Paper: Thirst for Oil, Feet of Clay

External threats, oddly enough, have several attractive characteristics for nation-states. In particular, external threats allow nation-states to mobilize easily at the sub-state level. During the Cold War, the United States faced an existential crisis from the threat posed by the Soviet Union. In the twenty years since the close of the Cold War, however, the United States has yet to face an existential external threat, rather, it faces a larger amount of insidious sub-state-level problems, one of which is the problem of energy consumption.

Theoretically, there is nothing wrong with the high level of energy consumption enjoyed by the citizens of the United States. If humanity possessed workable nuclear fusion reactors or some other MacGuffinish limitless clean energy source, then the need to conserve energy would vanish. However, with currently implemented technology, the world’s energy supply has hard limits. Complicating matters, the level of energy consumption serves as a rough indicator of the standard of living of a country, and if we go by the level of energy consumption, then the citizens of the United States are very prosperous indeed. Of course, the correlation between high energy consumption and high standard of living is by no means direct: the law of decreasing returns holds true for energy consumption just as it does for most other economic processes. To give a simple example, if one were to base standard of living strictly on the amount of energy used, then a worker who drives 30 minutes per day to work would be considered more prosperous than a worker who rides a bicycle 30 minutes per day to work; however, other factors beyond simple energy consumption affect the overall calculation of the well-being of the two commuters. Moreover, ancillary problems produced by high levels of energy consumption in the United States cause negative repercussions through the international system. Thus the United States must face the problems of how to eliminate or deal with these negative effects.

The main problems stemming from the US’ energy consumption can be divided into problems of energy sources and those of energy use. The problem of energy sources is a complex one, which can be be thought of using the different levels of analysis of the international system. At the systemic level, the current reliance of the world upon oil produced by various petro-states promotes an international system which causes strife in the Middle East, causes competition between states for hydrocarbon resources, and requires a world policeman. Furthermore, if greenhouse gases are produced without containment, the effects of climate change are extremely adverse. At the state level, the United States’ high level of energy consumption links it in alliances to rentier states, compromises the US’ efforts to promote civil rights and democracy around the world, and places the US economy in danger from price shocks. The issue of consumption of energy links also to health problems in the United States, particularly in the areas of food security as well as obesity, which are both public health hazards that the United States confronts now and will continue to confront in the future.

Currently, much of the energy used by the United States comes from fossil fuel sources, reliance on which produces many consequences for the United States’ role in the international system and on its relationship with other nations. In particular, one cannot discuss international energy issues without touching on the issues of oil, the premier strategic commodity in the world today. The United States depends on oil to run its infrastructure and its armed forces. The critical nature of oil for all aspects of life in the United States and other developed nations means that areas containing oil have a huge strategic importance. The crucial nature of oil has therefore caused the United States to set aside principles of democracy and human rights promotion when it becomes necessary to deal with repressive states to acquire oil. In fact, the United States’ strategic requirement for oil means that it will never be free to follow a true Wilsonian international policy of democracy and civil rights promotion internationally. Instead, the United States has allied itself with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, carries out drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and entangles itself in oil geopolitics throughout the Middle East, Latin America, and the former Soviet Union. Additionally, the fact that oil must be shipped around the world means that the United States must maintain a network of bases around the world to house ships, planes, and troops responsible for the safety of oil shipments and oil production. Moreover, another factor supporting the United States’ efforts around the world is a network of extraordinary renditioning of individuals who are deemed hostile to the United States, a system which has questionable legality and violates the ideals of liberty and freedom that the founders of the United States held. While a significant portion of United States citizens would most likely wish to end extraordinary renditioning if made aware of it, the fact if its invisibility during normal daily life means that individuals generally do not feel the necessity for its elimination. In fact, sub-state-level factors such as energy consumption and energy demand are at the root of much of the United States’ forward military presence around the world.

A second issue brought on by the United States’ high level of energy use is the emission of anthropogenic climate change gases. Currently, the world’s atmosphere contains over 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can lead to warming of the global climate, which leads to many dangers to the people of the United States, including higher levels of intense weather, desertification, Klassifikation of oceans, and rising ocean levels. All of these environmental problems have strong potential to create difficulties for food production, as well as having the ability to disrupt life when natural disasters occur.
A final issue that pertains to the United States’ high level of energy use is the health risks which are caused by a sedentary lifestyle which automobile use and low food prices which cheap energy entails. A sedentary lifestyle often leads to obesity, which in turn leads to both health risks and health care costs.

Naturally, there are possibilities for other mitigating behaviors which would eliminate all or some of the adverse effects caused by the US’ high levels of energy consumption. For example, the United States can use its armies to safeguard energy, and research better technologies so that our forces abroad will not be harmed by hostile actors. The United States can also research systems that will allow carbon dioxide to be buried in the ground, thereby lowering the amount of greenhouse gases in the air. Finally, the government can implement subsidies for individuals who receive good health checks at the doctors’ office, thereby countering the effects of sedentary life on public health in the United States. However, a disconnect separates these ideas from practical implementation. Hence, while the United States may wish, on the one hand, to find methods to mitigate the effects brought on by its high overconsumption of energy, it may also wish to find ways to address the root cause of that high energy use, which is fundamentally an issue of price: current energy prices in the United States and in the rest of the world do not fully reflect the externality cost of the emissions that they produce. Until the present, the United States has used international action to preserve this system; however, it may be more efficient in terms of lives saved and economics to examine the alternative of lowering energy use.

The United States has three main mechanisms that it can use to lower energy use: more efficiency and higher prices. We can think of energy-use efficiency measures in several different ways. First of all, the United States has energy standards, which can be raised system-wide for various energy-using systems in order to decrease energy use. Chief among these standards are CAFE standards, which regulate various firms’ automobile fleet fuel efficiency. Secondly, systems configuration can be adjusted in order to decrease energy use, either through adjustment of zoning or through improving public transportation. Examples of reconfiguration include automobile commuter lanes and mixed-use zoning. Overall, efficiency has the potential to drop energy use by a significant amount. Alternately, the United States can mobilize markets to decrease national energy use, either by placing a tax on goods or on oil. In essence, such financial incentives enlist the help of the market to decrease energy use. However, such measures also can have strong inflationary consequences,which were demonstrated during the oil crises of the 1970s. Due to the inflationary effects of higher energy prices, governments often avoid increasing such prices if the governments lack a framework for translating higher energy prices into economic growth. One method to prevent such shocks that is often discussed is a global market for carbon, which would create a worldwide price for emissions, thereby capping energy carbon emissions at a certain level. Such a mechanism would allow for a more gradual rise in prices, thereby averting inflationary shocks to the United States’ economy.

One other question worth asking is the question of how the current need to decrease energy consumption relates to the implementation of high modernistic ideas. Generally, high modernist thought takes technological progress as a panacea. However, the magic bullet for the world’s energy problems has proved elusive. The threats caused by such problems, on the other hand, are concrete physical reality, so the United States should use methods that are currently available to overcome energy threats. A brief list of such methods includes better efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles, higher coal and oil prices, substitution of carbon-neutral energy sources for oil and coal, and a readjustment of infrastructure to phase out reliance on coal and oil in all phases of life as well as the gradual replacement of the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine with cleaner technology.

Much of the burden for the implementation of measures to decrease energy consumption in the United States lies on the government. The task which the government faces is how to convince voters that less energy consumption actually represents a better deal for the United States as a whole. Currently, the United States Senate is debating an energy bill that would take a decisive first step towards dealing with the problem. If and when the bill passes, it would begin to chip away at the problem of the United States’ high domestic energy consumption, and the United States would thereby gain greater flexibility in promotion of democracy and freedom around the world.

School Paper: Asymmetrical Warfare, Economics, and Old Tactics Revisited

Writing around the year 500 BCE, the Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu said:
“In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots, as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on
chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men. ”

Even at the time of Sun Tzu’s writing, during China’s Spring and Autumn period , economic concerns greatly influenced warfare. Furthermore, the idea of optimizing use of forces in the face of a stronger enemy existed even then:
“If [an enemy] is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If
he is in superior strength, evade him… Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected…if the campaign is protracted, the resources of
the State will not be equal to the strain. ”

Sun Tzu’s final statement regarding the resources of the state resonates quite strongly with recent American travails in both Vietnam and Iraq. Although the United States Army is often considered to be the best equipped and most modern army in the world, it has encountered problems in many recent engagements. A key example are the current operations in Iraq, where At least 4,226 American servicemen have died in Iraq as of Monday, 12 January 2009 according to a recent Associated Press report , of which a substantial majority actually died in post- combat operations. The United States armed forces’ experience in Iraq prompts a very pertinent question: “How is it that the United States is neither able to completely prevent fatalities nor to completely destroy insurgent resistance in Iraq?”
The conflict between the highly-armed coalition forces and the insurgency presents us with a classic case of asymmetrical warfare.
During most of the post-WWII decades of the 20th century, the United States focused military preparations mainly on its cold war nemesis, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a superpower, like the United States, and hence represented a symmetric threat. Although both sides of the conflict may or may not have chosen to employ similar tactics or technologies in the event of a hot conflict, they were similar in the amount of resources available to them and the sizes of their land masses. On the other hand, the United States differs greatly from Iraq in the amount of financial, technological, and military resources it possesses, in the size of its army, and in its level of access to satellite maps and information. In all conventional areas, the United States outclasses local forces in Iraq. The conflict between US forces and local insurgents is therefore, asymmetrical.
Asymmetrical warfare requires an extension of maneuver warfare to its logical conclusion: the weaker side must fight with minimum use of materiel and manpower, and only striking at an enemy’s weak points. Any waste of resources on the part of the weaker actor cannot be tolerated---in fact, attrition warfare is anathema to the weaker party in an asymmetrical conflict. Rather, the weaker party in an asymmetrical conflict uses advantages in terrain, information gathering, organizational structure and stealth as force multipliers. Distribution of such advantages may vary depending on whether the weaker actor attacks or defends; however, under the right set of circumstances, weaker actors are still able to survive when fighting against a stronger enemy, even one so large and powerful as the United States. According to a 1996 article, “leadership for the foreseeable future will proceed less from the military capacity to crush
any opponent and more from the ability quickly to reduce the ambiguity of violent situations, to respond flexibly, and to use force, where necessary, with precision and accuracy.” Although new weaponry technology has allowed for more precise use of force, for example by use of cruise missiles or targeted air strikes, such technology has not advanced to the point that it is able to completely locate and overcome troops mixing into a conquered civilian population. Thus, the choice becomes whether to annihilate a region’s populace indiscriminately and thereby risk loss of moral authority and other soft power, or to attempt surgical strikes. Before the advent of mass media, the first choice functioned adequately to prevent insurgencies, but presently, the second method has become more prevalent.
Unfortunately, advances in weapons and information technology have not always been able properly differentiate targets in order to prevent waste of materials and civilian casualties, nor can they overcome widespread support for insurgencies that arises from outside forces’ occasional use of heavy-handed tactics and lack of knowledge or respect regarding local languages and customs. Each day an insurgency survives, an invading large state wastes excessive amounts of resources to maintain its soldiers on the alert, whereas the insurgency forces often spend relatively little---the needs of varying actors varies greatly. In the case of symmetrical warfare, similarity of needs comprises a key factor in both the tactics employed and the goals held by actors. In the case of asymmetrical warfare, the weaker can utilize its low needs and simple defensive goals to great advantage. Examples abound: insurgent forces use devices such as shoulder-mounted RPGs and IEDs, as well as tactics such as abduction and bombings, to level force disparities with significant rates of efficacy. The new development of warfare is sometimes called 4th generational war- whereas the United States still operates a centrally-controlled 2nd generation army which focuses mainly on close fire coordination and material advantages. Oddly enough, although 4th generation forces use contemporary weapons systems, combination of these contemporary weapons systems with tactics such as those described by Sun Tzu over 2000 years ago has tilted the balance of asymmetrical warfare towards the smaller actor.