Friday, June 15, 2007

Published on Friday, June 15, 2007 by TomDispatch.com The Pentagon v. Peak Oil How Wars of the Future May Be Fought Just to Run the Machines That Fight Them by Michael Klare Sixteen gallons of oil. That[base ']s how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis [~] either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone. Multiply that daily tab by 365 and you get 1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia. That[base ']s greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million [~] and yet it[base ']s a gross underestimate of the Pentagon[base ']s wartime consumption. Such numbers cannot do full justice to the extraordinary gas-guzzling expense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. After all, for every soldier stationed [base "]in theater,[per thou] there are two more in transit, in training, or otherwise in line for eventual deployment to the war zone [~] soldiers who also consume enormous amounts of oil, even if less than their compatriots overseas. Moreover, to sustain an [base "]expeditionary[per thou] army located halfway around the world, the Department of Defense must move millions of tons of arms, ammunition, food, fuel, and equipment every year by plane or ship, consuming additional tanker-loads of petroleum. Add this to the tally and the Pentagon[base ']s war-related oil budget jumps appreciably, though exactly how much we have no real way of knowing. And foreign wars, sad to say, account for but a small fraction of the Pentagon[base ']s total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world[base ']s largest fleet of modern aircraft, helicopters, ships, tanks, armored vehicles, and support systems [~] virtually all powered by oil [~] the Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world[base ']s leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD[base ']s daily oil hit, but an April 2007 report by a defense contractor, LMI Government Consulting, suggests that the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national consumption of Sweden or Switzerland. Not [base "]Guns v. Butter,[per thou] but [base "]Guns v. Oil[per thou] For anyone who drives a motor vehicle these days, this has ominous implications. With the price of gasoline now 75 cents to a dollar more than it was just six months ago, it[base ']s obvious that the Pentagon is facing a potentially serious budgetary crunch. Just like any ordinary American family, the DoD has to make some hard choices: It can use its normal amount of petroleum and pay more at the Pentagon[base ']s equivalent of the pump, while cutting back on other basic expenses; or it can cut back on its gas use in order to protect favored weapons systems under development. Of course, the DoD has a third option: It can go before Congress and plead for yet another supplemental budget hike, but this is sure to provoke renewed calls for a timetable for an American troop withdrawal from Iraq, and so is an unlikely prospect at this time. Nor is this destined to prove a temporary issue. As recently as two years ago, the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) was confidently predicting that the price of crude oil would hover in the $30 per barrel range for another quarter century or so, leading to gasoline prices of about $2 per gallon. But then came Hurricane Katrina, the crisis in Iran, the insurgency in southern Nigeria, and a host of other problems that tightened the oil market, prompting the DoE to raise its long-range price projection into the $50 per barrel range. This is the amount that figures in many current governmental budgetary forecasts [~] including, presumably, those of the Department of Defense. But just how realistic is this? The price of a barrel of crude oil today is hovering in the $66 range. Many energy analysts now say that a price range of $70-$80 per barrel (or possibly even significantly more) is far more likely to be our fate for the foreseeable future. A price rise of this magnitude, when translated into the cost of gasoline, aviation fuel, diesel fuel, home-heating oil, and petrochemicals will play havoc with the budgets of families, farms, businesses, and local governments. Sooner or later, it will force people to make profound changes in their daily lives [~] as benign as purchasing a hybrid vehicle in place of an SUV or as painful as cutting back on home heating or health care simply to make an unavoidable drive to work. It will have an equally severe affect on the Pentagon budget. As the world[base ']s number one consumer of petroleum products, the DoD will obviously be disproportionately affected by a doubling in the price of crude oil. If it can[base ']t turn to Congress for redress, it will have to reduce its profligate consumption of oil and/or cut back on other expenses, including weapons purchases. The rising price of oil is producing what Pentagon contractor LMI calls a [base "]fiscal disconnect[per thou] between the military[base ']s long-range objectives and the realities of the energy marketplace. [base "]The need to recapitalize obsolete and damaged equipment [from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan] and to develop high-technology systems to implement future operational concepts is growing,[per thou] it explained in an April 2007 report. However, an inability [base "]to control increased energy costs from fuel and supporting infrastructure diverts resources that would otherwise be available to procure new capabilities.[per thou] And this is likely to be the least of the Pentagon[base ']s worries. The Department of Defense is, after all, the world[base ']s richest military organization, and so can be expected to tap into hidden accounts of one sort or another in order to pay its oil bills and finance its many pet weapons projects. However, this assumes that sufficient petroleum will be available on world markets to meet the Pentagon[base ']s ever-growing needs [~] by no means a foregone conclusion. Like every other large consumer, the DoD must now confront the looming [~] but hard to assess [~] reality of [base "]Peak Oil[per thou]; the very real possibility that global oil production is at or near its maximum sustainable ([per thou]peak[per thou]) output and will soon commence an irreversible decline. That global oil output will eventually reach a peak and then decline is no longer a matter of debate; all major energy organizations have now embraced this view. What remains open for argument is precisely when this moment will arrive. Some experts place it comfortably in the future [~] meaning two or three decades down the pike [~] while others put it in this very decade. If there is a consensus emerging, it is that peak-oil output will occur somewhere around 2015. Whatever the timing of this momentous event, it is apparent that the world faces a profound shift in the global availability of energy, as we move from a situation of relative abundance to one of relative scarcity. It should be noted, moreover, that this shift will apply, above all, to the form of energy most in demand by the Pentagon: the petroleum liquids used to power planes, ships, and armored vehicles. The Bush Doctrine Faces Peak Oil Peak oil is not one of the global threats the Department of Defense has ever had to face before; and, like other U.S. government agencies, it tended to avoid the issue, viewing it until recently as a peripheral matter. As intimations of peak oil[base ']s imminent arrival increased, however, it has been forced to sit up and take notice. Spurred perhaps by rising fuel prices, or by the growing attention being devoted to [base "]energy security[per thou] by academic strategists, the DoD has suddenly taken an interest in the problem. To guide its exploration of the issue, the Office of Force Transformation within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy commissioned LMI to conduct a study on the implications of future energy scarcity for Pentagon strategic planning. The resulting study, [base "]Transforming the Way the DoD Looks at Energy,[per thou] was a bombshell. Determining that the Pentagon[base ']s favored strategy of global military engagement is incompatible with a world of declining oil output, LMI concluded that [base "]current planning presents a situation in which the aggregate operational capability of the force may be unsustainable in the long term.[per thou] LMI arrived at this conclusion from a careful analysis of current U.S. military doctrine. At the heart of the national military strategy imposed by the Bush administration [~] the Bush Doctrine [~] are two core principles: transformation, or the conversion of America[base ']s stodgy, tank-heavy Cold War military apparatus into an agile, continent-hopping high-tech, futuristic war machine; and pre-emption, or the initiation of hostilities against [base "]rogue states[per thou] like Iraq and Iran, thought to be pursuing weapons of mass destruction. What both principles entail is a substantial increase in the Pentagon[base ']s consumption of petroleum products [~] either because such plans rely, to an increased extent, on air and sea-power or because they imply an accelerated tempo of military operations. As summarized by LMI, implementation of the Bush Doctrine requires that [base "]our forces must expand geographically and be more mobile and expeditionary so that they can be engaged in more theaters and prepared for expedient deployment anywhere in the world[per thou]; at the same time, they [base "]must transition from a reactive to a proactive force posture to deter enemy forces from organizing for and conducting potentially catastrophic attacks.[per thou] It follows that, [base "]to carry out these activities, the U.S. military will have to be even more energy intense[sigma]. Considering the trend in operational fuel consumption and future capability needs, this [OE]new[base '] force employment construct will likely demand more energy/fuel in the deployed setting.[per thou] The resulting increase in petroleum consumption is likely to prove dramatic. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the average American soldier consumed only four gallons of oil per day; as a result of George W. Bush[base ']s initiatives, a U.S. soldier in Iraq is now using four times as much. If this rate of increase continues unabated, the next major war could entail an expenditure of 64 gallons per soldier per day. It was the unassailable logic of this situation that led LMI to conclude that there is a severe [base "]operational disconnect[per thou] between the Bush administration[base ']s principles for future war-fighting and the global energy situation. The administration has, the company notes, [base "]tethered operational capability to high-technology solutions that require continued growth in energy sources[per thou] [~] and done so at the worst possible moment historically. After all, the likelihood is that the global energy supply is about to begin diminishing rather than expanding. Clearly, writes LMI in its April 2007 report, [base "]it may not be possible to execute operational concepts and capabilities to achieve our security strategy if the energy implications are not considered.[per thou] And when those energy implications are considered, the strategy appears [base "]unsustainable.[per thou] The Pentagon as a Global Oil-Protection Service How will the military respond to this unexpected challenge? One approach, favored by some within the DoD, is to go [base "]green[per thou] [~] that is, to emphasize the accelerated development and acquisition of fuel-efficient weapons systems so that the Pentagon can retain its commitment to the Bush Doctrine, but consume less oil while doing so. This approach, if feasible, would have the obvious attraction of allowing the Pentagon to assume an environmentally-friendly facade while maintaining and developing its existing, interventionist force structure. But there is also a more sinister approach that may be far more highly favored by senior officials: To ensure itself a [base "]reliable[per thou] source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oil fields and refineries in the Persian Gulf region, especially in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. This would help explain the recent talk of U.S. plans to retain [base "]enduring[per thou] bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in these other countries. The U.S. military first began procuring petroleum products from Persian Gulf suppliers to sustain combat operations in the Middle East and Asia during World War II, and has been doing so ever since. It was, in part, to protect this vital source of petroleum for military purposes that, in 1945, President Roosevelt first proposed the deployment of an American military presence in the Persian Gulf region. Later, the protection of Persian Gulf oil became more important for the economic well-being of the United States, as articulated in President Jimmy Carter[base ']s [base "]Carter Doctrine[per thou] speech of January 23, 1980 as well as in President George H. W. Bush[base ']s August 1990 decision to stop Saddam Hussein[base ']s invasion of Kuwait, which led to the first Gulf War [~] and, many would argue, the decision of the younger Bush to invade Iraq over a decade later. Along the way, the American military has been transformed into a [base "]global oil-protection service[per thou] for the benefit of U.S. corporations and consumers, fighting overseas battles and establishing its bases to ensure that we get our daily fuel fix. It would be both sad and ironic, if the military now began fighting wars mainly so that it could be guaranteed the fuel to run its own planes, ships, and tanks [~] consuming hundreds of billions of dollars a year that could instead be spent on the development of petroleum alternatives. Michael T. Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, is the author of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America[base ']s Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books). 9:47:38 PM    comment []

Anthony D. Romero: Cutting the Cake for an Ancient Rule of Law. I hope you brought candles. Habeas corpus is 792 years young today. The habeas story began in England's Runnymede meadow on June 15, 1215, when dissident English nobles forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, a contract limiting the power of the king in exchange for his right to rule. John later rejected the charter, prompting a civil war, but the contract would become one of the greatest legal documents in history. The Great Writ of habeas corpus was among the rights articulated that day, and it has since evolved into a principal safeguard against arbitrary executive detention here in the United States. Though the writ of habeas corpus has stood for nearly eight centuries, it rarely has faced a threat as acute as it faces now. This bedrock constitutional right is under siege, along with many other fundamental American liberties and freedoms, all in the name of national security and the president's "commander-in-chief powers." The Bush administration would like us all to believe that the threat of terrorism warrants a wholesale reinterpretation of our system of laws: They claim that victims of government torture should have the courthouse doors closed to them, at the sole discretion of the president. They assert that the government has the power to wiretap without warrants, at the sole discretion of the president. They believe that the government has the power to kidnap people and send them on secret flights in the dead of night to foreign countries known to torture, at the sole discretion of the president. And, they insist that the government has the power to detain people indefinitely -- in American prisons -- without charges or any due process, at, you guessed it, the sole discretion of the president. The irony is that habeas corpus was born of war and conflict, not peace and harmony. It was forced upon a reluctant monarchy in response to an unpopular war and autocratic, arrogant rule. In short, habeas is the precedent that defines how a just society faces a crisis -- it is not an antiquated ideal from simpler times. As an idea, habeas has its ancient origins among the seventh-century Normans, who began to shift from "blood-feuds" to a system of court-enforced compensation. Vengeance-as-punishment gave way to something resembling the modern penal system, where justice would be meted out by public bodies. But these ancient courts required a system to get the accused to appear in person, something that would come to be known as "habeas corpus." The Normans brought this tool with them in 1066, when they conquered Britain and centralized the court system, and the idea evolved and was formalized in the series of documents that became the Magna Carta. Fast forward to the reign of King John. To put it mildly, John was an autocrat and a bumbling war king. He alienated the papacy, prompting a war. He alienated the aristocracy, prompting a civil war. He alienated the French, prompting a war that he lost. He imposed ruinous taxes, prompting a war. England's barons forced John at sword-point to sign the Magna Carta, which also resulted in a civil war when he rejected it. And there began the transformation of habeas from a tool to bring people to trial to a legal action allowing detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. Today, habeas is arguably the single most important legal lever to prevent unjust and indefinite imprisonment. But the Bush administration has fought single-mindedly, and over strenuous internal dissent, to deny people detained by our government any right to bring habeas petitions in our civilian courts. Instead, it concocted an unprecedented and unjust system of "military commissions" that permit the introduction of confessions extracted by normally inadmissible hearsay. And that's just for the "lucky" few who actually get "charged" with war crimes. The rest of the "enemy combatants" don't even get a day in court. Instead, they are locked up until further notice. Notice that may never come. Thanks to the Military Commissions Act, none of these detainees can bring a habeas action, even though they are detained in U.S. government custody. The Administration has even argued that individuals picked up off American streets can be imprisoned without charge, without access to a lawyer and without any legal recourse, all at the sole discretion of the president. It was precisely that claim of broad, unchecked executive power that was emphatically knocked down by the conservative Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last week, when it granted the habeas petition of Ali al-Marri, the last known "enemy combatant" held on American soil. The government can of course still charge Mr. al-Marri in a civilian court or detain him as a material witness, but the court directly repudiated the president's claim that he has the inherent power to lock Mr. al-Marri away indefinitely without charge or trial. On this anniversary, I urge everyone to join our fight to restore due process and habeas corpus. On June 26, thousands of activists will join the ACLU, Amnesty International and other coalition partners for a Day of Action to Restore Law and Justice in Washington, D.C. We'll be rallying, speaking out and meeting face-to-face with lawmakers to demand that Congress restore habeas corpus, stop torture, and protect our constitutional freedoms. We should be proud of our national determination to give every person -- even those people accused of the most serious crimes -- a fair trial in a neutral court. That is, in the words of Colin Powell, what America is "all about." Here's hoping habeas is feeling happier and healthier next June, when it reaches its 793rd birthday. Keep your candles burning. [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed] 8:04:01 AM    comment []

Administration Claims Journalist Shield Law Would Protect Terrorists. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/15/MNGDVQFUTK1.DTL&feed=rss.news By . [TomPaine.com] 8:02:48 AM    comment []

Harry Shearer: The Addicts. We've been treated in the last week or so to a couple of eerily similar episodes of media behavior, although they'd seem on the surface to be from, at least, different asteroids: the Paris Hilton feeding frenzy and the coverage of the early Presidential campaigns. In the case of Hilton-mania, some of the very reporters and anchors covering the story were engaging simultaneously in what the political reporters only do after the election is safely over: publicly bemoan the job they were doing. Everybody saw at least one anchor or reporter act sardonically superior to the very Hilton story they were spending hours on. Meanwhile, the political media were covering the debates the very same way they critized themselves for covering the last Presidential race, and the one before that: attention to image and horse race, with no attention to substance. Paul Krugman made the latter case in an NYT op-ed last week, bemoaning the lack of after the fact fact-checking by the media following any of the debates. But what ties the two behaviors together, I think, is that they both reflect the way addicts act: sometimes they regret their behavior after the fact, sometimes even in the middle of the behavior, but it doesn't change the behavior. We should know by now that, as abashed as TV's Hilton-maniacs would like to seem, as embarrassed as political reporters are, at after-election seminars, by the superficiality of their coverage, the behavior doesn't change. This is your brain on news. [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed] 7:40:09 AM    comment []

Marine Families Tie Tainted Water to Illnesses. Marine families who lived at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina over three decades drank water contaminated with toxins as much as 40 times over today's safety standard, federal health investigators said yesterday. At least 850 former residents of the base have filed administrative claims, seeking nearly $4 billion, for exposure to the industrial solvents TCE and PCE, that contaminated Camp Lejeune's drinking wells before 1987. [t r u t h o u t] 7:38:25 AM    comment []

Senators Try to Limit Fuel-Efficiency Rules. Senators tied to the US auto industry stepped up a campaign to soften strict vehicle fuel-efficiency mandates in proposed energy legislation before the Senate, even as momentum for the tougher measures continued to build. Senators Carl M. Levin and Debbie Stabenow, the two Democrats from Michigan, and Christopher S. Bond (R-Missouri) are leading the effort to craft an amendment that opponents say would water down measures already approved by the Senate Commerce Committee. [t r u t h o u t] 7:38:02 AM    comment []

ACLU Wants Bush Documents Unsealed. The American Civil Liberties Union renewed its challenge Thursday against the Bush administration's filing of secret materials with a federal appeals court that will rule on its warrantless surveillance program. The government has filed the papers with the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, and the ACLU wants those documents unsealed. [t r u t h o u t] 7:25:27 AM    comment []

© Copyright 2007 Patricia Thurston.