The Green Party and National Security: An Interview with Alan Augustson
Lee on May 29 2007 at 11:56 pm | Filed under: Environment, Interviews, Lee's Page
A few weeks back I posted a facile little rebuke aimed at the national security implications of Green Party presidential candidate Alan Augustson’s political platform. Alan responded to this in such a way that I realized I had little idea what the Green Party’s position on security matters was, relative to its environmental policies. Indeed, rarely have I seen anyone even ask Green Party figures questions about this subject.
In continental Europe, Greens are expected to have a broad agenda on all conventional political issues from foreign policy, to funding for the humanities. However in the United States, Greens seem to have been ghettoized into answering questions solely on subjects like global warming or genetically engineered foods. This has the natural effect of marginalizing them into niche political interests within the broader Left. A Left that the media seems quite content to have dominated by the Democratic Party alone.
So, toward a better education in the broader politics of Greens, Alan was kind enough to sit down with us for a short interview on security policy.
From the outset, it should be noted that Alan is a fierce critic of current US security policy and naturally his ideas won’t find much agreement with me, or among postpolitical’s predominantly conservative audience. But I think you’ll agree with me that we managed to ask some fair questions and the interview turned out to be an interesting and instructive exploration of a radically different political perspective.
Lee: The Republican and the Democratic parties have definably different platforms and identities on matters of national security. Is there such a thing as a unique Green national security doctrine? If not, what should one be?
Alan: I pay little attention to the respective stands of the GOP and the Dems, for three reasons. The first two reasons stem from my understanding of political theory; the third is strictly practical:
Both parties’ positions are subject to change for no other reasons than political ones. Each party’s position gravitates toward the extremes to snare their respective nominations, and then back to the center to woo the country as a whole. Sum: zero, status quo.
Both parties’ positions are bounded by the notion of the politically feasible, failing to understand that political feasibility is a monster of their own creation.
I have worked in the field of public safety, whereas many/most of my colleague candidates have not.
Greens tend to shy away from doctrine; instead we try to craft policy that is in accord with the Ten Key Values of the GP. As such, don’t have a hard-and-fast National or Homeland Security policy. However, I do.
National Security for me involves a number of processes, only one of which is armed interdiction. The others are international diplomacy, which is a Federal responsibility; humanitarian action, which is a combined Federal/Private Sector/NGO effort; and domestic law enforcement and emergency preparedness, which should generally be handled by the States (Federal coordination is appropriate when an emergency involves multiple States).
I don’t claim that international aggression and terrorism don’t exist; that would be ridiculous. But the causes for them are complex, and have roots that reach back through centuries of animosity. Therefore the solutions need to be systemic and forward-thinking. We must partner for peace even with nations that think differently from ourselves. When we don’t — when we force our worldview down others’ throats using *any* kind of coercion, a terrorist is born. Hosni Mubarak, one of the few real friends we had left in the Mid-East, was once heard to say that the war in Iraq would spawn “a hundred bin Ladens.” And he’s certainly in a position to know.
So — would I, for instance, have permitted Saddam to continue, crushing his people and threatening his neighbors? Forgive my answering a question with a question, but do we not do precisely that with Kim Jong-Il and his people? What prevents us from swarming into North Korea to bring ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’? The difference is precisely
this: oil and ego.
A third reason might be considered ‘fear’; namely, fear of nuclear retaliation. But what is ‘fear’ to a President who claims to take his
orders straight from God? Therefore I dismiss that argument.
But what about 9-11?
You asked for it: another question for an answer. How many 9-11’s would it have taken, to equal the scope of suffering in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina/Rita/Wilma? How much of that suffering could have been averted, if we had a National Security Plan that focused on known, frequently-occurring threats? I respectfully maintain that we are not one damned bit safer from terrorist attack, than we were on September 10th. The President’s notion of Homeland Security is only good for the gathering of the lowest-hanging fruit, not against dedicated, coordinated, well-funded terrorist efforts.
You’re probably going to hear repeated references from me, of combating terrorism by simply making ourselves less and less attractive as a target — by decreasing the U.S. footprint abroad, by contributing to regional self-determination everywhere, and by reversing the military-primacy policy of the past three generations. Yes, it’s a passive approach; but I’m interested in results, not in saving face.
Lee: You’ve suggested that maintaining a strategic reserve capacity of biodiesel, would be a possible solution for retaining competitive military capabilities with the rest of the world, if they were not to eliminate oil consumption at the same time. However, can most of our equipment from the M1 Abrams tank, to military aircraft which require kerosene based fuels like JP8, be easily converted to utilization of current renewable energy sources? If not, how would you address the enormous budgetary costs that would likely be associated with abrupt military conversion to renewable fuel types?
Alan: I admit I’m not an expert, but I was under the impression that tanks tended to have diesel engines. Perhaps that’s outmoded knowledge. Anyway, if so, then they can accommodate soy- or peanut-based biodiesel with minimal conversion. Some diesel engines require no conversion at all.
With respect to planes, however, we’re a bit stuck. There is no substance that will get a plane airborne, that is not petroleum-based.
Therefore we will surely need to maintain at least some strategic petroleum reserves for military use, while we work on a suitable replacement.
The number of training flights, patrol sorties, etc., will have to decrease over time — but it’s not reasonable to assume that this will only be happening to us. Eventually, our would-be adversaries will also be hard-pressed to justify burning the fuel for a trans-oceanic attack.
The United States presently consumes about 25% of global oil output. So it could be anticipated that our withdrawal from oil consumption (particularly if accompanied by our allies), would dramatically extend the life-span of availability for oil in the rest of the world. Also, your platform is not contingent (so far as I can tell) on international compliance with any new US energy policy standards. Thus there would be no immediate correlative degradation in military capabilities among potential US adversaries. How can this be addressed?
This is a tremendous problem. China, in particular, can be counted upon to maintain their accelerated consumption, no matter what we do. At some point they too will experience an analogue of Peak Oil; and they can be counted upon to trade arms-for-oil as they grow increasingly desperate.
Again, they will do this regardless what happens in the US. We can’t prevent it simply by keeping Republicans in office.
What we can do, however, is continue to make ourselves less and less attractive a target (I warned you!), by having fewer and fewer interests abroad for them to threaten, and by interfering less and less with their national sovereignty.
The Chinese are not a stupid or a suicidal people; since their fossil-fuel consumption is directly tied to our demand for cheap consumer goods, they will recognize the inevitable and commence their own economic and infrastructure conversion.
Lee: Would maintaining a separate refining capacity for military purposes, not substantially increase long-term operational cost for the Defense Department, given the decreasing economy of scale?
Alan: Yes it would, but as I said earlier this will not be a long-term condition. We will maintain what we have to in order to defend North America from a seaborne or airborne attack, but over time our vulnerability to such will decrease.
Lee: I often hear Greens make the argument that US oil purchases from the Middle East and Africa, indirectly finance terrorist movements against us. But it doesn’t pass without notice, that many of the least stable regions in the Middle East are those without significant (or significantly exploited) oil deposits. By arresting the ongoing purchase of oil and thus removing the only source of hard currency for much of the Middle East, is it not logical to assume this would likely induce greater political instability in that region? If yes, what could the United States do to help prevent political chaos there, following the evaporation of Middle Eastern GDP?
Alan: I do often think about the suffering that will come to those regions that have no global currency other than oil. However, we have never yet succeeded in imposing a solution upon another nation. You simply cannot starve or bomb another people to enlightenment. I suspect that all we can do, is to provide the example of the alternative.
We will continue to need oil for some time, even if not for use in a gas tank. We’ll need it for the raw materials, the production and the distribution of oil-replacement technologies. Therefore these most-vulnerable nations have some assurance of income for awhile, with which they’ll at least have a chance to manage their own transitions.
Now, I’d like to address an aspect of post-oil recovery that we haven’t had a chance to discuss yet: “Human Power”.
Nearly no activists are pushing for the production and distribution of human-power systems to supplement such things as solar/wind/hydro/etc. It’s a pity, given its potential.
For instance, “Velomobiles” and other human-powered vehicles can now do 30-40mph, on the flat, with minimal stress on the rider, making them perfect for short-distance commuting. An optional, rechargeable electric assist gets you over the hills. You can see a number of very impressive models here: (Take a good look at the “WAW”, or the “Go-One”, especially. I am definitely getting one of these things!).
A hand-crank generator can recharge a portable radio or cell phone in two minutes.
Foot-pedal crank generators can actually produce household wattage sufficient to power all your elective electronics, such as your TV or stereo, or your PC; thereby leaving the household solar or wind generator to deal with life-support power such as for refrigeration.
And it’s not as if the so-called ‘Fattest Nation On Earth’ can’t use a workout!
What I’m trying to say is that life post-oil doesn’t have to be one of total darkness and deprivation. It can be comfortable and it can even be fun. But getting American manufacturers to churn these technologies out, using the time/fuel/materials we have left, will make all the difference.
Thanks for listening; wishing you well.
Lee: Thanks, Alan.
Alan’s campaign site is here.
Sphere: Related Content
