The Pentagon as Energy Insecurity Inc.

A viable long-term approach to actual energy security would not favor one particular source of energy -- in this case, oil -- above all others, or regularly expose American soldiers to a heightened risk of harm and American taxpayers to a heightened risk of bankruptcy. Rather, an American energy policy that made sense would embrace a holistic approach to energy procurement, weighing the relative merits of all potential sources of energy. Full Story »

Posted by Jeff Clark
Tags Help
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Jeff Clark - Jun 12, 2008 - 3:46 PM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Jeff Clark
5.0
by Jeff Clark - Oct. 1, 2008

This excellent analysis starts with a big, smart question: Does the US policy (begun by FDR and amplified by Carter) that links energy security and national security work? Klare argues that the "militarization of energy security" has actually backfired, making America's energy supply less secure. And he suggests a way out of the present dilemma. It's controversial stuff, but well-sourced and well worth rereading.

See Full Review » (9 answers)
Pam Rasmussen
4.8
by Pam Rasmussen - Oct. 1, 2008

This article offers another perspective on the United States' reflexive use of mlitarism to protect our interests, in this cases, bases to protect our energy interests. It deserves wide debate.

See Full Review » (7 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.8

Very good
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
4.9
Facts
4.5
Fairness
4.0
Information
5.0
Sourcing
4.3
Style
5.0
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
3.0
Context
5.0
Popularity
4.3
Recommendation
4.5
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!