Energy Security for Maritime Security​

By Michael D. Purzycki

Energy is one of the key factors in the outcome of an armed conflict. As Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz put it during World War II, “Winning the war is a matter of oil, bullets, and beans.” To defeat the Axis, the United States was not afraid to ask for difficult material sacrifice from its citizens, including when they were behind the wheels of their cars. Gasoline was rationed, and citizens were strongly urged to carpool. Even Americans who did not wear uniforms or go overseas were expected to do their part.

It is hard to imagine a 21^st century government insisting on that kind of sacrifice from the American public. While the role of oil in the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein is debatable, it would have been apropos for the U.S. government to encourage less domestic oil consumption during a major conflict in the oil-rich Middle East. Early in the Iraq war, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman advocated a large gasoline tax increase to this end, but his advice was not heeded. The federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and proposals to reduce American oil dependence that would make petroleum products more expensive are often seen as politically untenable.

This is unfortunate because, if the U.S. finds itself in a naval conflict with China, energy could be an Achilles’ heel for U.S. forces. While the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) has surged into prominence thanks to its use to combat domestic gas price rises, it has a role in maritime security, as well. A July 2021 article in Proceedings argued that, “In any fight in the western Pacific in the coming decades, the Navy is likely to run out of gas…because crude and refined petroleum products are not located strategically to support warfighters in the Pacific.” Author Andrea K. Orlowski advocated increasing fuel storage and SPR capacity on the West Coast.

More petroleum should not be the only energy priority, though. The Sea Services can take pride in their expanded use of non-fossil energy in recent years. The Navy’s Great Green Fleet showed that partially substituting biofuels for diesel does not compromise a Carrier Strike Group’s warfighting abilities. Marines in Afghanistan pioneered the use of portable solar panels and solar-powered generators at remote locations, a decision influenced by learning that one in fifty fuel or water convoys in that country resulted in at least one Marine casualty. While commanding the 1^st Marine Division during the invasion of Iraq, future Secretary of Defense James Mattis worried that his troops might run out of fuel on their way to Baghdad, an experience that convinced him America’s warfighters must be “unleashed from the tether of fuel.”

The Department of Defense (DoD) is by far the federal government’s largest energy consumer. From 2001 to 2018, DoD accounted for no less than 77% of federal energy usage in any given year, according to the Watson Institute at Brown University. While total DoD usage decreased by 10% in fiscal year 2020, the Department of the Navy’s share of DoD-wide consumption increased from 34% to 36%. The Navy and Marine Corps can, if they choose, take advantage of this challenge to revive the spirit of World War II, and ask America’s civilians to endure some pain at the pump for the sake of maritime security.

If the Navy does not have enough oil at its disposal to defeat a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, or to defend treaty allies like Japan and the Philippines, it should consider candidly asking Congress to take oil out of the civilian economy and put it in the Navy’s hands. If Congress is reluctant to find the money to build greater SPR West Coast capacity, the leaders of the Sea Services could publicly advocate targeted tax measures to pay for it. For example, the federal government currently taxes crude oil to fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, managed by the Coast Guard. If an argument for raising this tax to expand the SPR’s infrastructure and stockpiles came from Navy admirals and Marine generals, it could tap into Americans’ high regard for their troops to ask for support that goes beyond saying “Thank you for your service.”

To be sure, calling for measures that would make gasoline more expensive would bring the military into a fraught political space. But it is better to tackle a potential fuel shortage before a war breaks out, rather than scramble to meet the Armed Forces’ needs after the fighting has begun. Gallup surveys indicate that, in 2022, 64% of Americans had either a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the military. While that is down from a peak of 82% in 2009, that still puts the military second highest of 19 major public and private institutions, behind only small business. If anyone in the realm of public service can call for their fellow Americans to sacrifice, it is men and women in uniform.

In his 1962 State of the Union address, President, and Navy veteran, John F. Kennedy remarked, “The time to repair the roof is when the sun is shining.” Today’s geopolitical climate may not look sunny, between Russia’s war in Ukraine, the looming specter of China’s military, and many other challenges. But the mere fact that the U.S. is not presently directly fighting a major conflict can be considered a sunny period of sorts, a chance for the Sea Services to ensure they have the energy they need. Whether that be solar panels to harness literal sunshine, or oil to cross oceans, maritime security requires energy security.

Michael D. Purzycki is an analyst, writer, and editor based in Arlington, Virginia. He has worked for the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Army. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.