Sustainability is the strongest defense, military experts say
A professor with a bold plan to prepare an Ohio college town for peak oil and global warming has captured the interest of some military experts.
The plan for Oberlin, spearheaded by environmental studies professor David Orr, includes revitalizing downtown and the local economy, strengthening the arts and the agrarian culture, and making the town less car dependent. The plan seems less remarkable than the interest that it has garnered from key quarters. Notes the Chronicle for Higher Education:
One of Mr. Orr's most vocal advocates is Col. Mark (Puck) Mykleby of the U.S. Marines, who just retired as special strategic assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Over the summer, Colonel Mykleby received national attention for a paper he wrote with another military strategist, Capt. Wayne Porter of the Navy, which argued that America's future lay not with its robust military force but with strategies for sustainable energy and agriculture, fair social policies, and a strong educational system.
Patrick C. Doherty, a national-security expert at the New America Foundation, is another believer that plans like Oberlin's can make the nation stronger:
Mr. Doherty and his colleagues believe that the nation needs grand strategy once again to meet a new global challenge. "We think that the core global challenge is global unsustainability," he says—a convergence of major problems, including a persistent middle-class recession, ecological systems in decline, a vast population of the world's poorest people cut out of the global economy, and a core infrastructure susceptible to shock and disruption.
Part of the nation's grand strategy in the cold war was to build suburbia, to satisfy a major housing demand and stoke the economic engine. But those suburban communities are now both unsustainable and undesirable, Mr. Doherty says. Research shows that the majority of both retiring baby boomers and up-and-coming millennials want to live in walkable, affordable communities, rich with amenities and connected to mass transit.
In short, it's called "smart growth"—and it's the way many college towns are already designed and oriented. In fact, Mr. Doherty points out, college towns (including, even recently, Oberlin) have been the sites of new retirement communities, because that older generation wants to live close to institutions of higher education and the cultures they foster.
Oberlin College has been the biggest contributor to implementation to date. The institution recently renovated its Allen Art Museum, which sits in the arts-district block, for $11.2-million. "Oberlin also put up $500,000 to guarantee a loan for three former students who led a brownfield redevelopment—new green condos and retail space on the site of an old car dealership—in the heart of town. ... The college also recently purchased and started renovating the town's sole movie house, a historic 1913 theater next to the brownfield redevelopment, a project that will cost $9-million."




Comments
I did not know...
... that new urban developments are bullet proof. Is it the art museums that protect them from missiles? Do pedestrians make a suitcase nuke ineffective? Or is it the sidewalks alone? Less pavement? More trees? Great streets - the awnings, perhaps?
NO, NO, I know - it is the more economically diverse residents! And the Leed platinum condos!
Wow. The strongest defense, militarily speaking. I AM FLABERGASTED!
Places worth defending
As Kunstler says, if you don't have a place worth defending, who is going to defend it in the long run?
the 99%
I might not condone the "occupy" demonstrators, but they do have a point.
"retiring baby boomers and millenialists want to live in walkable, affortable communities...close to institutions of higher learning" and pay for the millions spent on their self promoting philosophies.
I am part of the 99% that will not benefit from their efforts.
My children will be the foot soldiers that will protect the elite in their cloistered sustainable utopian vilage.
GET REAL with the rest of the world.
You miss the point
The article talks about millenials, not millenialists. Millenials are young people, like me, who are in the 99%. Many of us want to live in cities near where we work. I used to drive 45 minutes to work like my parents. Now I bike 20 minutes to work, or take a bus and read.
I'm not the elite and I don't live in a utopian village. I live in a medium-big city on a moderate salary. I and my generation are tired with the old suburban model.
And, the more people that drive less, the less oil we need to take from the Middle East (+ Venezuela, etc) - so the less we need our armies there. That's great news for my friends who are serving in the military - and great for me since it's less likely they'll die fighting for resources for our lifestyle.
bringin' it all back home
One of the reasons that we're up to our necks in the Mid-East is our dependence on foreign oil. Reduce/eliminate that dependence, increase our security at home. It's that simple.
Demonizing suburbs
This is not entirely true: "those suburban communities are now both unsustainable and undesirable." They are desirable because people continue to live in them, take care of them, enlarge houses in them, and buy houses there. They are sustainable in that many of them are heavily insulated, have deciduous trees on their southern sides (which cuts down air conditioning use), have high tech windows, efficient heating systems, modern high efficiency applicances, high tech lightbulbs, and hybrid cars in the driveways. Their gardens, lawns, greenways, playgrounds, golf courses, and parks provide land banks. Many of their residents walk their dogs, jog, exercise, and ride bicycles. A fair percent of those suburban residents telecommute at least one day a week. A fair percent of those houses include "boomerang" college students and graduates, and mother-in-law apartments, which makes for multi-generations living under one roof. One good way to help ensure national security is to stop flagellating ourselves because some of us like to live in houses.
Go to the source
Here is a link to the report itself, which is a long but VERY worthwhile read.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%20National%20Strategic%20Narrative.pdf
Here's a video of the authors describing the work and how it came to be.
The authors arrive at their conclusion not from the perspective of urban planning, military tactics, or domestic economic policy. Instead they come from the viewpoint of military and national security strategy.
It's rich stuff, and difficult to compress into a brief news article, but definitely worth reading and discussing.
Source=Globalism & Article=Disinformation/Confusion
The 'source' referred to above does not discuss U.S. national security; rather it is an argument for globalism. It is not written by military experts. Arguments for global utopia don't fly, though socialists find it a useful red herring.
The original article names military people, and then quotes someone else - either classic disinformation or classic confusion.
Fluff stuff does not provide either (1) interesting, or (2) useful, discussion regarding national security. Of course, one does not look to this source for anything on that topic.
So, guys, absurdity is great, but it is not serious. This publication should be serious about design.
Source=globalism
Denise,
Did you read the article that Frank provided the link to, A National Strategic Narrative? I would say that actively serving military officers, one of whom is a top aide to the joint chiefs of staff, qualify as military experts. I'm not sure what you call globalism, but I don't see how one can write comprehensively about national security, as these writer do, without dealing with global issues.
Re: go to the source
Frank,
This is a great article — really top notch. This is a hard-headed analysis that is broad in scope and challenging. It covers a great deal more than what we call "smart growth," but the idea of "smart growth" at home is key to our credibility and influence abroad, the authors contend. In an article that looks like it runs about 5,000 words, here are the passages that specifically mention "smart growth."
"We often hear the term “smart power” applied to the tools of development and diplomacy abroad empowering people all over the world to improve their own lives and to help establish the stability needed to sustain security and prosperity on a global scale. But we can not export “smart power” until we practice “smart growth” at home. We must seize the opportunity to be a model of stability, a model of the values we cherish for the rest of the world to emulate. And we must ensure that our domestic policies are aligned with our foreign policies. Our own “smart growth” can serve as the exportable model of “smart power.” Because, truthfully, it is in our interest to see the rest of the world prosper and the world market thrive, just as it is in our interest to see our neighbors prosper and our own urban centers and rural communities come back to life."
And also:
"Only by developing internal strength through smart growth at home and smart power abroad, applied with strategic agility, can we muster the credible influence needed to remain a world leader.