Change in America is slow; the larger the change, the slower the pace. Eliminating our oil dependency is a change we have been talking about for 40 years. Much of the discussion revolves around economics, but this ignores another, arguably more important side of the issue. America’s continuing dependence on oil is an enormous strategic liability.
If you look up the term "strategic liability" in the dictionary, there should be a picture of oil under it.
Oil costs are prohibitive and unpredictable. Gas costs us $400 per gallon in Afghanistan; we pay $88 per soldier per day in Iraq for fuel costs. While defense spending has long been a sacred cow, it is now on the chopping block. A smaller budget means a smaller military where every dollar counts; even small increases in fuel costs translate to thousands of dollars. As oil prices continue upward and remain volatile, our commanders might have to worry if they can afford the gas to conduct operations or will have to use a smaller force than necessary for the job. This may put our troops downrange and our security at home in jeopardy.
Oil creates soft targets for our foes. Experts have always been concerned about the liability of oil transport by land and sea to attacks. NATO convoys in Pakistan and fuel convoys in Iraq have been constant targets, and there have been several attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf, India, and Indonesia. The thousands of oil wells and miles of pipelines throughout the world are impossible to be adequately secured; oil infrastructures in Nigeria, Turkey, and even Mexico were attacked. Any interruption in supply causes prices to shoot up and costs us billions every time.
Oil forces us into a partnership with countries that oppose our values, or even with our enemies. America is the world’s largest oil consumer, and there is no question that our need for oil causes us to look the other way when our suppliers step on human rights, equality, and democracy. Moreover, we sell them arms and give trade concessions just to keep them happy. If we did not need oil, we would not need to do this in countries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Our need has put us into bed with regimes we have later fought; think Iran, Iraq, and Libya. Oil dependence causes us to surrender our freedom to act.
Continuing to depend on oil is an enormous strategic liability, limits our choices of action, and is harmful to our security. Eliminating our need for oil will make us independent again, and take a weapon out of the hands of those who oppose America. We have been debating the issue for 40 years, it is time to act. Breaking our dependence on oil is vital to our national security.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
On the vulnerability of fuel convoys, the Marine Corps conducted a study that showed for every 50 convoys1 Marine is killed or wounded. To combat this USCM are using alternative energy technologies in Afghanistan such as flexible solar panels and solar generators decreasing petroleum use by 50-90%.
This account has been disabled.
I agree, in general, with this article, however one of the main solutions of the problem may be alternative energy, but still we need time to get it. Meanwhile, there is a need of new economic strategy and revision of relationship with oil-rich countries that don't respect human rights.
Rather, we must focus on producing domestic energy while allowing the market to develop viable alternatives. Thomas Edison did not receive subsidies.
Just because the countries that happen to produce oil are hostile to the US, it does not follow that oil use must be stopped.
Like it or not, oil is the lifeblood of our economy. There is simply no alternative that supplies the amount of energy we need at a lower cost.
3 Replies
I generally agree with the idea of lowering our reliance on petroleum (we'll just call it oil for short), but I do not think people at first understand how reliant on oil we are. If oil simply went into our cars and planes, this would be a lot easier. Oil ends up being used to fertilize our crops (less food without oil), to make plastic and rubber, etc. I agree with your article in general, I just don't know if people understand that this dependence fuels just about everything (sorry for the pun).
2 Replies
You've also forgotten two additional arguments: 1) economically rising China/India creates additional demands for a dwindling resource; and, 2) Nuclear ain't that sexy anymore because of Japan.
Can anyone say solar?
BTW, very good argument.
2 Replies
Not sure I would use Kryptonite as an analogy. Oil has provided us with great strength in the past, but now its ramifications are hitting us and hitting us hard. Kryptonite never did that for Superman. Its more like what drugs do to artists and musicians. For many, its an essential part of the creative process unfortunately, over time, it has left many dead or mere shells of what they once were. Overall, good article though.
Great article, Chris. I think the narrative of oil dependence as strategic liability is one that environmentalists need to embrace more. As important as global warming is, it's a political nonstarter for most Americans. The environmental movement should emphasize the other reasons that America must wean itself off oil - the strategic ones you mentioned above; the rising costs of fossil fuels (and the dropping costs of renewables as the scale of production increases); and the economic benefits of green jobs programs. Americans may not care much about climate change, but they sure as heck care about national security; green groups should adjust their message accordingly. (To that end, the Sierra Club magazine had a great article recently about Jonathan's point - the rising prevalence of solar power in military operations.)
4 Replies
Nothing else is easier than sticking a straw into the earth and sucking its raw juices dry. It's not just America's kryptonite, it's everyone's kryptonite. The same can be said about China, India and all the rest of the developing countries that are guzzling oil at an exponential rate while pretending to invest in green energy.
9 Replies
I completely agree with your thesis, but I would like to add a subtle distinction between some of the weaknesses you identify. The "strategic liability" is the U.S (indeed, Western worlds) reliance on access to the fossil fuels which powers our lives. I would call issues of shipping fuel into theatre, and the cost of fuel per man on deployment, an "operational liability". Interestingly, earlier this year the US military published a fascinating review of its current efforts to move operational forces onto renewable in-theatre energy sources, eg. solar panels in FOBs. Sadly, the review not only concluded that the USAF and navy's renewable energy targets for 2020 will be missed by wide margins, but that portable energy generation is currently too costly and inefficient to replace fossil fuels. The goals and targets are there to reduce operational liability - but the technology is not.
4 Replies