Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pentagon uses 53 MIL Liters/day for war efforts: more than Swiss daily consumption!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 07:58 AM
Original message
Pentagon uses 53 MIL Liters/day for war efforts: more than Swiss daily consumption!

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East.html

The wars that oil the Pentagon's engine

The Pentagon is guzzling gasoline like there is no tomorrow. According to one report, 53 million liters daily, or more than Switzerland's total daily consumption, is needed to keep America's war machine humming. But with global oil supplies likely to peak soon, the US military needs to make some critical decisions. - Michael T Klare (Jun 15, '07)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
CanonRay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. Anyone wonder why gas is REALLY over $3?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-17-07 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here's the direct link to the article:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF16Ak04.html

And here is where the rubber meets the road.


The resulting increase in petroleum consumption is likely to prove dramatic. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the average American soldier consumed only 15 liters of oil per day; as a result of President George W Bush's initiatives, a US 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 about 240 liters per soldier per day.


It was the unassailable logic of this situation that led LMI to conclude that there is a severe "operational disconnect" between the Bush administration's principles for future war-fighting and the global energy situation. The administration has, the company notes, "tethered operational capability to high-technology solutions that require continued growth in energy sources" - and done so at the worst possible moment. After all, it is likely that the global energy supply is about to begin diminishing. Clearly, writes LMI, "it may not be possible to execute operational concepts and capabilities to achieve our security strategy if the energy implications are not considered". And when those energy implications are considered, the strategy appears "unsustainable".

The Pentagon as an oil-protection service

How will the military respond to this unexpected challenge? One approach, favored by some within the DoD, is to go "green" by emphasizing 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 for itself a "reliable" source of oil in perpetuity, the Pentagon will increase its efforts to maintain control over foreign sources of supply, notably oilfields 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 US plans to retain "enduring" bases in Iraq, along with its already impressive and elaborate basing infrastructure in the other countries.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IF16Ak04.html


I believe this Asia Times article first appeared as a post at www.tomdispatch.com . Here is another article by Michael Klare posted in 2004 at tomdispatch.com discussing the Pentagon's role in worldwide oil protection.


Oil Wars
Transforming the American Military into a Global Oil-Protection Service

By Michael T. Klare

SNIP

The use of American military personnel to help protect vulnerable oil installations in conflict-prone, chronically unstable countries is certain to expand given three critical factors: America's ever-increasing dependence on imported petroleum, a global shift in oil production from the developed to the developing world, and the growing militarization of our foreign energy policy.

America's dependence on imported petroleum has been growing steadily since 1972, when domestic output reached its maximum (or "peak") output of 11.6 million barrels per day (mbd). Domestic production is now running at about 9 mbd and is expected to continue to decline as older fields are depleted. (Even if some oil is eventually extracted from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, as the Bush administration desires, this downward trend will not be reversed.) Yet our total oil consumption remains on an upward course; now approximating 20 mbd, it's projected to reach 29 mbd by 2025. This means ever more of the nation's total petroleum supply will have to be imported -- 11 mbd today (about 55% of total U.S. consumption) but 20 mbd in 2025 (69% of consumption).

More significant than this growing reliance on foreign oil, an increasing share of that oil will come from hostile, war-torn countries in the developing world, not from friendly, stable countries like Canada or Norway. This is the case because the older industrialized countries have already consumed a large share of their oil inheritance, while many producers in the developing world still possess vast reserves of untapped petroleum. As a result, we are seeing a historic shift in the center of gravity for world oil production -- from the industrialized countries of the global North to the developing nations of the global South, which are often politically unstable, torn by ethnic and religious conflicts, home to extremist organizations, or some combination of all three.

Whatever deeply-rooted historical antagonisms exist in these countries, oil production itself usually acts as a further destabilizing influence. Sudden infusions of petroleum wealth in otherwise poor and underdeveloped countries tend to deepen divides between rich and poor that often fall along ethnic or religious lines, leading to persistent conflict over the distribution of petroleum revenues. To prevent such turbulence, ruling elites like the royal family in Saudi Arabia or the new oil potentates of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan restrict or prohibit public expressions of dissent and rely on the repressive machinery of state security forces to crush opposition movements. With legal, peaceful expressions of dissent foreclosed in this manner, opposition forces soon see no options but to engage in armed rebellion or terrorism.

There is another aspect of this situation that bears examination. Many of the emerging oil producers in the developing world were once colonies of and harbor deep hostility toward the former imperial powers of Europe. The United States is seen by many in these countries as the modern inheritor of this imperial tradition. Growing resentment over social and economic traumas induced by globalization is aimed at the United States. Because oil is viewed as the primary motive for American involvement in these areas, and because the giant U.S. oil corporations are seen as the very embodiment of American power, anything to do with oil -- pipelines, wells, refineries, loading platforms -- is seen by insurgents as a legitimate and attractive target for attack; hence the raids on pipelines in Iraq, on oil company offices in Saudi Arabia, and on oil tankers in Yemen.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1888/michael_klare_on_oil_wars_and_the_american_military
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC