[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') am confused. Wasn't it the drug trade that supported Afghan 'freedom fighters' against the Soviets. And how about the Contras against the Sandinistas?

[Eli]

well I think the simple answer here Zardoz is that obviously there are some in the opium trade who are loyal to the current Karzi government and the US.

Opium is the one thing that comes out of Afghanistan that people actually want, what else are they going to export? Goats and used AK-47s?

It is interesting that the DEA is even bothering to ask the military to help them fight the drug trade. If I was in the military I would tell the DEA to die in a fire.

The surest way for the US to loose horribly in Afghanistan would be for the US military to start shutting down the opium trade. If they did that every warlord and dirt farmer in the country would be against the US. Afghanistan does not have much to begin with without opium they would have less than nothing.

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."

The study, produced by a defense consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform" their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report, which was provided to the Globe

-snip-

MORE >>

[Newsseeker]

The military has been rather vocal recently.

[Newsseeker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ASHINGTON -- A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."

[Petrodollar]

The Pentagon has been holding numerous "enegy conversations" over the past year, and they recently released an important report (prepared by LMI). Here are a couple of highlights:

TRANSFORMING THE WAY DOD LOOKS AT ENERGY:
AN APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING AN ENERGY STRATEGY
www.oft.osd.mil

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')P-8, used primarily for air operations, makes up about 56 percent of the total petroleum purchased by DoD. The continued use of JP-8 as the fuel of choice for operations is testament to the U.S.military doctrine that relies heavily on air power as an integral part of the joint force across the whole spectrum of operations.The agility, mobility, and speed that this doctrine provides have been effective, but it comes at a high cost and further reliance on liquid petroleum.

A recent Los Angeles Times article noted that the U.S. military is consuming about 2.4 million gallons of fuel every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.19 The data, provided by the U.S. Central Command, show that DoD is using approximately 57,000 barrels a day, at a cost of about $3 million per day. This equates to about 16 gallons per soldier per day. This is significantly more than the 2005 consumption rate of 9 gallons per soldier. These numbers make it clear that energy consumption for military operations has increased dramatically in the last 15 years. In Desert Storm, consumption was 4 gallons per soldier per {sic} day, and in World War II, consumption was only 1 gallon per day per soldier.

[Newsseeker]

The military is becoming more aware in part because it has to. Those tanks won't run on vegetable oil, you know

[sjn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Petrodollar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')"We are at the edge of a precipice and we have one foot over the edge. The only way to avoid going over is to move forward and move forward aggressively with initiatives to develop alternative fuels. Just cutting back won't work."

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term."

[steam_cannon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e are at the edge of a precipice and we have one foot over the edge. The only way to avoid going over is to move forward

[Tanada]

They needed a how many billion dollor study to prove what is blatently obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense.

Why am I not surprised?

[Newsseeker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')hey needed a how many billion dollor study to prove what is blatently obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense.

Why am I not surprised?

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')hey needed a how many billion dollor study to prove what is blatently obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense.

Why am I not surprised?

[mekrob]

Maybe also because our oil reliance is the root cause of why we need so much of our military in the first place.

[Aaron]

Report

[mmasters]

Pentagon Making Preparations To Keep Tens Of Thousands Of Troops In Iraq For ‘Decades’

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee this month, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace uttered a “carefully worded” statement revealing that the Pentagon had no plans to fully withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq if legislation passes Congress mandating troop redeployment:

PACE: Sir, we have published no orders directing the planning for the overall withdrawal of forces. We do have ongoing replacements of forces, and we do change the size of the force over time so that that system is available to either plus-up or draw down, but we have published no orders saying come up with a complete plan for total drawdown.

NPR investigated Pace’s statements and found one scenario being considered within the Pentagon would maintain a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq for several decades into the future.

This so-called “lily pad” strategy entails keeping a “series of military installations around Iraq,” with tens of thousands of U.S. troops remaining in the country for as long as a few decades:

[W]hat it essentially envisions is a series of military installations around Iraq, maybe five or six of them, a total of maybe 30-40 thousand U.S. troops in Iraq for a long period of time, lasting, maybe a few decades. And the idea is that these bases will be somewhat hermetically sealed, that U.S. military forces won’t be leaving them, they won’t be conducting presence patrols and the patrols they conduct now. Ground convoys won’t be driving into them.

Airplanes will be essentially landing in to deliver supplies and these sort of lily pads will be in various strategic areas in Iraq … And that will enable the U.S. military to maintain a presence in the country, perhaps…for a few decades.

The Pentagon’s goal with the lily pads is to preserve U.S. interests in Iraq for years to come “in the event that Congress or the administration pushes this [withdrawal plan] forward.” As NPR details, those interests are at least three-fold: 1) Training Iraq forces, 2) Preserving economic interests, as “Iraq obviously [sits] on the second largest reserve of oil in the world,” and 3) Providing a U.S. military “presence” to deter Iran and Turkey from “getting involved” after withdrawal.

more at:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/21/iraq-decades/

[Twilight]

That's going to be a shit posting. Reminds me of the far-flung imperial outposts of the European empires. Cost of travel meant tours were looong.

[NEOPO]

Good stuff man.

For some reason "We told ya so" just does not cut it now does it?

Anyone who still believes in politic's should be wondering why right about now.

[Baldwin]

I am not surprised. I knew even when I was 12 we'd be bogged down there.