Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Pentagon vs. Peak Oil

By Michael T. Klare, Tomdispatch.com. Posted June 15, 2007.


How wars of the future may be fought just to run the machines that fight them.
Advertisement

Sixteen gallons of oil. That'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's greater than the total annual oil usage of Bangladesh, population 150 million -- and yet it's a gross underestimate of the Pentagon'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 "in theater," 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 "expeditionary" 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'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's total petroleum consumption. Possessing the world'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's leading consumer of petroleum. It can be difficult to obtain precise details on the DoD'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 "Guns v. Butter," but "Guns v. Oil"

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'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'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'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'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.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: oil, military, consumption

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's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Price is not a problem for the Pentagon
Posted by: Rune on Jun 15, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even at $80 per barrel, the total tab for a year's worth of oil at the daily rate quoted brings the Pentagon's annual fuel bill to less than $10 billion. That's less money than the Pentagon "loses" in just one of many, many line items of its more than $500 billion dollar budget. In fact, you may recall that on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon was unable to account for (ahem!) $2.3 trillion. Come on, a few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion there, pretty soon you've got something to worry about. But $10 billion? Hey, they drop that kind of money in Iraq in a given month and "lose" it on purpose!

Now, for the domestic economy and your average consumer, sure, this could be a problem, especially as real wages decline and critical expenses, such as health care, increase. People could be put in a world a hurt when they run out of credit card buffer to make up their already unbalanced budgets. And many businesses could face ruin if transportation cost spike in a hurry and stay pegged, which could make some profitable imports and basic items like refrigerated foods no longer profitable to deliver to the stores.

But the Pentagon? Don't worry about the price, they are busy eating up several trillion dollars worth of what was supposed to be a "peace dividend" just as fast as they can choke the cash down. And THAT is a story worth writing about, but I am not sure why Klare, who has some very good insights into Peak Oil issues, pulled this silly angle. The only real problem for the Pentagon is if supply lines are broken and they cannot get the fuel to where they want to burn it. Maybe that is a potential problem, but this story didn't shed light on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Price vs. Supply
Posted by: Monitor523 on Jun 15, 2007 3:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A lot of analysis of "Peak Oil" involves considering the effect of rising prices, so you get the observation that the Pentagon can deal with higher prices of oil without much trouble due to its huge budget. The analysis of pricing of oil is fine enough, but there are other factors that don't show up when you extrapolate to the whole world's oil supply from the history of individual oil fields within a market which is, overall, stable. One is the effect on the overall economy of a decline in total supply of one of its limiting resources. Another is volatility of supply - as the insurgency in Nigeria, and the disruptions of oil supplies by a few strategic attacks on pipelines in Iraq (not to mention the disruptions caused by the Katrina damage to refineries) shows. Especially if the price of oil goes up, it will tend to provoke more conflict, and the supply will become less reliable. Volatility of supply is much more of a problem than high price - at least for big-budget consumers like the Pentagon, though of course it affects everyone. The issue is not that a gallon of gas might cost $15 at some unspecified point in the future - the issue is that you might not be able to get one at all, at random, unpredictable times. This happened in 2005 post-Katrina, when Rita was threatening Texas and there were mass-evacuations. I know some people who were stuck in West Texas because it was literally impossible to get gasoline at any price for more than a week. The Peak Oil scenario suggests that this would gradually become a normal feature of daily life: some political hassle in a country halfway around the world, and gas can't be had for love or money...

The "it's all about oil" theory of Iraq has to depend on this factor - that what matters is long-range reliability of access (and therefore establishing a friendly government in major producer countries). Of course it wasn't about running in, grabbing the total oil supply, and splitting.

Analyzing this in terms of "the Pentagon" is a bit narrow: the Pentagon is an arm of the American (and indeed global) political economy as a whole. That's where the demand for stable supplies comes from. The idea that the Pentagon will have to restructure its energy systems is only a special case of the same claim about the world economy generally. It falls under the rubric of increasing elasticity of demand.

On the whole, Klare presents these ideas pretty well, I think, though a short article like this necessarily has to be narrow-focused.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Price of Oil
Posted by: jmndodge on Jun 15, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We went to war for oil. Easily dismissed when we say it didn't work. look how the price has gone up. But working to keep oil in the ground, driving price up beyone the means of many of the worlds populations, (our own poor included) thereby perserving an advantage for the multinational elite -- now there is a successful adventure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Old poem
Posted by: Casey Burns on Jun 15, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This reminds me of a poem written as letter to the editor of Rain Magazine in the 70's, after they published an article on how the military was trying to use "Appropriate Technologies" which included alternative energy at the time (usually solar cells). It went something like this:

Appropriate Technology for National Defence?
Launch your Nukes on a Sunny Day.
War, as if People Mattered.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just reward.
Posted by: HughScott on Jun 15, 2007 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For a nation unwilling to make shared sacrifices during wartime, except for the U.S. military and their families, the fate that will soon befall selfish civilian Americans after peak oil occurs will be their just reward.

Even the thought of driving at slower speeds to conserve gasoline is too painful for the spoiled citizenry to bear. Poor babies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Practical reality vs. public image problems
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jun 15, 2007 9:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The military is quite fascinating for this reason. On the one hand, the reality of getting things done in the military has led, for example, to the military being one of the first places where repressed minorities could find routes to personal advancement - black soldiers and white soldiers who fight together are often among the least racist people you'll ever encounter, for example, even if society at large is still fairly racist.

In the case of fuel supplies, this is also true. There has been massive amount of propaganda put out by fossil fuel interests that claims that renewable energy just doesn't work. See Internal Combustion by Edwin Black for the details. However, the military knows that this is false, but they are under political pressure from the likes of BushCo. to keep this fact under wraps.

They know they need energy, however. Guess who is the largest user of solar energy in the United States? Here are a few hints:

Akeena Completes $2.2 M Military Solar Power Installation in California
Akeena Solar has completed a $2.2million solar power installation of 566 solar panels at the Air National Guard Armory in Fresno, California, that will generate 300 kilowatts (kW) of electricity

US Navy deploys Largest Federal Solar Electric System in the Nation at San Diego
750 kW Photovoltaic System Installed at Naval Base Coronado, California

Solar to Keep Army on the Go, Wired News
Jean Hampel, project engineer in the Fabric Structures Group at the Army's Natick Soldier Systems Center, said the need to reduce the Army's logistics footprint spurred interest in developing lightweight solar panels.

This topic reveals the clash between the reality - which is that solar is capable of supplying most energy needs, especially when supplemented by wind energy - and the desire of entrenched fossil fuel interests to keep renewable energy under wraps.

It's also true, however, that political pressure is being put on the military to profess public support for coal-to-liquid fuel production - the dirtiest and most carbon dioxide-producing method of fuel production that one can imagine.

Incidentally, for all the bluster put out by environmental groups about the dangers of biofuels, only a tiny amount of attention is paid to the far more polluting coal-to-liquid strategies. Rather than targeting the current methods of biofuel production and supporting clean, sustainable biofuel production, these groups are attacking the very concept of biofuels, while largely ignoring the coal, petroleum and natural gas issues. This looks like fossil-fuel funded astroturf to me.

However, at the end of the day the US needs to abandon the concept of a foreign military empire - which will reduce the power of the Pentagon and also reduce the need for huge amounts of fuel. How do do this?

"To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes."
- from War is a Racket, USMC Major General Smedley Butler

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Peak Oil - Bring It On!!
Posted by: snedunuri on Jun 15, 2007 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time gas prices go up I rejoice. I am really sorry that it hurts some of the working poor, but honestly the thought of all those f***ing SUVs being taken off the road is just too pleasant to miss. I read somewhere that $4/gallon (for Texas, not California) is the magical tipping point. Right now we're at just around $3. At $4/gallon people will hopefully start pinging their congress idiots asking about better train services, and demanding light rail and commuter rail. Congress idiots are right now still at this 11th trying to stall real fuel efficiency standards, thinking its some kind of boys game. I can't wait to see thuse shitheads squirm when oil hits $4

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Peak Oil - Bring It On!! Posted by: snedunuri
» RE: Peak Oil - Bring It On!! Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive
Finally, an answer!
Posted by: willymack on Jun 15, 2007 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been scratching my head and wracking my brain, trying to find an answer to WHY tbe bush regime started an unnecessary war and is spoiling for another. It's all clear, now; the fog has lifted. This regime isn't a bunch of incompetent nincompoops at all, they're bloody geniuses! Just through the sheer volume of oil consumption, a point will be reached when there won't be any fuel to continue the wars, and they'll all grind to a halt. This is actually a PEACE plan. Brilliant!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

time to call these monsters what they really are
Posted by: Don Garb on Jun 15, 2007 5:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US military is not only the world's largest gas guzzler, they are also the largest polluter, the biggest economy, the largest criminal organization, the biggest bunch of liars, thieves, drug dealers, murderers, and the stupidest bunch of psychopaths the world has ever known.

Did you hear about how the US military lied to Hawaii about not shooting any depleted uranium rounds into the Hawaiin test range, when they had actually gone and shot hundreds of rounds into Hawaiin soil? Now think about that. Hawaii is a natural jewel of the world, and these assholes shot the world's deadliest poison into this paradise, where it will poison living things there for the next 4 billion years. And then they went and lied about doing it. After they promised they wouldn't use DU rounds there at all.

There is no rational reason whatever, for poisoning Hawaii until the end of time. The American military is just plain insane. No amount of corruption, incompetence or stupidity can explain these things that they do. They are just totally insane. They are paranoid, psychopathic, pathological liars. The greatest evil the world has ever known.

Now I can tell you what you Americans need to do to stop these assholes from destroying our planet and everything that lives on it. But Alternet won't let me tell you what that is. The cure is the thing that cannot be spoken. You'll all have to figure it out for yourselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The cure is the thing that cannot be spoken? Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive