We are fighting a war for oil to be used to fight that same war!

[ret5hd]

edited for link:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174810

The Pentagon v. Peak Oil

<snip>
Sixteen gallons of oil. That's how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis -- either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone.

Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That's greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million -- and yet it's a gross underestimate of the Pentagon's wartime consumption.

Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every soldier stationed "in theater," there are two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war zone -- soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an "expeditionary" army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon's war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we have no real way of knowing.

And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world's largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems -- virtually all powered by oil -- the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD's daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
</snip>

[wildhorses]

1. finally got a full grip on the obvious

what took them so long:eyes:

[glitch]

2. Some people still haven't gotten it so K & R nt

[wildhorses]

3. good idea -- i will join you.

:patriot:

:kick:

[glitch]

7. All we need is one more - kick! nt

[JohnyCanuck]

4. An earlier related article by the same author.

Oil Wars
Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service
By Michael T. Klare

American leaders have responded to this systemic challenge to stability in oil-producing areas in a consistent fashion: by employing military means to guarantee the unhindered flow of petroleum. This approach was first adopted by the Truman and Eisenhower administrations after World War II, when Soviet adventurism in Iran and pan-Arab upheavals in the Middle East seemed to threaten the safety of Persian Gulf oil deliveries. It was given formal expression by President Carter in January 1980, when, in response to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Islamic revolution in Iran, he announced that the secure flow of Persian Gulf oil was in "the vital interests of the United States of America," and that in protecting this interest we would use "any means necessary, including military force." Carter's principle of using force to protect the flow of oil was later cited by President Bush the elder to justify American intervention in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, and it provided the underlying strategic rationale for our recent invasion of Iraq.

Originally, this policy was largely confined to the world's most important oil-producing region, the Persian Gulf. But given America's ever-growing requirement for imported petroleum, U.S. officials have begun to extend it to other major producing zones, including the Caspian Sea basin, Africa, and Latin America. The initial step in this direction was taken by President Clinton, who sought to exploit the energy potential of the Caspian basin and, worrying about instability in the area, established military ties with future suppliers, including Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and with the pivotal transit state of Georgia. It was Clinton who first championed the construction of a pipeline from Baku to Ceyhan and who initially took steps to protect that conduit by boosting the military capabilities of the countries involved. President Bush junior has built on this effort, increasing military aid to these states and deploying American combat advisers in Georgia; Bush is also considering the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases in the Caspian region.

Typically, such moves are justified as being crucial to the "war on terror." A close reading of Pentagon and State Department documents shows, however, that anti-terrorism and the protection of oil supplies are closely related in administration thinking. When requesting funds in 2004 to establish a "rapid-reaction brigade" in Kazakhstan, for example, the State Department told Congress that such a force is needed to "enhance Kazakhstan's capability to respond to major terrorist threats to oil platforms" in the Caspian Sea.

As noted, a very similar trajectory is now under way in Colombia. The American military presence in oil-producing areas of Africa, though less conspicuous, is growing rapidly. The Department of Defense has stepped up its arms deliveries to military forces in Angola and Nigeria, and is helping to train their officers and enlisted personnel; meanwhile, Pentagon officials have begun to look for permanent U.S. bases in the area, focusing on Senegal, Ghana, Mali, Uganda, and Kenya. Although these officials tend to talk only about terrorism when explaining the need for such facilities, one officer told Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal in June 2003 that "a key mission for U.S. forces would be to ensure that Nigeria's oil fields, which in the future could account for as much as 25 percent of all U.S. oil imports, are secure."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1888/michael_klare_on_oil_wars_and_the_american_military

[HereSince1628]

5. Well, that's the first possible glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel...

With oil peaking, the Laws of Thermodynamics will put an end to this war some few years into the future, at least this war as we know it.

But it brings to the imagine invading Brazil and Argentina for their potential biofuels.

[whistle]

6. Correct, plus the military contractors and private armies which

...the Pentagon hires and pays all expenses and provides supplies to. That potential for waste and theft is enormous.

[glitch]

8. That potential is fully realized by this cabal - it's all they do. nt

[pitohui]

9. that's what makes the scam so profitable you see

check the profits reported by halliburton before 2000 election and today

check the profits of exxon mobil before and after

the entire purpose of the war is to inflate profit not to put gas into YOUR little red wagon :-)

the stupid people who had the bumper stickers kick their ass and take their gas are laughed at as the stupid people for a reason

most wars exist to put money in a rich person's pocket, the iraq war is no exception, anyone who thought it was a war to gain control of resources to help america was just a fool and a tool, if we just wanted oil and gas, we would have spent the $$$ renewing our investment in the gulf of mexico, improving our relations with major nearby producers like mexico and venezuela, you know, stuff like that which would actually get gas in your car

[ret5hd]

10. I think this deserves one more "recommend"...will you be it?

edit:typo

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. I'll kick on the title, alone.

:kick: MKJ

[Gregorian]

12. Hello! I have been hollering around here that we've used a billion gallons.

Good to see I'm not the lone warrior. A billion gallons of fuel to fight this invasion.

Thank you. I'm sure nothing means anything to anyone.

[Chico Man]

13. I've watched the high flying military transport planes and bombers all day long

The ones really high up... with the huge contrails.. massive planes that really could not be anything but military transports or bombers.

On some days the line of these planes just doesn't stop.. I can't imagine the fuel used to supply this incredibly wasteful supply line.

[slipslidingaway]

14. K&R, thanks. Pentagon as a Global Oil-Protection Service

"But there is also a more sinister approach that may be far more highly favored by senior officials: To ensure itself a "reliable" source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This would help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain "enduring" bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in these other countries...


Along the way, the American military has been transformed into a "global oil-protection service" for the benefit of U.S. corporations and consumers, fighting overseas battles and establishing its bases to ensure that we get our daily fuel fix. It would be both sad and ironic, if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships, and tanks -- consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives."

[Speck Tater]

15. Soldiers fight for oil OVER THERE...

so that ordinary citizens don't have to fight for oil OVER HERE at the gas pump.