Stop Funding America's Enemies

[kach22i]

from May 2006............

Stop Funding America's Enemies
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/2006_05.html

Imagine if, in the middle of World War II, the U.S. government and its people gave Hitler billions of dollars, to train troops and build new weapons. Sounds impossible, right? But that's more or less the situation we find ourselves in today, former CIA director Jim Woolsey recently told the Naval Postgraduate School.

The U.S. is in the opening stages of a "Long War" with Islamic extremists. And these adversaries -- whether they're found in madrassas in Riyadh or the government in Tehran -- are funded, in so small part, by oil revenue. Petrodollars go, more or less directly, to training radicals. Petrodollars get funneled to those who make and plant bombs.

"Except for our own Civil War," Woolsey notes, "this is the only war that we have fought where we are paying for both sides. We pay Saudi Arabia $160 billion for its oil, and $3 or $4 billion of that goes to the Wahhabis, who teach children to hate. We are paying for these terrorists with our SUVs."

And we are paying for them with our tanks, our Bradleys, and our fighter jets, observes Defense Technology International, which has a special issue out on "The Military and the End of Oil." In 2004, the U.S. military gobbled up 400,000 barrel of fuel a day, at cost of $6.7 billion. A year later, those costs had climbed to $8.8 billion. In 2006, the price tag is expect to total $10 billion.

"Meanwhile, advanced green technologies like hybrid drive vehicles [despite their limitations] offer both fuel economy and stealth benefits in combat, a significant plus in the urban warfare scenarios that appear to be such a big part of future wars," writes Joe Katzman, who's been all over this issue.

The truth is that the military can't live without fuel, but every gallon of it is both a logistics burden and a financial burden... Now add the fact that diversified "green infrastructure" lowers vulnerability to the kind of "system disruption" attacks one sees in Iraq, and the military/security benefits become compelling.

It sure does. Throughout the military today, there are lots and lots of individual R&D efforts underway to find alternatives to funding our enemies. But a collection of engineering projects is not enough. If we're serious about fighting this Long War, breaking the military's addiction to oil has to become a top priority.

For reference:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
#1 United States: 20,730,000 bbl/day

Doing some math, 400,000 divided by 20,730,000 x 100 = 1.9%

Even if the military used no oil our demand would not change because they use only about 2% of what we all use.

If the military is trying to get off oil, why hasn't anyone asked us to?

The president says we are addicted to oil, has he given us a plan in seven years to get off it anytime soon?

You may know that Bill Richardson just released a book called Leading by Example that outlines exactly how the United States and the world can realistically -- and quickly -- reduce our output of global warming pollution. He has a bold 10-year crash program to reduce our dependence on oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters have hailed his plan as the most aggressive of any presidential candidate.

Book link:
http://www.amazon.com/Leading-Example-Inspire-Security-Revolution/dp/0470186372/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195530096&sr=8-1

[Shaun @ Tru6]

bill clinton, blue dress.

[Zef]

Same old...Same old...It's part of American politics....

[BGCarrera32]

Well when ya chase the fallacy of solar powered cars and completely lock down any potential for drilling oil in the mainland or anwar, ya get what ya pay for.

[Superman]

Witch! They're all WITCHES!!!! (and terrorists)

[kach22i]

Some more news..........................

Air Force tests new synthetic fuel
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-21237300.htm

The U.S. military is trying to reduce its dependence on foreign oil by using synthetic fuel in some of its air craft. The Air Force has begun testing a 50-50 blend of fuel refined from natural gas and fuel refined from oil. Liquid fuel made from coal is expected to be available by 2012. Work also is being done to make a cleaner fuel that produces more energy per pound. If successful, synthetic fuels eventually could be utilized in commercial transportation.

[Nathans_Dad]

Petrodollars...nice buzz word.

I'm not really sure what the article wants though, to convert all military hardware to envirofuel (see I made up my own buzzword there) would take years and billions of dollars. Should we just stand down the tanks and APCs in the meantime? I guess then the Petrodollars wouldn't go to the terrorists...

[dtw]

Originally Posted by Superman

(and terrorists)

Please. It's spelt "Tursts" now.

[Racerbvd]

Quit going to Hollywood movies

[Joeaksa]

We could stop funding America's enemies a lot easier. Stop paying United Nations dues and force them to move to another country. The policies coming out of the UN are in many cases a direct affront to our country yet we continue to support it for some silly reason.

[kach22i]

Maybe Air Force One could run on the alternative fuel to set a good example.

[Racerbvd]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Maybe Air Force One could run on the alternative fuel to set a good example.

Or we could drill and use our own oil off the coast of FL and in Alaska
I say quit funding the UN too

[Nathans_Dad]

No no no, silly. There are birdies and squirrels and endangered chipmunks to think of. We would rather fund the terrorists than risk losing one more Squat Bellied Wood Hopper.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

[MRM]

Too late, Joe. America hasn't paid UN Dues for years, perhaps decades. I'd have to look up how late and how many billions of dollars we owe, but it's a lot.

Obviously America has paid both ends of the war numerous times before. In addition to the current war in Iraq, one obvious example would be Viet Nam. That is the nature of insurgent warafare. The insurgent lives like a parasite on its host. If the host didn't pay for the insurgency it would die because it doesn't have the resources to support itself.

All successful insurgencies have had the ability to bleed resources off the occupying power and have had a sanctuary where it could retreat to to regroup. Viet Nam had Cambodia, Thailand and Laos to greater or lesser extent. All successful counterinsurgent wars have been successful by denying the insurgents the money they need to resuply and the sanctuary to hide. The IRA is a good example. They could keep going indefinitely as long as they had money coming in from Boston and the Soviet Union running interference for them. By the mid 80s the US was blocking the support coming from this country and when the Soviet Union couldn't block for them anymore the pressure was too great for them to not go to peace talks.

The war against terrorism is no different. The terrorists make enough money off of us one way or another to survive, and use middle east countries as sancuaries. The local governments typicaly pretended they didn't exist (or were in league with them from the begining) until they were entrenched enough that the locals preferred to point the bad guys in our direction, hoping they wouldn't turn on the locals. That didn't work out so well forthe locals in Iraq; it won't in Saudi Arabia or Pakastan either.

This is nothing new. American forreign policy has probably caused and funded oposition to the US through misguided policy and local corruption more times than we can count. The fact that someone as highly placed as Woolsey doesn't understand that this is history repeating itself shows how incapable the American military-industrial-intelligence complex is to responding tothe threat.

America needs a comprehensive forreign policy strategy with a global vision. It can't keep looking at each third world hotspot as a new fire to be put out in isolation. We need an overarching strategy that addresses the causes of terrorism, the systemic support for them and despotic dictators in general, our contribution to creating and sustaining terrorist states and despotic dictators, all in the name of security for the US.

Our economic power is still second to none in the world, although a united Europe may overtake us soon. But for the forseable future we can use our forreign policy, the weight of our economy, and the principles of freedom and liberty to create a more free and more secure world. Or we can keep mudlign allong, hoping that the folks we do business with, both politically and economically, are really good fellows deep down inside and will repay our kindness with more kindness.

[MRM]

An example of terrorists using our own resources against us comes from the 911 attacks. The entire operation probably cost about $500,000 from begining to end. The hijackers in the US didn't get much financial support once they got here. They supported themselves mostly, and did it through things like credit card fraud and insurance fraud.

Not much we can do about that, but we can pressure the Saudis to stop allowing fighters to leave the country. We can pass laws that say to Google that they lose the right to do business in the US if they turn over information to communist governments that results in the arrest and torture of political protesters. We can start schools and think tanks and Voice of America radio and TV in places where Americans are unwelcome.

[kach22i]

MRM, I don't know what your political leanings are, but you have a good grasp on this topic and a fine way of expressing it.

[MRM]

Thank you, Katch. I'm a pretty conservative Republican in the Reagan mold, with a focus on fiscal discipline (we all know the deficits under Reagan were exclusively the fault of the 40 years of Democratic controlled Congress, right?). That used to be considered pretty right wing before W took over and changed what it means to be a conservative. Now some of the Republicans on this board seem to think I'm some kind of a liberal. Politics stops at the water's edge though. Good foreign policy is good foreign policy.

I am an internationalist. Some people think being isolationist is a mark of conservatism. Like Mr. Nixon, I do not. I think it makes no sense to pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. I think we should engage the world on our terms or it will certainly engage us on its. What we do or chose not to do has an effect on the rest of the world which will affect us. It is incumbent on the United States to consider what effect our actions have and use the influence we have to make the world a better place, which will make it a safer and more prosperous.

I think this moment in history is as pivotal as the time after WWII was. If the forces of Good and Freedom triumph, we could be on the verge of another Renaissance. Jews and Arabs, Asians and Westerners working and trading together peacefully. If we blow this chance the forces of darkness will decend on the land and it will be another 500 years before the world is able to throw off the yoke of oppression.

[Superman]

That's a Bald Eagle, not an American Eagle.

Withdrawing from the UN is an exciting idea.........that even Dubya is not stupid enough to pursue. You guys are interesting. Withdraw from the UN, and the UN renames itself as "The International Organization for Protecting Our Interests Against Those of the USA" and China, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Lebanon get to decide things without our presence. Great idea, guys. Plus, there would be another bonus impact: It would be another instance of the US saying "we don't need your stinking help. We can clobber anybody we want, so we don't need your cooperation." Great foreign policy coup. Brilliant, guys. Spend like there's no tomorrow. Borrow for everything. Then get involved in an expensive war on the other side of the planet, for which we borrow from China. Then reach out and poke the rest of the world in the eye.

[Rearden]

If W had the courage to abandon the UN and create an international organization with only free nations invited to participate -- wow, that would be a fantastic legacy. Sadly, there are too many idealists out there who still "feel" that the UN is a worthwhile venture.