in COIN. The conditions of the operational environment and the approaches insurgents use vary too widely. A better force requirement gauge is troop density, the ratio of security forces (including the host nation’s military and police forces as well as foreign counterinsurgents) to inhabitants. Most density recommendations fall within a range of 20 to 25 counterinsurgents for every 1000 residents in an AO. Twenty counterinsurgents per 1000 residents is often considered the minimum troop density required for effective COIN operations; however as with any fixed ratio, such calculations remain very dependent upon the situation.
1-68. As in any conflict, the size of the force needed to defeat an insurgency depends on the situation. However, COIN is manpower intensive because counterinsurgents must maintain widespread order and security. Moreover, counterinsurgents typically have to adopt different approaches to address each element of the insurgency. For example, auxiliaries might be co-opted by economic or political reforms, while fanatic combatants will most likely have to be killed or captured.
... |
I'm guessing someone on some left wing board took the above out of context and declared that the population of Afghanistan dictates that 500,000 US troops would be needed. However, it is clearly all forces, including local police and military, and all of the coalition forces.
And gee, the plan you so kindly attacked in another thread calls for 100,000 US troops and 400,000 Afghanistan forces - or 500,000. And, in case you forgot, we have ~35,000 coalition forces there as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 11:29 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
I'm guessing someone on some left wing board took the above out of context and declared that the population of Afghanistan dictates that 500,000 US troops would be needed. However, it is clearly all forces, including local police and military, and all of the coalition forces.
And gee, the plan you so kindly attacked in another thread calls for 100,000 US troops and 400,000 Afghanistan forces - or 500,000. And, in case you forgot, we have ~35,000 coalition forces there as well. |
Well there is not 400,000 Afghani Forces,
and at present training rates it will be years before that number is achieved,
those that have been trained, both Police and Army, are of poor quality,
according reports from US army members in Afghanistan,
who are amazed at how well the same Afghani fights for the Taliban.
Both Police and army members are liable to desert,
or extract themselves from their posts at crucial times.
Is the war worth it?
| Quote: |
Annual budget of the Afghan government: $600 million.
Maintenance cost for the force of 450,000 Afghan soldiers and police U.S. generals dream of creating: Approximately 500 percent of the Afghan budget.
Amount spent on police "mentoring and training" since 2001: $10 billion.
Percentage of the more than 400 Afghan National Police units "still incapable of running their operations independently": 75 percent (2008 figures). |
Loyalties of all Afghanis are first to their family and then to their tribe.
A central, dominating, democratic government is not the tribal way,
and the corrupt government there lacks general popular support.
Even if this could be overcome, it would be many years before
Afghani security forces could come near to defeating the Tailban,
or even successfully fighting them,
without a very large investment of manpower from the coalition forces.
Other than the US, there are few nations in the coalition,
willing to invest the time, manpower, and the money,
for any length of time.
So it is back to a very large investment,
in time, in troops, and in money,
from the US,
without any guarantee of a good outcome.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
Well there is not 400,000 Afghani Forces,
and at present training rates it will be years before that number is achieved,
those that have been trained, both Police and Army, are of poor quality,
according reports from US army members in Afghanistan,
who are amazed at how well the same Afghani fights for the Taliban.
Both Police and army members are liable to desert,
or extract themselves from their posts at crucial times. |
Really?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7228649.stm
| Quote: |
What is the Afghan army's role?
Isaf is backed by the Afghan National Army, numbering about 94,000 in October 2009.
There are about 80,000 Afghan policemen, who are described by the British Ministry of Defence as "fully equipped and trained". |
Looks to me like we've got 43.5% of the Afghanistan troops that we're hoping to end up with in the end, and have a plan to get to completion.
What's your plan? Oh that's right, abandon the Afghans to the Taleban. And you claim that's what the Afghans want, right? Then how do you explain this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/02_february/09/afghanistan.shtml):
| Quote: |
A national opinion poll in Afghanistan suggests Afghans are still resolutely opposed to the return of the Taleban, but increasingly disillusioned and uncertain about what the future might hold for their country.
...
Hostility to the Taleban remains very strong throughout the country, with only 4% wanting them back, 58% saying the Taleban are the biggest danger to Afghanistan, 90% saying they are opposed to the Taleban and 84% saying that the Taleban are weak or non-existent in their own areas.
...
Sixty-nine per cent of people still support the overthrow of the Taleban by foreign forces in 2001. But only 32% think US forces are doing a good or excellent job now, compared with 68% in 2005.
... |
So, what that says is that the Afghans desperately want the Tabeban gone, and at the same time have doubts about the Coalitions willingness to do the job. And given that we haven't done the job well up to now, and with all the people (present company included) who only a year ago were saying that Afghanistan was the "right" war now demanding we abandon them, who can blame them for doubting us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 6:21 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Any face to face polls done in Afghanistan,
run into the problem that the Taliban control 80% of the country,
and being a potential threat, at all times, in the other 20%.
| Quote: |
| 84% saying that the Taleban are weak or non-existent in their own areas. |
This quote means most of Afghanistan was not included in this survey,
or the interviewee told the interviewer what he thought the "right" answer was.
Any interviewer would have to have a armed security escort,
and still not go into most Taliban areas.
As men, backed up with guns, in Afghanistan,
are a problem for the ordinary Afghani,
the interviewer may have receive replies to his questions,
that the interviewee thought interviewer would have liked.
But even the few areas that were surveyed things were not very good.
| Quote: |
these figures record those who said that things were bad, or very bad:
* Security from crime/violence 42% (32% in 2007, 24% in 2005)
* Availability of jobs 70% (73% in 2007, 60% in 2005)
* Availability of clean water 35% (46% in 2007, 41% in 2005)
* Supply of electricity 77% (84% in 2007, 81% in 2005)
* Availability of food 35% (33% in 2007, 20% in 2005)
* Availability of medical care 49% (53% in 2007, 55% in 2005)
* Availability of local schools 22% (29% in 2007, 19% in 2005)
|
As unemployment rates are extremely high in Afghanistan,
and the US paying recruits for their training,
many have been trained, but many have deserted after their training.
As many see training and service in the security forces as a way to earn money,
they are reluctant to put their lives on the line for a corrupt government.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 7:20 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I'm impressed Ken. I didn't realize you were with the interviewers, and that the Afghans trust you so much that they told you the "real" answers to the questions. Of course, I then have to wonder why you didn't tell the interviewers that.
And as usual, I'm impressed with your ability to cut off 1/2 of a sentence when it suits your needs. The entire first line of the quote you cherry-picked:
| Quote: |
| Living conditions are generally slightly improved: these figures record those who said that things were bad, or very bad: |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:28 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
And as usual, I'm impressed with your ability to cut off 1/2 of a sentence when it suits your needs. The entire first line of the quote you cherry-picked:
| Quote: |
| Living conditions are generally slightly improved: these figures record those who said that things were bad, or very bad: |
|
Well you got me there..... 
but quite a few living conditions have not improved compared to 2005,
these are:
Crime
Jobs
Food
Schools
Check the percentages in my previous post.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:56 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
I'm guessing someone on some left wing board took the above out of context and declared that the population of Afghanistan dictates that 500,000 US troops would be needed. However, it is clearly all forces, including local police and military, and all of the coalition forces.
And gee, the plan you so kindly attacked in another thread calls for 100,000 US troops and 400,000 Afghanistan forces - or 500,000. And, in case you forgot, we have ~35,000 coalition forces there as well. |
At the moment there are about 1 million army and security services personal in Iraq,
having a hard job trying to contain the violence there,
so half the number in a more difficult country,
is not going to do it.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:08 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| xavierx wrote: |
I'm guessing someone on some left wing board took the above out of context and declared that the population of Afghanistan dictates that 500,000 US troops would be needed. However, it is clearly all forces, including local police and military, and all of the coalition forces.
And gee, the plan you so kindly attacked in another thread calls for 100,000 US troops and 400,000 Afghanistan forces - or 500,000. And, in case you forgot, we have ~35,000 coalition forces there as well. |
At the moment there are about 1 million army and security services personal in Iraq,
having a hard job trying to contain the violence there,
so half the number in a more difficult country,
is not going to do it.
|
Really? That's the number YOU came up with!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:09 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
| xavierx wrote: |
And as usual, I'm impressed with your ability to cut off 1/2 of a sentence when it suits your needs. The entire first line of the quote you cherry-picked:
| Quote: |
| Living conditions are generally slightly improved: these figures record those who said that things were bad, or very bad: |
|
Well you got me there.....
but quite a few living conditions have not improved compared to 2005,
these are:
Crime
Jobs
Food
Schools
Check the percentages in my previous post.
|
yes, those are the things that people who thought things were worse said were worse. According to the full quote, which you seem to still want to ignore, most said things are getting better.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Really? That's the number YOU came up with!
|
Which number are you talking about ?
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010_Report_to_CongressJul09.pdf
| Quote: |
As of April 30, 2009, the Iraqi Security Forces
(ISF) numbered approximately 645,000 forces
in the Ministry of Interior (MoI), Ministry of
Defense (MoD), and the Iraqi National
Counter-Terrorism Force (INCTF). |
Add the 94,000 Sunnis in the "Sons Of Iraq" program,
as well as the 120,000 US forces,
and about 130,000 private mercenary's
You get close to a million involved in Iraqi security.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:34 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Let me spell it out for you, Ken.
You first said:
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
According to the US Army Counter Insurgency Doctrine,
about 500,00 troops are need for a successful campaign over many years, ... |
Then you said:
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
At the moment there are about 1 million army and security services personal in Iraq,
having a hard job trying to contain the violence there,
so half the number in a more difficult country,
is not going to do it. |
Hmm. You claimed we needed 500K troops, and I shows that that includes Afghans. You then claimed that 500K isn't going to be enough (in case you didn't realize it, 500K is 1/2 of 1 million )
Please pick one number. It's hard enough to discuss the issue when you're being consistent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 5:03 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| xavierx wrote: |
Hmm. You claimed we needed 500K troops, and I shows that that includes Afghans. You then claimed that 500K isn't going to be enough (in case you didn't realize it, 500K is 1/2 of 1 million ) |
If it includes Afghans, it will not be enough,
compared to the Iraqi experience.
There is also a vast terrain difference from Iraq,
that restricts vehicle use, and helicopter load capacity.
The heavily loaded US troop is mobility deficient
compared to the far lightly loaded Taliban.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| Again, Ken, please come up with one number. It's hard to have a real discussion when you're arguing for and against the same opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:51 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
Well as you have quoted
| Quote: |
| No force level guarantees victory for either side. |
I have said that 500k of US troops will not do the job,
for the reasons I have outlined.
You have added the Afghani government forces into the equation,
so you must think that there is some optimal level of US forces.
What is your number 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:59 pm Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
I have no number, Ken. I'm not an expert on this like you appear to be.
I can only go by the expert on the ground and that Obama, the Democrats, and even the Republicans praised, and he says if he gets his 80K troops and trains the Afghans, that will be enough. It also happens to match the number you quoted to start this discussion, I have to wonder why you've walked away from that position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kenmabmcc
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 8179
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:56 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
The number was 1 billion dollars a year,
for every 1000 US troops in Afghanistan.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xavierx
Joined: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 5427
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:58 am Post subject: [Login to view extended thread Info.] |
|
|
| kenmabmcc wrote: |
...
According to the US Army Counter Insurgency Doctrine,
about 500,00 troops are need for a successful campaign over many years,... |
Actually, that was your number. Now it's not your number, apparently you both support and deny the validity of that document?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
| |
|
|
General