What say we make a real national security strategy, one based on energy independence and a sustainable economy?

Jim Dwyer write 3 May 2011 in the NY Times, A National Security Strategy That Doesn’t Focus on Threats

“Poorly fitted air conditioners cost New York City 130 to 180 million dollars a year in extra energy consumption,” one of the strategists, Capt. Wayne Porter of the Navy, said Tuesday. “They generate 370,525 extra tons of carbon dioxide.”

Suppose, he says, you fixed them. And then you got the 40 states that waste the most electricity to match the 10 most efficient. The likely benefits are no surprise — less foreign oil, cost savings, job creation, decreased pollution.

Now follow that thread to “A National Strategic Narrative,” a paper written by Captain Porter and Col. Mark Mykleby of the Marines, which calls on the United States to see that it cannot continue to engage the world primarily with military force, but must do so as a nation powered by the strength of its educational system, social policies, international development and diplomacy, and its commitment to sustainable practices in energy and agriculture.

“We must recognize that security means more than defense,” they write. After ending the 20th century as the world’s most powerful country, “we failed to recognize that dominance, like fossil fuel, is not a sustainable form of energy.”

An army without an economy defends nothing.

A sustainable economy doesn’t need much of an army.

Sure, everybody is talking about the demise of Osama bin Laden. But remember:

“When Saddam Hussein was discovered in his spider hole, everyone thought, ‘Hallelujah, the war is over,’ and it was really just beginning,” Colonel Mykleby said Tuesday by phone from his home in South Carolina. “The big, bad daddies, taking them out — it’s not the answer. It’s part of it. The job is not done yet. There are still bad guys are out there, and it’s going to be part of the fabric of our world. This is a critical moment to talk about a narrative that isn’t just focused on threats.”

In their paper, the officers argue that the United States has to move from “containment” — the foreign policy established after World War II to limit the expansion and influence of the Soviet Union — to what they call “sustainment” or sustainability.

The first priority, they write, should be “intellectual capital and a sustainable infrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing development and growth of America’s youth.” They go on to say that the country’s security may require “a hard look at the distribution of our treasure,” arguing that the historic focus on defense and protectionism has meant the neglect of international development and diplomacy. And with technology piercing the isolation of nations, they write that the United States has a stake in helping countries held down by illiteracy and poverty.

Want to decrease worldwide exploitation of resources and pollution? Increase literacy and decrease poverty. Many studies show that’s the path to lower population and less resource use.

Global security begins at home, with education and a sustainable economy. We already know how to deploy solar and wind energy. Let’s get on with it.

-jsq

Short Link: