WASHINGTON – Fearing that rising global oil demand and political turmoil in oil-rich regions could undermine U.S. national security, some retired military officers are urging America’s leaders to find alternative fuels to burn.
Former Army Col. Dan Nolan said America’s heavy reliance on the region’s petroleum-based fuels have made the country and its military vulnerable. He has seen many troops get injured or killed while transporting oil supplies in the Middle East, he said, speaking at a panel discussion hosted recently by the American Security Project.
As the world’s largest consumer of traditional fossil oil, the U.S. military burns about 325,000 barrels of such fuels per day to run its vehicles, aircrafts and fleet.
“When you only have one option, you have no options,” Nolan said. “That is a tactical failure.”
Former Air Force Lt. Gen. Norm Seip agreed and said energy flexibility is the key to America’s national security. “When I say flexibility, I mean choices — choices that allow us to have alternative fuels, choices that allow us to make our combat capabilities our edge,” Seip said.
And rising fuels costs mean “you are forgoing the improvement in infrastructure; that means postponements of the life improvement programs for our families,” Seip said. “It also means lost training opportunities, lost combat capability — so from an operational level, that’s also a big deal.”
The Defense Department has been seeking domestic alternative fuels — such as biofuels — for potential military use, but the effort has been a tough sell in Congress. The House Armed Services Committee approved an amendment to DoD’s 2013 budget that would prevent it from producing alternative fuels if the related costs exceed the costs of current fossil fuels.
However, military officers contended that with 12 percent to 15 percent of the defense budget devoted to U.S. military assets operating in the Persian Gulf, it is worth paying a “relatively small” amount for researching and developing alternative fuels at home.