Center for a New American Security

Yesterday I made the journey over to the Hill to check out an interesting hearing for the House Armed Services Committee Readiness Subcommittee over energy management and initiatives on military installations. The hearing, overseen by Chairman Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), heard the testimony of four Defense Department officials: Dr. Dorothy Robyn, Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; Mr. L. Jerry Hansen, Army Senior Energy Executive; Mr. Roger M. Natsuhara, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment; and Mrs. Debra K. Tune, Performing the Duties of Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics.

The opening testimonies from the four defense representatives can be accessed here: DOD; Army; Navy and Air Force. The hearing can be viewed here.

Rep. Ortiz started on two colossal renewable energy projects that the military services have undertaken, at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada and Fort Irwin, California. Despite his evident pride in renewable projects such as this, the initial concern of the hearing was how these and other energy initiatives have the potential to affect DOD operations and readiness negatively. Specifically, he cited the potential for wind farms and solar arrays to disrupt military training and radar, weakening both in-theater and homeland effectiveness.  Each witness named this as a potential concern in their respective testimonies, which prompted Ortiz to inquire as to any established basis of information or study to support these concerns. Dr. Robyn noted that, to her knowledge, no projects have gone forward that have created any such problems.  Natsuhara followed later with a reasonable statement what concerns them most is what is not known about the effects of most projects, but none of the panelists were able to offer any data supporting, or disproving, the concern for radar disruption.

At the risk of having this new feature labeled a complete cliché, I will save you the overly used George Santayana quote, and simply state that sometimes it is pertinent to look back, in order to better assess the present. Though “natural security” as a study, like your four-year-old niece, can still count its age on one hand, in practice it has been a timeless and vital key to the success of empires, war machines, revolutions and development—for those that understood its pivotal role. In this new blog feature, I’ll be sifting through the pages of the great war “how-tos”—from Sun Tzu's The Art of War to today’s feature, U.S. Army FM 3-24, a.k.a., “The Counterinsurgency Manual”— looking back to see what role natural security held in conflicts contemporary to the manual, and what its words of natural security wisdom hold in current engagements.

The COIN Manual was drafted at a time that the U.S. military had found itself in a war it had not entirely planned for, and whose outlook seemed to grow more grim every day. The United States had not exactly come with a knife to a gun fight, but in a sense had walked into a swarm of bees after gearing up to slay a dragon. The U.S. armed forces were prepared to fight a conventional war, but found that the game had changed since they last took a stroll through Baghdad’s front gate. It was time for a reassessment, the Army dug into working on it, and thus in 2006, U.S. Army FM 3-24 was born.

The manual gave a new hope for success in Iraq, as it won hearts and minds within DOD with its heightened focus on the Iraqi people and the cancerous roots of insurgency. Though penned years before the launch of natural security here at CNAS, the manual included important natural security-relevant mentions:

• “In Iraq, for example, an issue that motivated fighters in some Baghdad neighborhoods in 2004 was lack of adequate sewer, water, electricity, and trash services.”
• “The stability a nation enjoys is often related to its people’s economic situation and its adherence to the rule of law. . . In a rural society, land ownership and the availability of agricultural equipment, seed, and fertilizer may be the chief parts of any economic development plan.” 
• “. . .failed and failing states with rich natural resources like oil or poppies (which provide the basis for heroin) are particularly lucrative areas for criminal activity.”

Currently, the Obama administration’s 2010 3D Afghanistan strategy boasts a COIN approach which prominently features coordinated agricultural efforts between the military and USAID, water and energy projects, and additional natural security-esque initiatives supported by the COIN Manual's guidance. Having risen from the ashes of earlier failures only to help guide the current U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, the COIN Manual was as much a product of its environment, as it has now made the environment a product of itself.

Yesterday was full of fun with the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the FY2011 budget. Here are the natural security-related exchanges from the transcript, beginning with Secretary Gates confirming that DOD is indeed working on alternative energy:

Senator Begich (D-Alaska): I'm trying to rapid-fire these, knowing my time is limited. Do you still -- in your DOD presentation of the budget, do you still have a very robust -- another issue separate -- alternative renewable energy program?  I know that's been a big plus, to be very frank with you, with the military. You have been leaders in this area.  Are you still fairly in your mind aggressive in this arena?  

Sec. Gates:  Yes.  

*            *            *
In this line of inquiry, Senator Jeff Sessions seems quite concerned with fuel costs. Rather than drilling Admiral Mullen on this point, he could refer to page 87 of the QDR, which states that “DoD must integrate geostrategic and operational energy considerations into force planning, requirements development, and axquisition processes. To address these challenges, DoD will fully implement the statutory requirement for the energy efficiency Key Performance Parameter and fully burdened cost of fuel…”

Senator Sessions (R-Alabama):  With regard to our procurement of major weapons systems, I know that the Department of Defense, Admiral Mullen, has focused on life- cycle cost. And I guess you would agree that things such as fuel and maintenance are important factors to evaluate if you're going to evaluate the cost of a weapons systems over a period of years.

Adm. Mullen:  Yes, sir.  

Senator Sessions:  I know we did that on the tanker aircraft, and in fact, fuel and that sort of things are counted as evaluating that aircraft. Are you -- should that be applied to a procurement program like the Littoral Combat Ship, that the cost of fuel over its lifespan, should that be accounted for?

Adm. Mullen:  I've long been concerned about lifecycle costs; I think, Senator Sessions, you know that, long before now.  And the secretary pointed out, and I think very importantly, in his opening statement, that the programs that he cut last year actually had some lifecycle value, focused on about $330 billion.  As far as what's in an RFP and what it's going to be focused on, that's something that I really can't comment on if that RFP is --

Senator Sessions:  Well, I don't know, we've got our RFP in the Littoral Combat Ship that I'm told does not have factor for fuel costs.

Adm. Mullen:  But you know more about it than I do.  I haven't seen it.

Senator Sessions:  Well, if that's so, would you be willing to look at it and ask questions, if that's a wise decision?

Adm. Mullen:  Again, I've -- as I've said, I've been -- long time I've been concerned about lifecycle costs.  Actually, one of the, I think, weaknesses of the acquisitions system is typically the line is not involved in it.  The uniform side is not involved in it.  So I'm not involved from that -- from that point of view --

Christine Parthemore and Will Rogers released their working paper, Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the Quadrennial Defense Review, this morning. The working paper provides observations on how the Department of Defense incorporated climate change into the 2010 QDR and some possible outcomes of that process. "When the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) is sent to Congress on February 1st, it will offer an unusual opportunity to shift how the national security community views climate change," write Parthemore and Rogers.

To learn more about the "Promoting the Dialogue" project, click here.

Last month marked the 65^th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge’s beginning. This battle proved to be a defining event of the western front of World War II, and about 19,000 U.S. soldiers were killed in action (the British lost about 1,400 and the Germans had about 100,000 killed, wounded, or missing). Since much of the battle focused on threats to Allied supply lines, including operational fuel, I decided to commemorate the battle by reviewing an old article about the key Allied position in the Belgian town of Bastogne.

Collie Small wrote “Bastogne: American Epic” in the February 17, 1945 edition of the Saturday Evening Post, when memories of the battle were still achingly fresh. The battle took place in the Ardennes forest of Belgium, where Germany launched its final major offensive against the Allied front. German armor pressed hard against the thinly-held Allied line in Belgium, creating a bulge in the line that gave the battle its name. Eventually the Allies recovered their ground, but at the beginning the outcome was far from assured. Some of the fiercest fighting took place in and around Bastogne, where the 10th Armored Division and the 101st Airborne engaged with German armor divisions. (The actions of one 101st company are detailed in Band of Brothers; for a visceral experience, be sure to rent the miniseries on DVD).

• The DOD Energy Blog reports on solar-power projects being implemented at various U.S. military installations.
• Foreign Policy writes that the number one most overlooked story of 2009 is the Northeast Passage of the Arctic opening for commerce (not that it was overlooked by us!). 
• Scientific American features a story about the best ways to adapt to the dangers of a warming climate.
• Stars and Stripes (along with MSNBC) reports on the tanker heading to the United States that was recently hijacked by Somali pirates—with $20 million of oil inside.
• The world's largest oil companies may finally be closing real contracts in Iraq almost seven years after the American-led invasion there, according to The New York Times.

• The U.S. Army is researching casualties associated with fuel convoys in our current warzones, according to the DOD Energy Blog. (Full report here.)
• Wired reports on the U.S. Navy's Arctic Roadmap, which was researched and presented by the Navy's Task Force Climate Change to deal with maritime security concerns in a melting Arctic.
• Green Inc. features a debate about whether President Obama's presence at Copenhagen will make a workable climate deal more likely or not.
• The New York Times reports that long-term changes in ocean chemistry are making them less efficient at absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, Scientific American asks a hard question: is it even possible to reliably calculate carbon dioxide emissions and its presence in the atmosphere?
• Russia has been known to coerce Ukraine by cutting off its natural gas supplies, and now Ukraine is returning the gesture by doubling the fees they charge Russia to transport gas through their territory to other European countries.

• Defense News reports on the HEMTT-A3’s potential to be used as a hybrid tactical vehicle by the Army, which could cut fuel consumption by at least 20 percent.
• Navy News reports that its support facility at Diego Garcia is implementing a new recycling program that would reduce the use of fuel-burning incinerators and could generate fuel savings and recycling revenue upwards of $20,000 a year.
• Brazil criticizes the United States’ s sugar-ethanol tariffs saying that they are unfairly being shut out of the American renewable energy market, the Los Angeles Times reports.
• The Washington Post reports on the Army Corps efforts to prevent New Orleans from flooding in the next big storm.
• Nepal is planning to hold a cabinet meting on Mt. Everest to highlight the importance of melting glaciers to the country, AFP reports. This announcement comes on the heels of a study of the rapidly retreating ice caps on Mt. Kilimanjaro, the New York Times reports.

• According to The Washington Post, the North Korean army has established "a new business model" by taking control of state trading companies to boost "sales of coal, iron ore, and other minerals to China."
• The DOD Energy Blog highlights two new solar power projects, one by the Air Force and one by the Army.
• According to the BBC, the DeserTech project is moving forward. This series of solar panels and transmission stations in the Sahara desert is intended to deliver electricity to investor nations in Europe.
• The Senate climate change bill is facing significant resistance according to The Washington Post, and it may end up including provisions about nuclear power and offshore oil drilling to satisfy opponents.
• The Christian Science Monitor profiles Kanayo Nwanze, the head of the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development, who stated that “People now have a clear sense of the linkages between food security and national security.”

Yesterday the Woodrow Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program hosted the Army Environmental Policy Institute’s 31st sustainability lecture on the Department of Defense’s (DoD) strategic energy opportunities and challenges. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Tad Davis introduced keynote speaker Dr. Amory Lovins who sits on the Defense Science Board’s Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy and helped advise the 2008 DSB report, More Fight – Less Fuel.

According to Lovins, DoD’s long energy logistics tail is putting the Department’s core mission at risk and it is paying for it in “blood, treasure, and lost combat effectiveness.” Fuel and fuel logistics are what has become largely understood as the “soft underbelly” of the Department of Defense. As Lovins pointed out, 1/2 of DoD personnel and 1/3 of its budget are dedicated to logistics. When the Defense Science Board was conducting its study several years ago it concluded that 1/2 of in-theater causalities were associated with convoys as well (though Lovins noted that this number does not reflect today’s total).  Lovins also pointed out that of the military’s top 10 most fuel-intensive platforms, 8 are noncombat systems. “It’s an odd way to fight a war when the water heater uses more fuel than a helicopter,” Lovins said.