ARTICLE: "Energy Independence: A Dry Hole? Experts Across Political Spectrum Challenge 'Emotionally Compelling' Slogan," by John J. Fialka, Wall Street Journal, 5 July 2006, p. A4.

It is the quintessential irrational slogan of our era, one that places all economic logic secondary to political (and op-ed) opportunism: "Energy independence for America!"

I'm sorry to see Kerry dip into that one recently, but he's in good cynical company with our current president, a recent convert himself.

The truth is, our consumption per thousand dollars of GDP has declined dramatically over the past 30 years, making oil far less crucial to our economy. In 1973 it stood at roughly 1.4 barrels/1kGDP. Now it stands at roughly 0.7 barrels, or a decline of roughly 50 percent.

Not bad for "oil addicted" America, whose only true sin is growing our economy so dramatically since 1973.

But even there our total oil consumption has risen only from about 17 million barrels a day in 1973 to about 21 today. Again, not bad.

The real issue for many is one of imports, which stood at only 5 mbd in 1973 and now sits about 11 mbd, so shifting from about one third of our oil use back then to roughly 60% now.

Still, about the only thing dumber than describing that as an addiction is calling for independence. C. Fred Bergsten, director of the International Institute of Economics, calls the notion "ridiculous," because it implies that "price doesn't matter, that you'll pay any amount to decrease your reliance on imports--and that would be crazy."

Instead, Bergsten, like me, calls for more cooperation between us and rising China (with its skyrocketing demand for foreign oil), calling us "natural allies" because we're both big consumers sitting on the same side of the table opposite OPEC.

Ah, but we can't have alliance with China, can we? That would ruin all those plans for high-tech weaponry we don't actually need for wars we won't actually fight against opponents that won't actually materialize. Calling for energy independence fits that rationale nicely, because it begs America to beg off from trying to connect the Middle East or even to seek Chinese cooperation in that effort. Instead, let's go autarkic on energy, hunker down, keep our powder dry... you know the story.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

But if we stopped all imports from the Middle East, wouldn't the Middle East stop being a security issue? Well, as one expert points out in this piece, we don't import any Iranian oil and haven't in decades. So much for that theory of disconnectedness leading to security.

But the real weakness here is that autarky in any form is not a realizable strategy in an interconnected world, whether you're talking energy or R&D or manufacturing ("Buy American!") or the service sector ("Traitor CEOs selling our jobs to damn furreigners!"). The network of globalization itself becomes the security issue, so building in resiliency is the answer, not the false dream of autarky.

We need new rules to manage this far more integrated and connected security order, to shrink this Gap and grow this Core by keeping it safe. That's what my books are all about: 21st century answers to 21st century problems of war and peace.

And that's what Enterra Solutions is all about, leading that charge (as it should be) from the private sector.

Sure, I could sell more books by peddling more fear and making it all seem so much simpler than it is (we need a Manhattan Project on X...), but I like to sleep at night, and I fear intellectual dishonesty more than anything--even obscurity and failure.

But the truth is there is no logical trade-off between connectivity and security, or between efficiency and security. That's the gospel Steve DeAngelis and I are preaching, and it sells because it speaks to our true ingenuity as Americans: not running away from tough problems but running toward them.

Great piece by Fialka. Pound-for-pound, as good as anything I've read in the last five years.