It started with a simple directive: bring down the casualty numbers.
At the time, Former Lt. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer was the commanding general of the most restive province of Iraq in 2006—al Anbar. And at the time, there was primarily one reason for the dramatic spike in American casualties: Fuel.
It was in the months preceding "The Anbar Awakening," the grass roots movement that turned the tide of war in Iraq, and the Al Qaeda insurgency was fighting like a cornered animal to keep a grip on the region. As a result, Improvised Explosive Device casualties had skyrocketed.
"What we saw in Anbar was the dramatic increase in use of IEDs, side attacks, inside of roads, buried IEDs, very destructive, even to uparmored humvees," said Zilmer. "So we started taking a hard look at everything we were doing to expose Marines to IED attacks."
What Zilmer noticed when looking at graphs of the IED attacks was thick, red lines running along the Main Supply Routes, or MSRs, like veins along the province. Zilmer said many of the casualties were caused just from convoys moving place to place.
"We had units all over Anbar, because that's what you do during counterinsurgency, you cover down on the enemy," said Zilmer. "You have to be able to supply those outbound areas. Mostly fuel, diesel, combustibles, (and there was bullets, bandages, and beans, but mostly) all that energy that was being consumed was drawing us out, the more energy you needed the more convoys you needed to sustain."
So Zilmer issued what was called at the time a "Priority 1" rapid resource response:
“(The Marine Corps must) augment our use of fossil fuels with renewable energy, such as photovoltaic solar panels and wind turbines, at our outlying bases. By reducing the need for [petroleum-based fuels], we can decrease the frequency of logistics convoys on the road, thereby reducing the danger to our Marines, soldiers, and sailors . . . . If this need is not met, operating forces will remain unnecessarily exposed to IED, RPG [rocket propelled grenade], and [small arms fire] threats and will continue to accrue preventable Level III and IV serious and grave casualties resulting from motor vehicle accidents and . . . attacks. Continued casualty accumulation exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success.
In other words, the U.S. addiction to oil in regards to the military was threatening to lose the war in Iraq.
This threat can be seen more recently in Pakistan, where the Coalition's 11-year long effort almost sputtered to a close because of convoy disputes and fuel tanker bombings.
It seems as if Zilmer's warnings have gone the way of that oft mentioned tree in the woods. The US is currently dedicating massive resources to making sure the Strait of Hormuz remains open at all cost. In total, maintaining the flow of oil out of the Persian and Arabian Gulf costs the U.S. anywhere between $86 billion and $104 billion dollars a year (according to a 2009 Rand report); which doesn't seem that bad until it's compared to the only "credible" threat to that flow, Iran, which has a yearly defense budget of about $20 billion—that particular strategic cost benefit analysis expressed in one word: yikes.
In other words, enemies can stop America's mega-multibillion dollar military machine with a handful of chump change (and America out there right this very second practicing in case they try).
"Our analysis shows that if you close the straight of Hormuz for 30 days you'll bring the global economy to it's knees in 30 days," said Zilmer.
Since retiring, Zilmer acknowledges how the addiction to fossil fuels has drawn the U.S. out not just on the battlefield, but into international conflict.
"We have to start being honest about our presence in these regions. The deployments take us over there, and if you're a cynic, there are a couple of interests, clearly one of them is petroleum and we have this mortgage as the United states, to make sure the petroleum is flowing," said Zilmer.
He went on to list a number of conflicts, starting with the Iraq war, that were ultimately initiated by America's dependence on fossil fuels.
"Politically, I'm not a greenie, I'm not an advocate, I'm not an alarmist, this is strictly from a national security, military perspective," said Zilmer. "We've qualified how we or advance our argument - from a military perspective, lighter faster and more lethal on the battlefield, if we have a smaller footprint, if we if can lighten the load, inherently we're going to make us a fiercer fighting force."
And Zilmer isn't alone. Once he issued that "Priority 1," he retired, and found himself a position with the Center for Naval Analyses and Public Research; and CNA, as it's exclusively called now, has issued four major papers about the effects of oil addiction and climate change on national security.
All told, 10 other 4- and 3-star generals joined Zilmer in their latest paper, titled "A National Security Imperative to Reduce U.S. Oil Dependence." Among them is the former commandant of the Marine Corps, General James T. Conway. Conway had the distinction of leading a battalion during the legendary battle for Fallujah as well as leading the entire Marine Corps when it succeeded in the entire province.
The chief finding of the paper, signed by all eleven generals, states simply "America’s dependence on oil constitutes a significant national security threat."
The remaining three main points are as follows:
- A 30 percent reduction in our use of petroleum would significantly improve America's national security.
- America can achieve a significant portion of a 30 percent reduction through greater efficiency in how we use oil.
- There are many promising alternatives to oil as a transport fuel—some available today, others on the horizon. If managed properly, all of the most promising alternative fuels examined can lower overall national security risks rather than continuing America's over reliance on oil as a singular fuel source.
There are, right now, several different initiatives within the military to initiate biofuels and renewable energy, but they do face considerable push back from firmly entrenched interests. (Even the incredibly on-the-ball outfit at Wired's Danger Room had to walk back a story of theirs that they based off an inaccurate report, filed by Congressmen using cherry picked information, for obvious, self-serving reasons.)
"The bottom line is—energy from a national security perspective, holds us hostage as a nation. Now, the DoD has historically been an innovator—jet propulsion, gps, computers, the world wide web— a large forcing function to get all of our society and economy moving in particular directions," said Zilmer.
But how does this get by Republicans in the House and the Senate, even so called Blue-Dog 
Democrats, who uniformly oppose, to put it lightly, any "investment" in new energy?
Well that's where ZIlmer and the CNA crew don't get greedy. This is not about hugging trees, this is not about 'picking winners.' It's about maintaining U.S. supremacy, militarily and economically. So the language the advisers offer is simple, diversify the portfolio.
"Half our trade deficit every year is made up of petroleum—see, in order to motivate congress, you have to articulate in dollars and cents. Along with not remaining hostage to unsavory partners that are out in the Middle Eastern region, we want to lead the world in this technology," said Zilmer.
Americans did invent solar and wind energy, but are right now not leading the globe in their production. Leading the globe in these technologies, Zilmer indicated, will bring unexportable jobs to American shores.
"From a national security perspective, we can insulate ourselves from any outside state influence in our energy if we can reduce dependence on fossil fuels by just 30 percent," said Zilmer, in conservative Republican pitch mode. "That requires diversifying the portfolio. No one thing we have right now contains the energy of a gallon of gas, but a couple different things, working in conjunction, that will do the trick."
As for the lawmakers who cry only for domestic fossil fuel production, Zilmer had a simple response—"Sure, we can do that too, but the simple fact is these resources are finite. The development of renewables is happening right now, and we're not going to follow China or anybody, or else we'll be dependent on them."
Zilmer said he and his constituents are always up on Capitol Hill, trying to start a grass roots movement, talking to Congressmen, especially Republicans, trying to convince them to break away from protecting entrenched industry.
"[They] have to look at it like a corporation. Big businesses need to make independent, corporate decisions without being influenced by special interests. That's what the government needs to do when it's making decisions about these energies,'" said Zilmer.
Zilmer emphasized that sequestration, or automatic across the board cuts, need to be looked at tactically, not arbitrarily, if the U.S. wants to save some of these burgeoning energy programs in the military.
"That when you get all the smart guys in one room and say, 'okay, we've got a problem, so what do we get rid of in order to keep these," said Zilmer.
He also noted, that the prevailing political sentiment, in the contemporary Washington landscape, is that the initiatives are "liberal" ideas.
"That's why this needs to be bipartisan. We need a bipartisan effort on this to make sure it's legislation that transcends administrations," said Zilmer.
Zilmer doesn't see it as "liberal vs. conservative," as much as it is safeguarding our military interests in the coming years, especially as climate change and population growth have an exponential effect on competition over dwindling resources.
He said the barest mention of "climate change" in Congress instantly "brings force fields up." But as the extremes in climate begin to target the areas Americans typically get their domestic oil, then the U.S. will be "drawn out" even further into the Middle East to defend its interests.
Then the argument to the naysayers is again, pretty simple, "Then that's what you want, 15 or 20 years from now, your sons and daughters are going to be out on fringes in the Middle East doing what we've been doing for thirty years."
This last argument is an overt reminder that what initially turned Zilmer to this personal mission, one he shares with many of his contemporary, high-level military strategic leaders, what kicked this of for him and probably many of them was that simple directive, 6 years ago: bring down the casualty numbers.
Author's note:
The author of this piece was a U.S. Marine writer deployed to Anbar from June '06 to February '07, what many consider one of the bloodiest periods of the war. Among his first and last articles published as a Marine journalist were about servicemen lost during convoy operations to improvised explosive devices, carrying, among other things, fuel.
Please follow Military & Defense on Twitter and Facebook.