Geopolitics of Energy

Michael T. Klare's article, 'The New Geopolitics of Energy', really caught my attention. Not only did he predict the Georgian/Russian conflict that took place back in August, but he also sheds some light on the upcoming election. He describes foreign policy changing from a look at ideology (Cold War politics) to one that is now determined by raw materials, many which are being taken from unstable countries.

It is no coincidence that our main competitors in this new military plan involve Russia and China, our two biggest rivals for access and transportation of oil. I believe it was in the Sanders article from Monday that he discussed the U.S. controls the world and its oceans exponentially larger than Great Britain ever did in the 19th Century. Klare adds to this assesment by emphasizing the importance that 90% of world trade and 2/3 of the petroleum is transported by sea. So far this semester it has seemed that the Navy has been left out of discussion when speaking on behalf of specific branches of the military. However, now it is clear to me that the Navy has been one of the most active branches even though fighting has taken place in landlocked countries. This helps stregthen the argument of the MIC, and how we are subsequently using our Navy to protect our world-trade interests. We clearly have the seas dominated, and in places like Georgia it is evident that we have began to butt heads with the Russians over an oil pipeline that runs through a country in which we have both provided military assistance and aid. The question for the future is what will happen in 3rd world African countries when oil supplies begin to deminish? How far will we go to compete against China in order to win over the leaders of unstable African nations that are trying to maintain power?

The Revolving Door

In the last few discussions and readings (especially Barstow), the idea of a revolving door has been brought up, but not focused on enough in my opinion. For those people, such as the retired N.Y.P.D. officer in "Why We Fight", that get discouraged over what the DoD and the Administration is getting away with by blatantly lying to the media, want some help. The only check on this system seems to be the 'watchdog' military analysts that get inside information on how wars are being fought. However, when this watchdog happens to be the product of the same system, their is ultimately no protection to what the federal government is capable of doing. These military analysts in many cases have either had close ties with politicians, corporations, and especially ties to the military where they either know higher-ups or have a fraternal relationship with these men. Also, if the analysts are ever to speak negatively about a DoD situation, they are likely to have their access to special information cutoff, and can easily be replaced by another analyst waiting in the wings for their chance to the privelliged information. In order to fix this system, we need unbiased supervisors helping out in the gathering of this information. Background checks on ties to anything that would influnce the MIC should be gathered and influence who gets determine what is really going on in Washington. Perhaps it is far too late now in Iraq, but before the next big project undertaken by Washington involving the DoD, the media needs to be given a better perspective for the American people and the world. We should not have to find out years later that thousands of people died and billions of dollars were wasted for reasons that ended up being apparantly untrue.

The Real Matrix

Alright, I get the point. The DoD uses a lot of corporations to handle several aspects of daily military operations. Turse went above and beyond in his descriptive story of Rick, the average American, and how most of his life is intertwined with military influence. It was quite revealing early on in the article that if you take part in the economy, then you are using products that are also doing business with the military. Perhaps this is because the Pentagon is making the military more adaptive to civilian life, as opposed to creating a foreign life. Therefore, military personnel can find comforts in their brand name soap, candybars, and coffee when they enlist for the military.

The thing that took me by surprise involves Eisenhower's MIC speech. With the way the economy/military was transforming during his time period, the DoD should be on pace to using $200 million. The problem is that this number has increased to $1 trillion. If he believed there was a problem 50 years ago, then he would most certainly find the country in a state of crisis today. Maybe we have lost sight of this problem because the military is using 'cool' corporations, things that we ourselves are familiar with using. Afterall, it looks a lot different to the taxpayer when they are paying corporations such as FedEx and SaraLee then it is when using Bechtel or Lockheed Martin.