Counting the costs of their military campaigns, Americans have come to the conclusion that the majority of military spending are not in the content of the troops themselves and in the infrastructure that supports them.
"We are building a very large base," said American University professor Gordon Adams, "spending on these bases, from an economic point of view — sunk costs."
The publication of these figures in American society has caused great controversy. Actively negotiated with the two sides of the issue — the desirability of continuing the military campaigns that literally "eat" the taxpayers' money, and the need to use energy-saving technologies in infrastructure maintenance troops.
The largest expense item on the security of tenure of U.S. troops in areas of conflict is the purchase and delivery of fuel for diesel generators that produce electricity on the bases. In view of the distant and often — almost isolated location of many bases, cost of a liter of fuel, at times, increases several times. While millions of kilowatts of electricity generated is spent on maintenance of air conditioners, and only a small part — on lighting and work communications and office equipment.
The constant need for fuel leads to an increase in the supply of fuel, and, consequently, to recruit more soldiers to guard convoys with fuel. Statistics show that more than 1,000 American soldiers were killed in the attacks on the "fuel" convoys, which remain a prime target for attack.
In order to reduce energy consumption, specialists military industrial complex has made a number of proposals. In particular, it was proposed the use of polyurethane foam for the impregnation of army tents. Conducted in 2006, the year tests have shown that this simple technique can reduce the use of electricity for heating (cooling) of accommodation soldiers using air conditioners by 92 percent, which, based on the fuel tank truck is 11000.