headline that, to be blunt, appears to be BS<\/a>. And it appears to be BS due to either slipshod reporting or a deliberate decision to misrepresent reality.<\/p>\nThe headline claims that extra costs associated with Pakistan’s closing the normal supply routes for Afghanistan last November are over $2 billion. However, that figure is not supported by the information in that article itself.<\/p>\n
The figure was apparently obtained by adding additional Army costs for higher than projected fuel prices AND the closure of the Pakistani supply lines to Afghanistan ($1.7B), plus additional USAF costs for airlift ($0.369B) and C17 engine maintenance ($0.137B).\u00a0 The article doesn’t identify any additional Navy costs, or any others for the Army and USAF, that are associated with\u00a0 Pakistan closing the Afghan supply lines.<\/p>\n
These three items total $2.206B – which is pretty close to the figure given in the headline.\u00a0 I’d guess that’s where the number came from, and that someone didn’t add correctly and got $2.1B instead.<\/p>\n
However, not all of these increased costs are due to the Pakistani supply line closure<\/em>.\u00a0 The Army buys one helluva lot of fuel; it uses a lot of that fuel in places outside of Afghanistan.\u00a0 And as I recall, fuel costs spiked worldwide recently – to nearly $4\/gallon in the US – which I’m sure was far more than originally projected.\u00a0 The closure of the supply lines in Pakistan had nothing to do with that part of the Army’s increased costs included above.\u00a0 And the USAF clearly states that only part of their costs for additional airlift and C17 maintenance are due to the supply line closure.\u00a0 Calling all of those cost increases the result of closing those Pakistani supply lines is therefore bogus.<\/p>\nBottom line:\u00a0 very<\/em> shoddy work, Army Times.\u00a0 I have little doubt that Pannetta’s estimate of an extra cost of $100M\/month last month was low.\u00a0 But based on what’s presented in the article, your estimate doesn’t appear to be any more accurate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"As Reagan might have said: “There they (the media) go again.” Army Times recently had a … C’Mon, Army Times – At Least Get the Headline Right!<\/span>Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":623,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,6,84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-foreign-policy","category-media","category-military-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/623"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=30594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=30594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=30594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.azuse.cloud\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=30594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}