South+Lyon+-+DoD

Plan: The Department of Defense should provide incentives in the United States for energy conservation by providing rewards for energy efficiency to individual units.

Advantages: - Military Effectiveness - Afghanistan

We begin with observation 1 – Inherency

1. PRESENT POLICIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR THE REAL COSTS OF ENERGY IN OPERATIONS PREVENTING INCENTIVES FOR REDUCING ENERGY CONSUMPTION

The DSB (Defense Science Board) Task Force  2001 MORE CAPABLE WARFIGHTING THROUGH REDUCED FUEL BURDEN http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/fuel.pdf

__ The DoD currently prices fuel based on the wholesale refinery price and does not include the cost of delivery to its customers. This prevents an end-to-end view of fuel utilization in decision making, does not reflect the DoD’s true fuel costs, masks energy efficiency benefits, and distorts platform design choices __. The Defense Energy Supply Center (DESC) acts as the market consolidator and wholesale agent for the DoD. For simplicity in dealing with its service customers, OSD establishes a "standard fuel price" annually. The standard price does not reflect the cost to the Services of delivering the fuel from the DESC supply point to the ultimate consumer, such as a tank, ship or aircraft. The cost of delivery is absorbed by each military service budget and is spread across many accounts, making the actual cost of delivering fuel uncomputed, unknown and not factored into important investment decisions. The difference between the price and true cost reflects what the Services must pay to deliver the fuel. In FY99, the standard DESC fuel mix price (average price of the fuels sold) was $0.87 per gallon, in FY00 it was $0.62, in FY01 it is $1.01, and in FY 02 it will be $1.337. But the true cost of these fuels is much higher - $17.50 per gallon for USAF worldwide tanker-delivered fuel, and hundreds of dollars per gallon for Army forces deep into the battlespace. These costs are not used in economic analyses that form the basis for efficiency investment decisions, which result in sub-optimal allocation of resources. A consequence of using the DESC price is that __ the logistical cost of delivering fuel to platforms is considered free, even though logistics accounts for about a third of DoD’s budget and half of its personnel, and most of the tonnage delivered by the logistics effort is fuel. The Services maintain huge infrastructures to ensure fuel delivery. Large and small surface trucking organizations, naval fleet tankers and aerial refueling aircraft, along with substantial maintenance and logistics organizations contribute to significant overhead costs. Increases in fuel efficiency would correspondingly shrink this overhead burden, enabling savings through reductions in logistics requirements far in excess of the investment. Were the true costs of fuel delivery and supporting infrastructure __ (including equipment, people, facilities and other overhead costs) __ known, understood and factored into the cost of fuel, there would be proper visibility to focus the requirements and acquisition processes on the true benefits of improving platform efficiency. This would create incentives to introduce fuel efficiency into those processes, thereby cutting battlefield fuel demand and reducing the fuel logistics structure needed to deploy and employ weapons systems. Until policy guidance requires emphasis on weapons system fuel efficiency and the true cost of provisioning fuel to end users is gathered and understood, there is no incentive for leaders, managers or operators to depart from current practices __. 2. The key to this inefficiency is in how people USE energy. Presently there is lack of incentives to encourage efficiency. There are a host of procedures that could be implemented immediately to increase efficiency.

DSB (previously cited) Feb 2008 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy “More Fight – Less Fuel” http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf How systems are operated also significantly affects fuel consumption. Despite a few programs to induce careful operator use of energy, the Task Force found that commanders generally are not incentivized to reduce fuel consumption. More programs are needed like the Navy’s Incentivized Energy Conservation program (i-ENCON) that allows ship commanders to keep a portion of the money saved through operational efficiency measures and use it for morale, welfare and recreation or investments in further efficiency measures; or the Air Force Model Base Energy Initiative which includes operational practices in its effort to minimize installation energy footprint. Many further improvements in operational procedures among all the Services and Defense Agencies appear possible. Some examples of steps that could be taken follow: Aircraft • Reduce unnecessary equipment aboard aircraft to reduce weight and accurately manage cargo center of gravity. • Avoid tank “top off” when not needed. • Use single engine taxiing. • Avoid use of afterburners as much as possible. • Plan and execute efficient flight routing. • Make more extensive use of simulators. • Refuel in-flight only when absolutely necessary. • Move fuel by air as little as possible. • Plan missions to minimize any need to “dump” fuel. Ships • Slow steam ships on only one engine running at peak efficiency instead of multiple engines at lower efficiency. Ground Forces • Reduce battery re-supply in the field through use of lightweight portable photovoltaic systems. • Reduce air conditioning losses at hot weather FOBs through tent insulation. Logistics and Planning • Make maximum use of ocean shipping to avoid the need for air shipping. • Plan air logistics transport to maximize load factors. Aircraft and Ground Vehicles • Use Auxiliary Power Units (APUs), or batteries when power is needed for stationary vehicles instead of running main propulsion engines. Facilities and Shipboard Hotel Loads • Use only Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) designated efficient products where available. • Maintain heating and cooling systems in top performance through continuous commissioning. • Manage thermostat settings. • Use compact fluorescent light bulbs or solid state / light-emitting diode (LED) lighting. • Use occupancy sensors to turn lights on and off. • Eliminate requirement for computer systems to be on 24/7 through better scheduling of software updates and other maintenance activities. Procurement Policy • Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Government Services Administration (GSA) to offer only Energy Star or FEMP designated products as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 104. • Prohibit government credit cards from being used to purchase non-Energy Star or FEMP designated products. The Task Force found that the key barrier to implementing actions such as these is people taking the availability of energy for granted. Overcoming this will require a campaign linking saved energy to national security and strong leadership attention focused on strategy, metrics and accountability. It will require inculcating energy considerations into business processes, fitness and performance reports, education and training programs and incentive programs. The challenge is now greater than it was in the 70s and 80s and the consequences of failure even greater. Creating both incentives and awareness at all levels will focus people’s attention and make implementing many of the recommendations of this report easier by unleashing the creativity of the Department’s best assets – its people.  Plan:

The Department of Defense should provide incentives in the United States for energy conservation by providing rewards for energy efficiency to individual units.  Observation 2 – Military Effectiveness

A. Military effectiveness is constrained now

- 1. Initially, we note that the US military will inevitably be involved in a wide range of global circumstances

Nardulli 2002 Bruce, RAND policy analyst http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/rr.08.02/groundops.html  Almost a year has passed since the president declared the war on terrorism the nation's top security priority. Considerable uncertainty remains as to the scale, scope, and pace of that war. Yet **__it is already clear that waging a long-term global war on terrorism will entail the extensive use of American ground forces in a wide variety of missions. The U.S. Army, in particular, will encounter more frequent deployments, more long-term deployments, and a demand for additional counterterrorism capabilities__**. To prepare for the future, the army needs to respond in two overarching ways. First, it must consider options to meet the likely increase in the tempo of operations, continued high demand for scarce military specialties, and expanded requirements to support operations overseas in numerous new locales. Second, the army should adjust some of its light-weight and medium-weight capabilities (so-called "light" and "medium" forces) to reinforce the offensive campaign against terrorism with increased speed and modified combat power. The army must undertake these efforts while simultaneously maintaining its readiness to fight major regional wars and transforming itself for future warfare. More People, Places, and Things Offensively, some **__counterterror operations will require new mixes of U.S. military capabilities and responsiveness.__** Certain classes of targets are likely to require different combinations of ground units. For example, a large complex of well-defended terrorist installations in difficult terrain, comparable to Tora Bora in Afghanistan, might require an extended operation of robust forces. Or the mission might call for a simultaneous attack on multiple sites spread across a large area. **__ Many of these operations will occur on short notice and require very rapid response __**. **__National decisionmakers will insist on having the capability to attack high-value but fleeting targets in far-flung places with high confidence of success__**. The ability to seize or neutralize weapons of mass destruction will be especially important in this regard.
 * __ The army already has long-term commitments of troops in such places as Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai. In all likelihood, these will continue __** . If anything, the events of Sept. 11 have increased the pressure on U.S. forces to remain as a stabilizing influence**__. Added to these ongoing commitments will be substantial military operations against terrorist groups, such as the operations in Afghanistan__**. About 6,000 U.S. Army soldiers are committed to operations there, indicating the scale and duration of deployments that can be entailed in rooting out terrorists and their infrastructure and preventing their reemergence. **__Other sizable rotational deployments are possible, not only in Central Asia but also in Southwest Asia and Africa.__**
 * __ Because the United States plans to conduct the war on a wide front, the army will likely carry out other types of operations as well. Stabilizing volatile regions will require potentially extended peacekeeping operations. Expanded training of foreign militaries in counterterrorism operations is and will continue to be a major element of the U.S. war effort. Such operations are likely to include growing involvement with new partners and in geographic areas previously of little or no interest to the United States. As terrorist groups gravitate toward unstable regions or dysfunctional states for secure bases of operations, U.S. counterterrorism efforts will blend into a host of much broader counterinsurgency and foreign internal defense activities. Friends and allies threatened by terrorists will also expect our support, as is now the case in the Philippines and Georgia. U.S. Army forces will be involved in all of these activities. __**

 2. While these future interventions are inevitable, the ability of the US military to succeed in future operations is severely constrained. The most comprehensive study supports this conclusion.

CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE 2008 FOREIGN POLICY MARCH/APRIL [|**http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/files/story4198.php**] In an exclusive new index, Foreign Policy and **__the Center for a New American Security surveyed more than 3,400 active and retired officers at the highest levels of command about the state of the U.S. military. They see a force stretched dangerously thin and a country ill-prepared for the next fight__**. What is the actual state of America’s military? How healthy are the armed forces? How prepared are they for future conflicts? And what impact are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan really having on them? To find out, **__ Foreign Policy and the Center for a New American Security teamed up to conduct a groundbreaking survey of current and former military officers __**. Recognizing that the military is far from a monolith, our goal was to find out what America’s highest-ranking military people—the very officers who have run the military during the past half century—collectively think about the state of the force, the health of the military, the course of the war in Iraq, and the challenges that lie ahead. **__It is one of the few comprehensive surveys of the U.S. military community to be conducted in the past 50 years__**. In all, more than 3,400 officers holding the rank of major or lieutenant commander and above were surveyed from across the services, active duty and retired, general officers and field-grade officers. About 35 percent of the participants hailed from the Army, 33 percent from the Air Force, 23 percent from the Navy, and 8 percent from the Marine Corps. Several hundred are flag officers, elite generals and admirals who have served at the highest levels of command. Approximately one third are colonels or captains—officers commanding thousands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines—and 37 percent hold the rank of lieutenant colonel or commander. Eighty-one percent have more than 20 years of service in the military. Twelve percent graduated from one of America’s exclusive military academies. And more than two thirds have combat experience, with roughly 10 percent having served in Iraq, Afghanistan, or both. The health of the Army and Marine Corps, the services that have borne the brunt of the fighting in Iraq, are of greatest concern to the index’s officers. Asked to grade the health of each service on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 meaning the officers have no concern about the health of the service and 10 meaning they are extremely concerned, the officers reported an average score of 7.9 for the Army and 7.0 for the Marine Corps. The health of the Air Force fared the best, with a score of 5.7. The average score across the four services was 6.6. **__More than 80 percent of the officers say that, given the stress of current deployments, it is unreasonable to ask the military to wage another major war today. Nor did the officers express high confidence in the military’s preparedness to do so. For instance, the officers said that the United States is not fully prepared to successfully execute such a mission against__** Iran or **__North Korea__****__.__**  
 * __ Today, the U.S. military is engaged in a campaign that is more demanding and intense than anything it has witnessed in a generation. Ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, now entering their fifth and seventh years respectively, have lasted longer than any U.S. military engagements of the past century, with the exception of Vietnam __** . More than 25,000 American servicemen and women have been wounded and over 4,000 killed. **__Additional deployments in the Balkans, on the Korean Peninsula, and elsewhere are putting further pressure on the military’s finite resources. And, at any time, U.S. forces could be called into action in one of the world’s many simmering hot spots—from Iran or Syria, to North Korea or the Taiwan Strait__**. Yet, even as **__the U.S. military is being asked to sustain an unprecedented pace of operations across the globe__**, many Americans continue to know shockingly little about the forces responsible for protecting them. Nearly 70 percent of Americans report that they have a high level of confidence in the military, yet fewer than 1 in 10 has ever served. Politicians often speak favorably about people in uniform, but less than one quarter of the U.S. Congress has donned a uniform. It is not clear whether the speeches and sound bites we hear from politicians and experts actually reflect the concerns of those who protect our nation.
 * __ These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war. Sixty percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago. __** Asked why, more than half cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pace of troop deployments those conflicts require. More than half the officers say the military is weaker than it was either 10 or 15 years ago. But asked whether “the demands of the war in Iraq have broken the U.S. military,” 56 percent of the officers say they disagree. That is not to say, however, that they are without concern. **__Nearly 90 percent say that they believe the demands of the war in Iraq have “stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.”__**

1. A LESS EFFECTIVE MILITARY FORCE MAKES WAR MORE LIKELY William J Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, and Michele A. Flournoy, Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, National Defense, The US Military: Under Strain And At Risk, National Defense, May, http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2006/may/TheU.S.MilitaryUnder.htm
 * Perry and Flounroy 2006**

Meanwhile, __ the U nited S tates has only limited ground forces ready to respond to contingencies outside the Afghan and Iraqi theaters. __ __ As a global power with global interests, the United States must be able to deal with challenges in **multiple regions** of the world **simultaneously.** If the Army were ordered to send significant forces to another crisis today, its only option would be to deploy units at **readiness levels far below** what operational plans would require. __ As stated rather blandly in one Defense Department presentation, __ the Army “continues to accept risk” in its ability to respond to crises on the Korean Peninsula and elsewhere. **The absence of a credible, sizable strategic reserve** increases the risk that potential adversaries will be tempted to **challenge the United States.** __ Although the United States can still deploy air, naval, and other more specialized assets to deter or respond to aggression, __ the visible **overextension** of our ground forces could weaken our ability to **deter aggression**. __

 Professor of Political Science at Duke, Peter D., Armed Services: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations, p.213
 * Feaver 2003**

The civil-military problematique is so vexing because it involves balancing two vital and potentially conflicting societal desiderata. On the one hand, the military must be strong enough to prevail in war. One purpose behind establishing the military in the first place is the need, or perceived need, for military force, either to attack other groups or to ward off attacks by others. Like an automobiles airbag, __ the military primarily exists as a guard against disaster. __ It should be always ready even if it is never used. Moreover, __ military strength should be **sized appropriately** to meet the threats confronting the polity. It serves no purpose to establish a protection force and then to vitiate it to the point where it can no longer protect. Indeed, an inadequate military institution may **be worse than none at all.** It could be a **paper tiger inviting outside aggression** strong enough in appearance to threaten powerful enemies **but not strong enough** in fact to defend against their predations. Alternatively, it could **lull leaders into a false confidence**, leading them to **rash behavior** and then failing in the ultimate military contest. __  3. U.S. MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS IS KEY TO PREVENT CONFLICT Robert. senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. August/September 2007. http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html.  __ It is __ easy but also __ dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world __ even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, __ the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They __ either happily or grudgingly __ allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. __ Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but __ even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee, __ however distant and one hopes unnecessary, __ that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. __ People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. __ International order __ does not rest on ideas and institutions. It __ is shaped by configurations of power. __ The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, __ regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene __ or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. __ Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. **But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance.** This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. __ That is certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. __ In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene __ — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — __ could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach __ to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. __ If the United States withdrew from Europe __ — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — __ this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. __ The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. **__ The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. __** __ In the Middle East, __ competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. __ The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. __ The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. __ One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, __ if only to secure their interests. [|18] And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn’t changed that much. __ An American withdrawal __ from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It __ will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. __ In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, __ no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path. __
 * Kagan 2007**

U.S. MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS IS THE KEY TO SOLVING A MULTITUDE OF GLOBAL EXTINCTION SCENARIOS Bradley. In Defense of Primacy, associate professor in the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/In+defense+of+primacy-a0155089106
 * Thayer 2006**

__ A GRAND strategy of ensuring American primacy takes as its starting point the protection of the U.S. homeland and American global interests __. __ These interests __**__ include ensuring that critical resources like oil flow around the world __**, **__ that the global trade and monetary regimes flourish __** __ and that Washington's worldwide network of allies is reassured and protected __. Allies are a great asset to the United States, in part because they shoulder some of its burdens. Thus, it is no surprise to see NATO in Afghanistan or the Australians in East Timor. In contrast, __ a strategy based on retrenchment will not be able to achieve these fundamental objectives of the United States __. Indeed, retrenchment will make the United States less secure than the present grand strategy of primacy. This is because threats will exist no matter what role America chooses to play in international politics. __ Washington ____ cannot call a "time out", and it cannot hide from threats. Whether they are terrorists, __ rogue __states or rising powers, history shows that threats must be confronted__. Simply by declaring that the United States is "going home", thus abandoning its commitments or making unconvincing half-pledges to defend its interests and allies, does not mean that others will respect American wishes to retreat. To make such a declaration implies weakness and emboldens aggression. In the anarchic world of the animal kingdom, predators prefer to eat the weak rather than confront the strong. The same is true of the anarchic world of international politics. If there is no diplomatic solution to the threats that confront the United States, then the conventional and strategic military power of the United States is what protects the country from such threats. And when enemies must be confronted, **__ a strategy based on primacy focuses on engaging enemies overseas __**, away from American soil. Indeed, a key tenet of the Bush Doctrine is to attack terrorists far from America's shores and not to wait while they use bases in other countries to plan and train for attacks against the United States itself. **__ This requires a physical, on-the-ground presence __** that cannot be achieved by offshore balancing. Indeed, as Barry Posen has noted, U.S. primacy is secured because America, at present, commands the "global commons"--the oceans, the world's airspace and outer space--allowing the United States to project its power far from its borders, while denying those common avenues to its enemies. As a consequence, the costs of power projection for the United States and its allies are reduced, and the robustness of the United States' conventional and strategic deterrent capabilities is increased. (2) This is not an advantage that should be relinquished lightly. A remarkable fact about international politics today--in a world where American primacy is clearly and unambiguously on display--is that __ countries want to align themselves with the United States __. Of course, this is not out of any sense of altruism, in most cases, but because __ doing so allows them to use the power of the United States for their own purposes--their own protection, or to gain greater influence __. Of 192 countries, 84 are allied with America--their security is tied to the United States through treaties and other informal arrangements--and they include almost all of the major economic and military powers. That is a ratio of almost 17 to one (85 to five), and a big change from the Cold War when the ratio was about 1.8 to one of states aligned with the United States versus the Soviet Union. Never before in its history has this country, or any country, had so many allies. __ U.S. ____ primacy--and the bandwagoning effect--has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the United States to shape the behavior of states and international institutions __. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY, __ peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power __ --Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. **__ Everything we think of when we consider the current international order--free trade, a robust monetary regime, increasing respect for human rights, growing democratization is directly linked to U.S. power __**. __ Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse. Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power, the liberal order created by the United States will end just as assuredly __. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, __ American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. __ __ The first has been a more peaceful world. __ During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, __ American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Australia __. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a __ Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars __. Second, __ American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism __. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview. (3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, __ once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. __ And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such an effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. __ Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. __ The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. __ Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess. __ Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the economic network comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat and researcher at the World Bank, who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of post-independence India. Abandoning the positions of his youth, Lal now recognizes that __ the only way to bring relief to desperately poor countries of the Third World is through the adoption of free market economic policies and globalization, which are facilitated through American primacy. __ (4) As a witness to the failed alternative economic systems, Lal is one of the strongest academic proponents of American primacy due to the economic prosperity it provides. Fourth and finally, __ the United States, in seeking primacy, has been willing to use its power not only to advance its interests but to promote the welfare of people all over the globe __. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive externalities for the world. The U.S. military has participated in over fifty operations since the end of the Cold War--and most of those missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the U.S. military is the earth's "911 force"--it serves, de facto, as the world's police, the global paramedic and the planet's fire department. Whenever there is a natural disaster, earthquake, flood, drought, volcanic eruption, typhoon or tsunami, the United States assists the countries in need. On the day after Christmas in 2004, a tremendous earthquake and tsunami occurred in the Indian Ocean near Sumatra, killing some 300,000 people. The United States was the first to respond with aid. Washington followed up with a large contribution of aid and deployed the U.S. military to South and Southeast Asia for many months to help with the aftermath of the disaster. __ About 20,000 U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines responded by providing water, food, medical aid, disease treatment and prevention as well as forensic assistance to help identify the bodies of those killed. Only the U.S. military could have accomplished this Herculean effort. No other force possesses the communications capabilities or global logistical reach of the U.S. military. In fact, UN peacekeeping operations depend on the United States to supply UN forces. __ __ American generosity has done more to help the United States fight the War on Terror than almost any other measure __. Before the tsunami, 80 percent of Indonesian public opinion was opposed to the United States; after it, 80 percent had a favorable opinion of America. Two years after the disaster, and in poll after poll, Indonesians still have overwhelmingly positive views of the United States. In October 2005, an enormous earthquake struck Kashmir, killing about 74,000 people and leaving three million homeless. The U.S. military responded immediately, diverting helicopters fighting the War on Terror in nearby Afghanistan to bring relief as soon as possible. To help those in need, the United States also provided financial aid to Pakistan; and, as one might expect from those witnessing the munificence of the United States, it left a lasting impression about America. For the first time since 9/11, polls of Pakistani opinion have found that more people are favorable toward the United States than unfavorable, while support for Al-Qaeda dropped to its lowest level. Whether in Indonesia or Kashmir, the money was well-spent because it helped people in the wake of disasters, but it also had a real impact on the War on Terror. When people in the Muslim world witness the U.S. military conducting a humanitarian mission, there is a clearly positive impact on Muslim opinion of the United States. As the War on Terror is a war of ideas and opinion as much as military action, for the United States humanitarian missions are the equivalent of a blitzkrieg. __ THERE IS no other state, group of states or international organization that can provide these global benefits. __ None even comes close. __ The United Nations __cannot because it is riven with conflicts and major cleavages that divide the international body time and again on matters great and trivial. Thus it__ lacks the ability to speak with one voice __on salient issues and to act as a unified force once a decision is reached. __ The EU has similar problems. Does anyone expect Russia or China to take up these responsibilities? They may have the desire, but they do not have the capabilities. __ Let's face it: __ for the time being, American primacy remains humanity's only practical hope of solving the world's ills __.

5. MAINTAING EFFECTIVE U.S. LEADERSHIP IS THE KEY TO PREVENTING THE LAUNCH OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Zalmay , Washington  Quarterly, Spring, LN
 * Khalilzad 1995 **

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the __United States __ exercises __<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">leadership would have __<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> tremendous __<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">advantages. __<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, **__<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. __**<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> Finally, __<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">U.S. ____<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling __<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> the United States and __<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">the world to avoid __<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> **__<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">another __**<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> global cold or hot **__<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">war and all the attendant dangers, including __**<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> __<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">a global nuclear exchange. __<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system. <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> C.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;"> Afghanistan

1. AFGHANISTAN IS COLLAPSING INTO INSTABILITY AND THE U.S. CAN’T SEND IN MORE TROOPS ALTHOUGH MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS WILL ENSURE STABILITY <span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Arial","sans-serif";"> WHITE July 2008 JOSH, The Washington Post, July 2 2008 http://www.kansascity.com/news/world/story/689893.html

Mullen said insurgent Taliban and extremist forces in Afghanistan have become “a very complex problem” that is tied to the extensive drug trade, a faltering economy and the porous border region with Pakistan**__. Violence in Afghanistan has increased markedly over recent weeks, and June was the deadliest month for U.S. troops since the war began in 2001__**, with 28 combat fatalities. “I am and have been deeply troubled by the increasing violence there,” Mullen said at a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon. He added that he has made no secret of wanting to send more forces into the country. “**__The Taliban and their supporters have become more effective in recent weeks__**. ... We all need to be patient. As we have seen in Iraq, **__counterinsurgency warfare takes time and commitment.”__** Mullen said military commanders were looking at the prospects for sending additional troops to Afghanistan in 2009, but conditions in Iraq would have to continue to improve for that to happen. The war in Iraq has occupied as many as 20 military brigades during the troop buildup over the past year. The military is reducing that force to 15 brigades this year. “**__I don’t have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan,__** until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq,” Mullen said. “Afghanistan remains an economy of force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there. **__We have the ability in almost every single case to win from the combat standpoint, but we don’t have enough troops there to hold. That is key to the future of being able to succeed in Afghanistan.__**” <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> 2. IN AFGHANISTAN MANY TROOPS ARE TIED UP PROTECTING THE ENERGY FUEL LINES DSB Feb 2008 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy “More Fight – Less Fuel” http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf
 * __ The nation’s top military officer said __** Wednesday **__that more U.S. troops are needed in Afghanistan to help tamp down an increasingly violent insurgency__**.
 * __ However, __** Adm. Michael **__Mullen__**, **__chair__**man **__of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the military does not have sufficient forces to send__** because of the war in Iraq.

Figure 2.1 shows who is responsible for specific __fuel delivery costs.__ The costs incurred from Points A to D are included in the “standard” price DESC charges its customers for the commodity. Costs incurred beyond Point D __are typically paid by the military services through the support force structure they maintain, operate and sustain__. These costs are borne by budgets not attributed to fuel. They are the total ownership costs of assets such as tanker aircraft, fuel trucks and oiler ships; and personnel, parts, training and fuel needed to keep them operational. __They also include protection required to assure delivery of the fuel__ from Point D to the point of use. __The costs of protection__ are difficult to measure and are often not monetary costs. They __include reduced combat effectiveness, risk to mission, and casualties. In__ Iraq and __Afghanistan, combat forces are dedicated to supply line protection rather than combat operations. As of November 2007, approximately 80 convoys travel__ continuously between Kuwait and Iraq destinations, __all protected by uniformed forces. This degrades combat capability,__ __resulting in real costs__, even if not attributed to the supplies themselves. <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> 3. INCREASES IN FUEL EFFICIENCY WOULD FREE UP LOTS OF TROOPS IMMEDIATELY FOR OPERATIONS IN AFGHANISTAN

DSB Feb 2008 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy “More Fight – Less Fuel” http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf

The Task Force found that __ combat and combat related systems generally are inefficient in their use of fuel. This represents a major constraint on the operational effectiveness of U.S. forces and translates directly into poor endurance and persistence in the battlespace. Platforms are forced to use time transiting to fuel sources instead of residing on station, and more of them are needed to maintain a continuous presence. Improvements in the efficiency of platforms therefore would enable U.S. forces to increase their in-theater effectiveness by spending more time on station relative to transit, and by allocating fewer of their assets to sustain a given number at that station. Platform inefficiency affects operational effectiveness in other ways as well. Moving and protecting fuel through a battlespace requires significant resources. It constrains freedom of movement by combat forces, makes them more vulnerable to attack, and compels them to redirect assets from combat operations to protection of supply lines. Thus, the need to move and protect fuel detracts from combat effectiveness in two ways; by adding to sustainment costs and by diverting and endangering in-theater force capability __.

AFGHANISTAN WILL UNLEASH A PANDORA’S BOX OF GLOBAL VIOLENCE AND LAUNCH OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS Stephen J. Morgan is a former member of the British Labour Party Executive Committee. March 04, 2007 Better Another Taliban Afghanistan, than a Taliban NUCLEAR Pakistan!?
 * Morgan 2007**

__ They are low on adequate resources and relegated in importance __. The former British Commander of NATO forces admitted that last year they came close to losing Kandahar, the second city. It is not ruled out that __ much of the south and east could fall into Taliban hands __this year,__ **paving the way for the fall of Kabul**, __ the year after. The Taliban are ferocious fighters, with a messianic fervour to fight to the death. They bring with them the experience of veterans of the brutal Soviet war and the civil war which followed. Now regrouped, rearmed, their forces are prepared both for unfavourable open combat of almost suicidal proportions. Furthermore they are opportunistically changing tactics, both in order to create maximum urban destabilization and to win local support in the countryside. Boasting of more than 1,000 suicide volunteer bombers, they have also renounced their former policy against heroin cultivation, thus allowing them to win support among the rural population and gain support from local tribes, warlords and criminal gangs, who have been alienated by NATO policies of poppy field destruction. Although disliked and despised in many quarters, the Taliban could not advance without the support or acquiescence of parts of the population, especially in the south. In particular, the Taliban is drawing on backing from the Pashtun tribes from whom they originate. The southern and eastern areas have been totally out of government control since 2001. Moreover, not only have they not benefited at all from the Allied occupation, but it is increasingly clear that with a few small centres of exception, all of the country outside Kabul has seen little improvement in its circumstances. __ **The conditions for unrest are ripe and the Taliban is filling the vacuum** __. The Break-Up of Afghanistan? However, the Taliban is unlikely to win much support outside of the powerful Pashtun tribes. Although they make up a majority of the nation, they are concentrated in the south and east. Among the other key minorities, such as __ Tajiks and Uzbeks, __ who control the north they have no chance of making new inroads. They __ will fight the Taliban and fight hard __, but their loyalty to the NATO and US forces is tenuous to say the least. __ The Northern Alliance __ originally liberated Kabul from the Taliban without Allied ground support. The Northern Alliance are fierce fighters, veterans of the war of liberation against the Soviets and the Afghanistan civil war. Mobilized they count for a much stronger adversary than the NATO and US forces. It is possible that, while they won’t fight for the current government or coalition forces, they __ will certainly resist any new Taliban rule __. __ They may decide to withdraw to their areas in the north and west of the country. __ __ This would leave the Allied forces with few social reserves, excepting a frightened and unstable urban population in Kabul, __ much like what happened to the Soviets. Squeezed by facing fierce fighting in Helmund and other provinces, and, at the same time, harried by a complementary tactic of Al Qaeda-style urban terrorism in Kabul, sooner or later, a “Saigon-style” evacuation of US and Allied forces could be on the cards. __ The net result could be **the break-up and partition of Afghanistan** __ into a northern and western area and a southern and eastern area, which would include the two key cities of Kandahar and, the capital Kabul. Pastunistan? The Taliban themselves, however may decide not to take on the Northern Alliance and fighting may concentrate on creating a border between the two areas, about which the two sides may reach an agreement regardless of US and Allied plans or preferences. The Taliban may claim the name Afghanistan or might opt for “Pashtunistan” – a long-standing, though intermittent demand of the Pashtuns, within Afghanistan and especially along the ungovernable border regions inside Pakistan. It could not be ruled out that the Taliban could be aiming to lead a break away of the Pakistani Pashtuns to form a 30 million strong greater Pashtun state, encompassing some 18 million Pakistani Pashtuns and 12 Afghan Pashtuns. Although the Pashtuns are more closely linked to tribal and clan loyalty, there exists a strong latent embryo of a Pashtun national consciousness and the idea of an independent Pashtunistan state has been raised regularly in the past with regard to the disputed territories common to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The area was cut in two by the “Durand Line”, a totally artificial border between created by British Imperialism in the 19th century. It has been a question bedevilling relations between the Afghanistan and Pakistan throughout their history, and with India before Partition. It has been an untreated, festering wound which has lead to sporadic wars and border clashes between the two countries and occasional upsurges in movements for Pashtun independence. In fact, is this what lies behind the current policy of appeasement President Musharraf of Pakistan towards the Pashtun tribes in along the Frontiers and his armistice with North Waziristan last year? Is he attempting to avoid further alienating Pashtun tribes there and head–off a potential separatist movement in Pakistan, which could develop from the Taliban’s offensive across the border in Afghanistan? Trying to subdue the frontier lands has proven costly and unpopular for Musharraf. In effect, he faces exactly the same problems as the US and Allies in Afghanistan or Iraq. Indeed, fighting Pashtun tribes has cost him double the number of troops as the US has lost in Iraq. Evidently, he could not win and has settled instead for an attempted political solution. When he agreed the policy of appeasement and virtual self-rule for North Waziristan last year, President Musharraf stated clearly that he is acting first and foremost to protect the interests of Pakistan. While there was outrageous in Kabul, his deal with the Pashtuns is essentially an effort to firewall his country against civil war and disintegration. In his own words, what he fears most is, the « Talibanistation » of the whole Pashtun people, which he warns could inflame the already fierce fundamentalist and other separatist movement across his entire country. He does not want to open the door for any backdraft from the Afghan war to engulf Pakistan. Musharraf faces the nationalist struggle in Kashmir, an insurgency in Balochistan, unrest in the Sindh, and growing terrorist bombings in the main cities. There is also a large Shiite population and clashes between Sunnis and Shias are regular. Moreover, fundamentalist support in his own Armed Forces and Intelligence Services is extremely strong. So much so that analyst consider it likely that the Army and Secret Service is protecting, not only top Taliban leaders, but Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda central leadership thought to be entrenched in the same Pakistani borderlands. For the same reasons, he has not captured or killed Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership. Returning from the frontier provinces with Bin Laden’s severed head would be a trophy that would cost him his own head in Pakistan. At best he takes the occasional risk of giving a nod and a wink to a US incursion, but even then at the peril of the chagrin of the people and his own military and secret service. The Break-Up of Pakistan? Musharraf probably hopes that by giving de facto autonomy to the Taliban and Pashtun leaders now with a virtual free hand for cross border operations into Afghanistan, he will undercut any future upsurge in support for a break-away independent Pashtunistan state or a “Peoples’ War” of the Pashtun populace as a whole, as he himself described it. However events may prove him sorely wrong. Indeed, his policy could completely backfire upon him. As the war intensifies, he has no guarantees that the current autonomy may yet burgeon into a separatist movement. Appetite comes with eating, as they say. Moreover, should the Taliban fail to re-conquer al of Afghanistan, as looks likely, but captures at least half of the country, then a Taliban Pashtun caliphate could be established which would act as a magnet to separatist Pashtuns in Pakistan. Then, __ the likely break up of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, could, indeed, **lead the way to the break up of Pakistan,** as well __. __ Strong centrifugal forces have always bedevilled the stability and unity of Pakistan __, and, in the context of the new world situation __ , ____ the country could be faced with civil wars and popular fundamentalist uprisings, probably including a military-fundamentalist coup d’état __. Fundamentalism is deeply rooted in Pakistan society. The fact that in the year following 9/11, the most popular name given to male children born that year was “Osama” (not a Pakistani name) is a small indication of the mood. Given the weakening base of the traditional, secular opposition parties, conditions would be ripe for a coup d’état by the fundamentalist wing of the Army and ISI, leaning on the radicalised masses to take power. Some form of radical, military Islamic regime, where legal powers would shift to Islamic courts and forms of shira law would be likely. Although, even then, this might not take place outside of a protracted crisis of upheaval and civil war conditions, mixing fundamentalist movements with nationalist uprisings and sectarian violence between the Sunni and minority Shia populations. __ The nightmare that is now Iraq would **take on gothic proportions** across the continent. The prophesy of **an arc of civil war** over Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq would spread to south Asia, stretching from Pakistan to Palestine, through Afghanistan into Iraq and up to the Mediterranean coast __. Undoubtedly, __ this would also spill over into India both with regards to the Muslim community and Kashmir. Border clashes, terrorist attacks, sectarian pogroms and insurgency would break out. A __ new war, and possibly **__ nuclear war, __**__ between Pakistan and India could not be ruled out. __ Atomic Al Qaeda __ Should Pakistan break down __ completely, __ a Taliban-style government with strong Al Qaeda influence is a real possibility. Such deep **chaos would**, of course, **open a “Pandora's box” for the region and the world** __. __ With the possibility of unstable __ clerical and military fundamentalist __ elements being in control of the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, not only their use against India, but Israel becomes a possibility, as well as the acquisition of nuclear and other deadly weapons secrets by Al Qaeda __. __ Invading Pakistan would not be an option for America. Therefore a **nuclear war would now again become a real strategic possibility.** This would bring a shift in the tectonic plates of global relations. It could **usher in a new Cold War** with China and Russia pitted against the US __.

<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> Observation 3 Solvency

1.<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none;"> Incentives are an effective way to change the way people use energy

Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation. 2005 Department of Defense Energy Manager’s Handbook. www.acq.osd.mil/ie/irm/irm_library/DoD%20Energy%20Manager%20Handbook%20Jan%202005.doc - Awards and recognition provide excellent opportunities for building an effective, highly motivating awareness program. Energy conservation awards shall be presented to individuals, organizations, and installations in recognition of their energy-savings and water conservation efforts. In addition to recognition, awards provide motivation for continued energy reduction achievements. DoD components shall establish and/or maintain their individual awards programs, and incorporate on-the-spot awards and incentives to recognize exceptional performance and participation in the energy management program. Having developed a goal, the energy awareness program should publicize the specific actions that installation personnel can take to achieve that goal. It should also publicize the progress made toward achieving that goal in the same way that organizations publicize progress toward other goals, such as charitable contributions. In this way, energy savings provide a tangible reward in addition to the desirable but more abstract benefits of efficiency, reduced pollution, and lower operating costs.

<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> 2. INCREASING INCENTIVES FOR INDIVIDUAL UNITS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT WAY TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY THROUGHOUT THE MILITARY

Hornitschek 06 Colonel Michael J. Hornitschek is Vice Commander, 62nd Airlift Wing, McChord Air Force Base, Wash [|Air Force Journal of Logistics], [|Fall, 2006] http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBO/is_3_30/ai_n18618914/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1 To date, __the definitive DoD internal document advocating increased efficiency remains the 2001 Defense Science Board__ (DSB) __Task Force on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms' report__ entitled, More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel Burden. It identified five major efficiency recommendations. * Base investment decisions on the true cost of delivered fuel, warfighting, and environmental benefits * Strengthen warfighting and fuel logistics links in wargame modeling * Have leadership incentivize fuel efficiency throughout the DoD * Specifically target fuel efficiency improvements through investments in science and technology and systems designs * Explicitly include fuel efficiency in requirements and acquisition processes __Arguably, it is the report's third suggestion, "Have leadership incentivize fuel efficiency throughout the DoD," that is the most important and transformational__. (97) The authors go on to emphasize: __For the DoD to take advantage of the large cost and performance benefits of significant improvements in weapons platform fuel efficiency, senior civilian and military leadership must set the tone and agenda within the Department. Leadership must begin promoting the message that efficiency at the tactical platform and system level is a clear strategic path to improve performance, reduce logistics burden and free resources for modernization and readiness. This needed emphasis by DoD leadership is not merely desirable; it is an essential ingredient to achieve the force improvements to execute Joint doctrine__. (98) While looking specifically at improving existing and future weapon systems, __ the DSB's advice applies equally well to all operating procedures and installation infrastructure as well. This is a message that all Service chiefs and combatant commanders could broadcast loudly and repeatedly through their established information outlets. Subordinate levels of command would have to internalize and demonstrate acceptance of these concepts to junior ranks until even basic recruit and contractor behavior reflects the DoD's emphasis on efficiency and conservation. Success will depend largely on providing meaningful behavior change incentives to energy users for the purpose of long-term payback. One incentive model could be to return any normalized energy savings over the previous year directly to the saving organization--a potentially powerful motivator for under-resourced units. It is important, though, that to avoid the temptation of compromising safety to earn energy efficiency rewards, commanders and leaders not be penalized for exceeding the previous year's normalized energy bill. Bottom line: properly incentivized people will make a difference __. <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> -3. While these actions may sound small they are the greatest single act the DoD can do to conserve energy and make the military more effective

DIMOTAKIS, GROBER & LEWIS 2006 <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Italia-Book","serif"; color: rgb(35, 31, 32);">Paul Dimotakis, Robert Grober, Nate Lewis JASON STUDY GROUP <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Italia-Book","serif"; color: rgb(35, 31, 32);"> Reducing DoD Fossil-Fuel Dependence. Sept 2006 http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/fossil.pdf<span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Italia-Book","serif"; color: rgb(35, 31, 32);"> Even though fuel is only a relatively small fraction of the total DoD budget, __there are several compelling reasons to minimize DoD fuel use__: a. Fuel costs represent a large fraction of the 40-50 year life-cycle costs of mobility aircraft and non-nuclear ships. Note that this is consistent with the life-cycle costs of commercial airliners. b. Fuel use is characterized by large multipliers and co-factors: at the simplest level, it takes fuel to deliver fuel. c. __Fuel use imposes large logistical burdens, operational constraints and liabilities, and vulnerabilities: otherwise capable offensive forces can be countered by attacking more-vulnerable logistical-supply chains. Part of this is because of changes in military doctrine. In the past, we used to talk of the “front line”, because we used to talk of the line that was sweeping ahead, leaving relatively safe terrain behind. This is no longer true. The rear is now vulnerable, especially the fuel supply line__. d. There are anticipated, and some already imposed, environmental regulations and constraints. Not least, because of the long life of many DoD systems, e. __uncertainties about an unpredictable future make it advisable to decrease DoD fuel use to minimize exposure and vulnerability to potential unforeseen disruptions in world and domestic supply__. __The JASONs conclude that the greatest leverage in reducing the DoD dependence on fossil fuel is through an optimization of patterns of use__, e.g., planning and gaming, as well as the development of // in-situ // optimization tools of fuel use that would help planners and field officers choose between operational scenarios to minimize logistical support requirements by minimizing fuel consumption. __Such tools__ for planning and for conducting operations __could__ evolve and improve tactics, __and enable significant reductions in fuel consumption, while improving military effectiveness at the same time__. <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";">

4. INCREASED ENERGY EFFICIENCY INCREASES MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS IN 6 INDEPENDENT WAYS

DSB 20  01 MORE CAPABLE WARFIGHTING THROUGH REDUCED FUEL BURDEN http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/fuel.pdf

__ Improved warfighting capability can be directly linked to improved adherence to the following Principles __ of War. · Surprise: __Fuel efficiency increases platform stealth by diminishing the platform’s heat signatures, exhaust, and/or wakes; and affords less chance of compromising movement by reducing the logistics tail and resupply communications__. · Mass: __Fuel efficiency decreases the time required to assemble an overwhelming force__. · Efficiency: __Fuel efficiency increases commander’s flexibility in efficiently assembling an overwhelming force__. · Maneuver: __Platforms will travel faster and farther with reduced weight and smaller logistics tails that improve platform agility, loiter and flexibility__. · Security: __Fuel efficiency decreases platform vulnerability to attacks on supply lines, and reduces demand for strategic reserves__. · Simplicity: __Fuel efficiency decreases the complexity and frequency of refueling operations and logistics planning, while reducing vulnerability to the “Fog of War__”. 5. Incentives from the DoD are key to improving efficiency – leadership needed DSB 20  01 MORE CAPABLE WARFIGHTING THROUGH REDUCED FUEL BURDEN http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/fuel.pdf

__ Provide leadership that incentivizes fuel efficiency throughout the DoD. For the DoD to take advantage of the large cost and performance benefits of significant improvements in weapons platform fuel efficiency, senior civilian and military leadership must set the tone and agenda within the Department. Leadership must begin promoting the message that efficiency at the tactical platform and system level is a clear strategic path to improve performance, reduce logistics burden and free resources for modernization and readiness __. __This needed emphasis by DoD leadership__ is not merely desirable; it __is an essential ingredient to achieve the force improvements to execute joint doctrine__. It is essential that the requirements determination community, specifically the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and the Services organizations that input to the JROC, recognize the importance of their decisions in creating the existing scale of logistics infrastructure. Having created it, they exclusively have the ability to shrink it by requiring efficient platforms and systems. This recognition of responsibility at all levels, the implementation of analytical tools and action on newly revealed opportunities are essential tasks of departmental leadership. <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman","serif";"> 6. ENERGY CONSERVATION WILL HAVE A MULTIPLIER EFFECT ON MILITARY EFFECTIVENESS OVERCOMING OTHER BARRIERS TO READINESS

DSB Feb 2008 Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy “More Fight – Less Fuel” http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2008-02-ESTF.pdf

__ The payoff to DoD from reduced fuel demand in terms of mission effectiveness and human lives is probably greater than for any other energy user in the world. More efficient platforms would enhance range, persistence and endurance. They also would reduce the burden of owning, employing, operating and protecting the people and equipment needed to move and protect fuel from the point of commercial purchase to the point of use. An important implication is that increased energy efficiency of deployed equipment and systems will have a large multiplier effect. Not only will there be direct savings in fuel cost, but combat effectiveness will be increased and resources otherwise needed for resupply and protection redirected. Truck drivers and convoy protectors can become combat soldiers, increasing combat capability while reducing vulnerabilities caused by extensive convoys. In short, more efficient platforms increase warfighting capability __.

7. WHILE THERE MAY BE OTHER ISSUES EFFECTING READINESS NO ISSUE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ENERGY EFFICIENCY

AMORY LOVINS  – CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF SCIENTIST ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE APRIL 2008 http://www.ndia.org/Content/ContentGroups/Divisions1/Environment/Energy_PDFs/Rocky%20Mountain%20INstitute.pdf

__ Aggressively developing and applying energy-saving technologies to military applications would potentially do more to solve the most pressing long-term challenges facing DOD and our national security than any other single investment area __.