{"id":62299,"date":"2015-08-10T12:00:25","date_gmt":"2015-08-10T11:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=62299"},"modified":"2015-08-10T09:21:38","modified_gmt":"2015-08-10T08:21:38","slug":"pentagon-prepares-for-century-of-climate-emergencies-and-oil-wars","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2015\/08\/pentagon-prepares-for-century-of-climate-emergencies-and-oil-wars\/","title":{"rendered":"Pentagon Prepares for Century of Climate Emergencies and Oil Wars"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Nafeez<\/a>

Nafeez Ahmed<\/p><\/div>\n

US Army research reveals the military\u2019s latest strategies to safeguard the global fossil fuel system from threat of scarcity and climate disruption.<\/em><\/p>\n

6 Aug 2015 – <\/em>The US Army is preparing for a new era of war for oil.<\/p>\n

While energy has always played a role in military conflicts, US military experts believe the geopolitics of energy, land and water is increasingly central to who rules, or ruins, the world.<\/p>\n

Two research documents published in recent months by the US Army reveal the military establishment\u2019s latest thinking in startlingly frank terms. The research not only lends credence to environmental warnings about how climate change will fuel political instability, but also vindicates concerns about how looming resource shortages could destabilise the global economy.<\/p>\n

Scarcity verdict<\/strong><\/p>\n

In June the US Army published its report<\/a> to the Department of Defence (DoD), outlining a new energy security strategy. Future US Army operations, it says, will be shaped by \u201cincreased urbanisation, rising populations, young adult unemployment, and a growing middle class that drive resource competition\u201d.<\/p>\n

The report also flags up \u201cclimate change, rapid technology proliferation and shifts in centres of economic activity\u201d as major forces of change:<\/p>\n

\u201cGlobal resource constraints will also undermine the integrity of the Army\u2019s supply chain\u2026 We can no longer assume unimpeded access to the energy, water, land, and other resources required to train, sustain, and deploy a globally responsive Army.\u201d<\/p>\n

The report therefore sets out a blueprint for how the US Army intends to sustain operational effectiveness, based on minimising its resource footprint, maximising efficiency, as well as securing resources critical to the military\u2019s global supply chains.<\/p>\n

\"Photo:<\/a>

Photo: A GCC oil field in full production<\/p><\/div>\n

Sustainability and national security<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many of the proposed changes draw extensively on new scientific research on environmental sustainability. The blueprint calls for integrating \u201cresource considerations and cost management\u201d into the core of US Army decision-making processes, including \u201ctotal life-cycle costs\u201d and even \u201cenhanced resource stewardship\u201d.<\/p>\n

Business processes, acquisition strategies, management of technologies, and even the very conduct of military operations will be redesigned to incorporate new principles of \u201cresilience\u201d and \u201csustainability\u201d.<\/p>\n

While the corporate and private sector is often criticised for using such concepts as public relations “buzzwords” without applying them fully, the new US Army strategy is refreshingly different.<\/p>\n

The report to the Pentagon shows that the US Army sees \u201cresource stewardship\u201d not as a fluffy concern of hippy tree-huggers who want to save the planet, but as a fundamental national security imperative.<\/p>\n

For the US military to maintain its capabilities into the future, it must be prepared to face the new age of resource shortages with hard-nosed realism: the result vindicates scientists and activists urging governments to reduce dependence on traditional energy sources and improve our ability to manage access to water and land.<\/p>\n

The future is green<\/strong><\/p>\n

Much of the vision would work well in a Greenpeace handbook. For instance:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Army can use energy more efficiently by purchasing energy efficient products, modernising buildings and utility systems, purchasing energy efficient vehicles, and using more renewable\/alternative energy sources. We can use water more efficiently by purchasing water-efficient products, matching water quality to use, maximising opportunities for water reuse, and increasing water recharge.<\/p>\n

“The Army will build on its Sustainable Range Programme, integrated natural resource management plans, and real property master plans to optimise land use requirements, while protecting the natural and cultural resources entrusted to our care. Additionally, the Army can support resource sustainability by using building materials or products that are derived or manufactured within a region.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lessons for industrial-era technologies in fossil fuel production, transport, infrastructure and so on, are stark.<\/p>\n

Many technologies widely used today started life for narrow military purposes. The US Army\u2019s concerted decision to spearhead a rapid transition to sustainable energy, land and water systems sounds the death knell for the old, industrial-era systems.<\/p>\n

Protecting US interests from \u2018disruption\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

The plan is not perfect. The US Army\u2019s understanding of \u201cresilience\u201d \u2013 the capacity to anticipate, prepare for, withstand and adapt to \u201cnatural or man-made disruptions\u201d and to \u201crecover rapidly\u201d from them \u2013 is based on the unquestionable assumption that US-dominated global capitalism must be protected.<\/p>\n

This notion of resilience is not about transforming the system that generates disruptions, but about increasing the US military\u2019s ability to withstand disruptions to capitalism, thus keeping the system rumbling along:<\/p>\n

\u201cResilience is essential for a responsive Army force posture and an effective network of installations and capabilities at home and abroad to protect US interests and those of our allies.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Army must become more resource-efficient so that \u201cUS interests,\u201d tied to ongoing resource exploitation elsewhere, can continue.<\/p>\n

That stance is not surprising given that the Army can only plan within the framework of the Pentagon\u2019s directives.<\/p>\n

Energy wars<\/strong><\/p>\n

The imperative to protect business-as-usual is reflected in a separate report published by the US Army\u2019s institute for geostrategic and national security research.<\/p>\n

That report<\/a>, New Realities: Energy Security in the 2010s and Implications for the US Military<\/em>, forecasts a bold new century of conflict over global energy supplies, due to dramatic shifts in the way energy is produced and consumed in key regions.<\/p>\n

Released earlier this year, the document is a collection of papers from a US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) conference on energy security, edited by John R Deni, a former political adviser and strategic planner for US military commanders in Europe. Currently a research professor in security studies at SSI, Deni was also a national security consultant for the Departments of Energy, Defence and State.<\/p>\n

The US Army War College report argues that the global energy landscape is undergoing a major transformation due to the dawn of the shale revolution in the US, the declining power of Middle East oil and gas producers, rising demand from China, India and the \u201cdeveloping world,\u201d as well as Russia\u2019s mismanagement of its domestic energy arrangements.<\/p>\n

It also specifically warns that US energy interests \u2013 including the need to regulate the global oil supply and price system \u2013 may lead to more US military interventions across the Middle East and Africa, especially in the context of proliferating climate-induced emergencies:<\/p>\n

\u201cEvolving energy-based US national interests in Africa or the Middle East may shape the degree to which the US military becomes involved in political or humanitarian crises in those regions. Tightening energy supplies may alter fundamentally the way in which the United States wields military force in a contingency operation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Reports published by the US Army\u2019s SSI do not \u201cnecessarily\u201d represent official government policy \u2013 but they do \u201cuse independent analysis to conduct strategic studies that develop policy recommendations\u201d relevant for \u201cthe Army, the Department of Defence, and the larger national security community,\u201d and particularly \u201cin support of Army participation in national security policy formation\u201d.<\/p>\n

Fossil fuels are here to stay<\/strong><\/p>\n

The SSI report contains significant tensions with the US Army\u2019s proposed energy security strategy. A paper by Karen Smith-Stegan, Professor of Renewable Energy and Environmental Politics at Jacobs University in Bremer, Germany, warns that there are major risks with an energy strategy centred on renewables, largely due to China\u2019s monopoly on rare earth minerals critical for solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and batteries.<\/p>\n

The report does, however, take note of ongoing US Army and Pentagon efforts to increase resilience and efficiency, while reducing the military\u2019s energy and resource footprint.<\/p>\n

But this is against the backdrop of protecting US interests in a global system that, the report presumes, will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n

\u201cBurgeoning demand in China, India, and across the developing world may cause oil prices to remain stubbornly high, increasing the cost of fuel-intensive military operations in remote, austere environments,\u201d the report warns.<\/p>\n

It predicts not just continuing, but intensifying dependence on fossil fuels across the global economy.<\/p>\n

Demand in poorer, developing countries will be met mostly with fossil fuels, \u201cexacerbating human-induced climate change and potentially intensifying the effects of natural disasters. Additionally, as fossil fuel production in the Western hemisphere expands exponentially, there will be corresponding increases in global fossil fuel movements.\u201d<\/p>\n

Increased vulnerability to terrorism and natural disasters will accompany \u201cmore traditional state-versus-state security competition over limited fossil fuel resources,\u201d especially among poorer countries.<\/p>\n

Eastward military expansion<\/strong><\/p>\n

In some areas, declining oil production could reduce US regional engagement:<\/p>\n

\u201cDecreasing oil production in Sub-Saharan Africa, coupled with reduced saliency of those same resources in America\u2019s energy import mix, may severely limit US interests in the region while simultaneously increasing the risk of socio-political instability in Africa due to decreasing state revenues.\u201d<\/p>\n

More broadly, though, the continued centrality of oil to the global economy will underpin the need for an active US military.<\/p>\n

In his contribution, Michael Klare, Professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College, highlights America\u2019s self-appointed role as vanguard of the world\u2019s oil transshipment routes. The largest flows of oil \u201cpass from perennial conflict zones in North Africa and the Middle East to Europe and East Asia, often travelling through narrow \u2018chokepoints\u2019 that have proved powerful magnets for insurgents, terrorists and pirates.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is why, despite the shale revolution in the US, there is a continued need for US military forces to police these crucial regions to keep the world safe for capitalism. In Klare\u2019s words, \u201cthe stability of the global economy rests, to a considerable degree, on the uninterrupted flow of oil shipments from the Gulf.\u201d<\/p>\n

Klare\u2019s chapter provides a candid history of the evolution of US military expansionism as a function of diversifying and protecting access to global energy supplies. The search for new sources of energy has led US military operations to extend far beyond the Middle East, to areas like the Caucasus, the Caspian and West Africa.<\/p>\n

As global energy demand shifts further eastwards, the report warns, there is a worsening risk of the US and China clashing in their determination to enhance their respective capacities to defend critical energy shipping lanes, across the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the Western Pacific.<\/p>\n

As the old cheap sources of oil and gas have depleted, there is an increasing shift to more expensive unconventional energy forms permitted by new extraction technologies, in challenging environments like the Arctic:<\/p>\n

\u201cAs reserves in older production areas have become depleted \u2013 a natural consequence of the intense production we have witnessed over the years since World War II \u2013 energy firms are being forced to rely on ever more remote and hard-to-exploit deposits.\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem of nationalist democracies<\/strong><\/p>\n

Elsewhere, the report advocates a far more interventionist approach to Latin America, described as \u201cpotentially rich in unconventional oil and shale gas resources, as well as renewables. These resources can fuel domestic growth\u201d as well as make-up for the declining significance of Middle East oil resources.<\/p>\n

According to Professor David Mares, a Latin America energy specialist at the James Baker III Institute for Public Policy, the countries most favourable to US interests are Colombia and Peru, as they \u201cencourage exploration and production\u201d.<\/p>\n

He fails to acknowledge, though, that the openness of both countries to foreign investment has been enabled by extensive US military interference<\/a> involving colossal human rights abuses.<\/p>\n

In contrast, Mares singles out Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico for raising \u201csignificant obstacles\u201d to oil investment and production. Such democracies must be \u201ccrafted\u201d until they adopt political stances favourable to US interests:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe essential challenge for Latin America to meet its hydrocarbon potential is crafting stable domestic political coalitions that see the benefit of providing incentives for foreign investors to bring the requisite capital, skill, and technology to the region. Historically, Latin American democracies do not have a stellar record in providing such incentives when they perceive that they have an asset that others desire.\u201d<\/p>\n

The observation is a telling one, given the implication that the US sees its mission as countering regional democracies if they insist on too much \u201cresource nationalism,\u201d by resisting the intrusion of foreign corporations.<\/p>\n

Mares laments that such stubborn democratic nationalism in the region would forestall the desired \u201cbonanza for Latin America and a shift in the geopolitical centre of energy toward the Western Hemisphere\u201d.<\/p>\n

Resurgence of the oil empire<\/strong><\/p>\n

That shift to the West, according to former State Department official Robert Manning \u2013 whose most recent post in the Obama administration was as a senior strategist in the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) \u2013 is being driven by the US shale revolution.<\/p>\n

Manning, along with most other contributors to the US Army\u2019s SSI report, agree that shale will contribute to the \u201cresurgence\u201d of the American economy into the 2020s, while weaning off its immediate dependence on conventional energy resources in unstable regions.<\/p>\n

Of course, the US Army\u2019s recognition of the urgency of transitioning to more resilient and sustainable ways of using energy, land and water is heartening. It shows that environmental concerns are not merely the province of green activists, but are increasingly acknowledged at the highest levels of military power.<\/p>\n

But the geopolitical context of the US Army\u2019s new energy strategy highlights the chronic short-sightedness of US military planners. The Army\u2019s sustainability strategy is ultimately about maintaining US military dominance despite resource scarcity, while safeguarding the wider fossil fuel system \u2013 not changing it.<\/p>\n

The unswerving commitment to protecting business-as-usual, the fatalistic capitulation to a future of expanding oil dependence, and the blinkered belief that global economic health is tied to endless resource exploitation, all show that US policymakers still have their heads in the sand.<\/p>\n

If Pentagon officials really want to defend US national security, they must wake up to the fact that the global system itself must undergo a fundamental transformation, in which economic stability is no longer dependent on the unlimited consumption of fossil fuels.<\/p>\n

_______________________________<\/p>\n

Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Ph.D. is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace, Development and Environment<\/a>. He is<\/em> an\u00a0investigative journalist<\/a>, international security scholar and bestselling author who tracks what he calls the ‘<\/em>crisis of civilization<\/a>.’ He is a winner of the Project Censored Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for his <\/em>Guardian reporting on the intersection of global ecological, energy and economic crises with regional geopolitics and conflicts. He has also written for<\/em> The Independent,\u00a0Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Scotsman, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, Quartz, Prospect, New Statesman, Le Monde Diplomatique, New Internationalist.\u00a0His work on the root causes and covert operations linked to international terrorism officially contributed to the 9\/11 Commission and the 7\/7 Coroner\u2019s Inquest. His new novel of the near future is <\/em>Zero Point<\/a>.<\/em>Website:<\/strong> www.nafeezahmed.com<\/a><\/u><\/em><\/p>\n

Go to Original \u2013 middleeasteye.net<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

US Army research reveals the military\u2019s latest strategies to safeguard the global fossil fuel system from threat of scarcity and climate disruption.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-62299","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-transcend-members"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62299","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=62299"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/62299\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=62299"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=62299"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=62299"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}