>The convenience of being on a giant rock versus a sitting duck in space can't be understated, either. It makes a lot of things a lot less complicated, especially supplying the base. The deceleration and coupling that ships to the ISS have to go through would be completely negated on the moon - all you have to do is land something relatively close (within a few hundred yards, maybe?) to the base and you're set. It's like threading a needle versus hitting the broad side of a barn.
Less complicated sure, but much more expensive. You need a whole lot more delta-V to go to the moon (and land something with a hope of staying intact) than to LEO. It actually takes less fuel to send supplies to mars (because they can use aerobraking/parachutes to slow down) than to the moon.
>Fuel costs would obviously be greater, but not all that much, and once there is a permanent mobile presence in near space, the fuel cost will really just be relegated to getting from the surface into orbit (which is most of the fuel cost anyway).
Wouldn't it be better to work on that "permanent mobile presence in near space" first?
Low Earth orbit is a pretty good place to be; it's the easiest to get to from Earth, and it's on the way to just about anywhere.