I have not made my way through all of it, but it is a very interesting read. It is interesting to see how they perceive their role as regards to national security. This has been an interesting thread. I'll put out a few exerpts and comments, hoping to keep it alive and stir some interest, hopefully without causing it to be shut down. These are excerpts. If you read the article, you can get the background behind them.
For over six decades the U.S. has underwritten the hidden export of global security for the great trading nations of the world, yet global and domestic pressures will dramatically impact the defense budget in the face of rising debt and trade imbalances. This may diminish this service which is of great benefit to the international community. In this world, new security exporters may rise, each having opinions and objectives that differ from the global norms and conventions that we have encouraged since our own emergence as a great power a century ago. Moreover, they will increasingly have the power to underwrite their own not-so-hidden export of military power.
A catch 22. Do we continue to spend a great portion of our national treasure so we remain the strongest nation on earth, or do we require other nations to provide global defense, which means we are more militarily vulnerable. Consider who will have the ability and interests in providing a global police service. Would you prefer them than us?
Absent a major increase in the relative reliance on alternative energy sources (which would require vast insertions of capital, dramatic changes in technology, and altered political attitudes toward nuclear energy), oil and coal will continue to drive the energy train. By the 2030s, oil requirements could go from 86 to 118 million barrels a day (MBD). Although the use of coal may decline in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, it will more than double in developing nations. Fossil fuels will still make up 80% of the energy mix in the 2030s, with oil and gas comprising upwards of 60%. The central problem for the coming decade will not be a lack of petroleum reserves, but rather a shortage of drilling platforms, engineers and refining capacity.
In other words, in their opinion, we cannot drill our way out of it.
The presence of Chinese civilians in the Sudan to guard oil pipelines underlines Chinas concern for protecting its oil supplies and could portend a future in which other states intervene in Africa to protect scarce resources. The implications for future conflict are ominous, if energy supplies cannot keep up with demand and should states see the need to militarily secure dwindling energy resources.
Ive seen vast numbers of Chinese civilians working in Angola, building that countries infrastructure in exchange for oil.
For example, the contribution of U.S. and partner forces to relieve the distress caused by the catastrophic Pacific tsunami of December 2004 reversed the perceptions of America held by many Indonesians. Perhaps no other mission performed by the Joint Force provides so much benefit to the interests of the United States at so little cost.
Indonesia has more Muslims than any country in the world. For those that want to blindly cut foreign aid, maybe this hints at why I do not like any blind or blanket cuts, in foreign aid or anywhere else. I think cuts as well as expenses should be weighed on an individual basis.
I'm not going to say I agree with everything they have in this article, but I think they have a whole lot of it down pretty well.
