With two wars in progress and imminent threats to the environment worldwide, it is a critical juncture for our leaders to rethink our military strategy from an economic and security standpoint. 

The effect of energy use and climate change on security is well known.  Numerous reports have emerged in the last few years, from the Center for American Progress, the Center for Naval Analysis, Deloitte, Oxfam International, The Brookings Institute, and the National Intelligence Council.

The conundrum is painfully obvious in the Iraq war, where arguably the most dangerous place to be is on the road.  Slow-moving fuel convoys make ideal targets for insurgents as they traverse vast open stretches of empty desert. 

It’s a maddening catch-22.  The war is being waged in the interest of our national security, when in fact, Iraqi petroleum has provided less than 1% of our nation’s total energy resources since the invasion; in fact, our greatest imports from Iraq came in the years just before we invaded.  Ironically, one of the greatest threats to the American military comes from its own fuel consumption. 

(Graphic: Deloitte)

Renewable energy investments could save more lives than weapons development, according to a recent report by financial advisors Deloitte LLP.  Money from the stimulus package will be disbursed by September 2010; $43.3 billion to energy, and $7.4 billion to the Department of Defense (DoD).

“Energy Security: America’s Best Defense” describes our armed forces’ dependency on fossil fuels, and quantifies the hazards that it poses every day for troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the words of the former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, “the Iraq war is largely about oil.”  Crude oil from Iraq accounted for 3.9% of our total imports in the first half of 2009, compared to 5.4% in the six months before the invasion, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

Compare that to how much energy goes into the wars.  Deloitte reported that the DoD accounts for 93% of fuel consumption by all U.S. government agencies; the Air Force alone represents 52%.  In 2007, U.S. armed forces used an average of 22 gallons, per person, per day. 

For years, top U.S. commanders have grieved over the security risks caused by fuel logistics:  from Dr. Ashton Carter, Under Secretary of Defense for Aquisition, to General James Conway, Commandant of the Marine Corps, to the Honorable Ray Mabus, Secretary of the Navy. 

In April 2008, a report by the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College stated that our methods of expeditionary warfare were all but obsolete.  “The current energy system has served us well for nearly 100 years,” it said, “but is now shifting out of our favor and is creating strategic liabilities and tactical vulnerabilities.”  The message was clear to our military leaders:  modern militaries must adopt modern energy solutions.

(Photo: DefenseImagery.com)

The Department of Defense now has a web page, titled “DoD Goes Green,” featuring energy innovations being implemented in the armed forces.  Some of the solutions that the DoD is currently developing for use in combat environments include the following:

1.  Algae-oil and other biofuels to power jets and ships. 
2.  Hybrid tactical power generators and solid oxide fuel cells (for radios, GPS, NVDs, etc). 
3.  Hydrogen fuel cells.
4.  Nuclear tactical units (generators, vehicles, aircraft).
5.  Synthetic fuels and more innovative batteries.

(Photo: DefenseImagery.com)

In addition to these, DoD will study the potential use of wind and solar energy for expeditionary forces. 

New energy solutions will be good for the “business of protecting American lives,” said Charles Wald, a retired Air Force General and co-author of the Deloitte report.

Taking the longer view, national energy independence will deter conflicts like Iraq in the future. Indeed, with worldwide proliferation of domestic renewable energy sources, every life on Earth will be protected.

In the next article, we will hear from Iraq veteran Robin Eckstein on the vulnerabilities of a petroleum-based Army.

 

 

 

 

SOURCES

1.  Jeckell, Jonathan E (MAJ, U.S.A.).  U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.  Fire for Effect:  Calling for a More Potent Energy System.  18 April 2008. .  . 

2.  U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.  U.S. Imports of Crude Oil and Petroleum Products.

3.  Center for American Progress.  Securing America’s Future.  Enhancing Our National Security by Reducing Oil Dependence and Environmental Damage.  Aug 2009. 

4.  Center for Naval Analysis.  National Security and the Threat of Climate Change (PDF).  2007.

5.  Deloitte LLP.  Energy Security.  America’s Best Defense (PDF)

6.  Department of Defense.  DoD Goes Green. 

7.  RedOrbit.  Deloitte Reports on Significant Concerns for Military Energy Security, Suggests Solutions.  10 Nov 2009.

8.  Patterson, Graham.  The Times.  Alan Greenspan Claims Iraq War Was Really for Oil.  16 Sept 2007.