🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cq4ag1$gaa$1@reader2.panix.com>, 
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

> In ne.politics W. K. Mahler StreamABill Media 
> <williamkmahlerNOSPAMHERE@nospamtheremahlersfinitedot.com> wrote:
> 
> > who'd nuke us without my permission for what?
> 
> Hopefully, Bill, nobody.
> 
> 
> > them there windfarm activisits, pro and con.
> 
> I think that renewable energy is an important national security issue.  
> I'd rather pour money into renewable energy than pour money into buying 
> guns and bombs to defend oil.  The windfarms are not an impact-less 
> addition to our energy production.  But then, neither is the importation 
> of foreign oil.
> 
> IMO, we neeed to stress conservation and renewable sources, and we need 
> to wean ourselves, as quickly as possible, from oil.

This is an interesting point when one considers the Global War on 
Terror, silly label as it may be [1]. Many theorists differentiate 
between Strategy and Grand Strategy.  Strategy remains a military 
responsibility, and has broad objectives such as establishing theaters 
of operation.  

Grand Strategy goes beyond the classical Clausewitz definition of war 
being an extension of national policy by other means. It includes 
diplomacy, propaganda, clandestine operations, and economic warfare.  
Reducing oil dependency could well fall under the heading of economic 
warfare.

[1] Mind you, when I think of an even sillier term, the Coalition
    Of the Willing and its unfortunate acronym, I tend to want to
    refer to the other side as the Movement Of the Opposition, at
    least providing symmetrical silly acronyms.