C’Mon, Army Times – At Least Get the Headline Right!

| July 5, 2012

As Reagan might have said: “There they (the media) go again.”

Army Times recently had a headline that, to be blunt, appears to be BS. And it appears to be BS due to either slipshod reporting or a deliberate decision to misrepresent reality.

The 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.

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).  The article doesn’t identify any additional Navy costs, or any others for the Army and USAF, that are associated with  Pakistan closing the Afghan supply lines.

These three items total $2.206B – which is pretty close to the figure given in the headline.  I’d guess that’s where the number came from, and that someone didn’t add correctly and got $2.1B instead.

However, not all of these increased costs are due to the Pakistani supply line closure.  The Army buys one helluva lot of fuel; it uses a lot of that fuel in places outside of Afghanistan.  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.  The closure of the supply lines in Pakistan had nothing to do with that part of the Army’s increased costs included above.  And the USAF clearly states that only part of their costs for additional airlift and C17 maintenance are due to the supply line closure.  Calling all of those cost increases the result of closing those Pakistani supply lines is therefore bogus.

Bottom line:  very shoddy work, Army Times.  I have little doubt that Pannetta’s estimate of an extra cost of $100M/month last month was low.  But based on what’s presented in the article, your estimate doesn’t appear to be any more accurate.

Category: Foreign Policy, Media, Military issues

6 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David

That’s almost as bad as the cover of their last one “Increased pay for Soldiers, Decreased pay for officers”. The actual article talked about basing combat pay off of actual location instead of region. Just another divisive action by the Red Army Times.

Tom

The army times has been sensationalizing their headlines for well over 20 years. You read the article and most of the time are no smarter than when you started reading the article. I quit buying that magazine many years ago.

SIGO

How do you even equate this at all? I doubt we are able to successfully track that 100 gallons went to supply line work and 200 gallons went to actual mission work. I don’t have faith that our military is that detailed. We tried tracking regular fuel consumption numbers for our vehicles along with mileage and we constantly got it wrong.

Marine 83

I gave up my subscription to the Marine Corps Times after the Big Zero got elected. I noticed an immediate change in the deference paid to the Commander in Chief. It was ok to print all kinds of crap about GWB, but when Barry came on board it was all about repecting the office. Fine, but they lost me as a long time customer because of it.

streetsweeper

One word fits any “military times” published by….this word, Gannett News Service.

Uncle Marty

The only thing the Army Times was good for was PVT Murphy’s Law. Now that it has ended they got some lame Power Point Ranger.

I always love how they are talking shit about honor, duty, respect,etc yet on page 28 of this weeks issue under “Annoucements”

Single Russian Women
First-Class marrage Agency,
Advanced Serch, Live Chat,
Video Date, Phone Translation
http://www.Anastasiasite.com

Personally I think an add for Soldier of Fiction (fortune) would be better.

Don’t get started on the “Off Duty” section…nothing but one big advertisement.