High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Powering America’s Defense:
Energy and the Risks to National Security
May 2009
CNA is a not-for-profit company which serves the public interest by providing in-depth analysis and results-oriented solutions to help government leaders choose thebest course of action in setting policy and managing operations. CNA: Nobody getscloser—to the people, to the data, to the problem.APPROVED FOR DISTRIBUTION: May 2009Ms. Sherri GoodmanExecutive Director, CNA Military Advisory BoardGeneral Counsel, CNAThis document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue.The sponsors for this project were the Bipartisan Policy Center, the EnergyFoundation, and the Grayce B. Kerr Foundation.Printed on Green Seal® Certified 30 percent post-consumer fiber paper stock.
Copyright © 2009 CNA
PoweringAmericasDefense.org—i
To the Reader
During our decades of service in the U.S. military, we witnessed some of the impacts of America’senergy choices.Many of our overseas deployments were defined,in part, by the strategic decision to ensure the freeflow of oil, to the U.S. and to our allies. Many of thetroops we commanded were aided by air cover fromhigh thrust delivery systems that only an energy-in-tense society can provide. Many of these same troops were often burdened and imperiled by battlefieldsystems that were energy inefficient. Some of theattacks on our troops and on American civilians havebeen supported by funds from the sale of oil. Ournation’s energy choices have saved lives; they havealso cost lives. As we consider America’s current energy posture, we do so from a singular perspective: We gauge ourenergy choices solely by their impact on America’snational security. Our dependence on foreign oil re-duces our international leverage, places our troops indangerous global regions, funds nations and individu-als who wish us harm, and weakens our economy;our dependency and inefficient use of oil also putsour troops at risk. Our domestic electrical system isalso a current and significant risk to our national se-curity: many of our large military installations rely onpower from a fragile electrical grid that is vulnerableto malicious attacks or interruptions causedby natural disasters.In offering our recommendations, we considered acontext that will be increasingly shaped by climatechange. (We encourage readers to view our earlierreport:
“National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.”
) The effects of global warming will requireadaptive planning by our military. The effects of climate policies will require new fuels and energy sys-tems. Ignoring these trends will make us less secure;leading the way can make us more secure. The challenges inherent in this suite of issues may be daunting, particularly at a time of economic crisis.Still, our experience informs us there is good reasonfor viewing this moment in history as an opportunity. We can say, with certainty, that we need not exchangebenefits in one dimension for harm in another; infact, we have found that the best approaches toenergy, climate change, and national security may beone and the same.
General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald,USAF (Ret.);
Chairman of the MAB
General Charles G. Boyd,USAF (Ret.)Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell, Jr.,USAF (Ret.)General Paul J. Kern,USA (Ret.)General Ronald E. Keys,USAF (Ret.)Admiral T. Joseph Lopez,USN (Ret.)Admiral John B. Nathman,USN (Ret.)Rear Admiral David R. Oliver, Jr.,USN (Ret.)General Gordon R. Sullivan,USA (Ret.)General Robert Magnus,USMC (Ret.)Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn,USN (Ret.)Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly,USN (Ret.)
Add a Comment