Is Gen. Jim Jones in the Pocket of Big Oil?
Since retiring from a sparkling 40-year military career the Associated Press says combined "impeccable military credentials with an ambassador's polish," Gen. Jim Jones has served as president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy. This job requires, according to the organization's website, ensuring that "America's energy supply is adequate, affordable, and secure while protecting the environment."
Having heard the chatter over whether Obama's choice of Jones, along with Hillary at State and Gates at Defense, has raised the eyebrows of his liberal base (the best response comes from Peter Beinart, who writes in Time, "It's precisely because Obama intends to pursue a genuinely progressive foreign policy that he's surrounding himself with people who can guard his right flank at home") we now turn to Jones' opinions on energy and the environment. It could be Jones, after all, to utter the final words before Obama decrees on a major conflagration, military or otherwise.
In a speech Jones gave in June 2007, launching the Chamber's new energy initiative, he said he first became aware of the importance of energy in 1973, "while sitting in a Volkswagen in Springfield, Virginia at 4 o'clock in the morning." He was waiting in a gas line on his way to Quantico, Virginia. "Thirty-three years later," he recalled, "as Commander of NATO, I worried early in the mornings about how to protect energy facilities and supply chain routes as far away as Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Caspian Sea."
Even George W. Bush understood that energy and security are inexorably linked, and that dependence on foreign oil makes Americans less safe every day. Where the next top National Security Advisor stands on energy, therefore, becomes a central issue in this debate. In a recent interview with Big Think and Roll Call, Jones outlined his vision for America's energy future, making several astute and innocuous recommendations -- diversify our supply base, modernize our infrastructure, increase research and development for clean coal technology, and provide a streamlined regulatory framework for energy investments.
But Jones, who sits on the board of directors of Chevron and Boeing, also said the it was time to "consider an end to the moratorium on the production of oil and gas off our lands and off our shores," and that "the nuclear sector has to be reenergized and reinvented." He further lamented, "we haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years." It is these controversial energy recommendations that should raise liberal eyebrows more than his stint last year working for Condoleezza Rice to improve Palestinian security forces.
As his biography on the Institute for 21st Century Energy website recounts, Jones "brings passion and commitment for finding practical solutions to the energy problems facing the nation, and he believes that the Energy Institute will play a key role in influencing our national and international energy policy in a nonpartisan manner." Following the disastrous experience of having a U.S. military in the pocket of Halliburton and Big Oil, we hope the pragmatism and polish Gen. Jones will likely bring to the NSA is not offset by corporate allegiances more tied to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce than to the health and security of the American people.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
People don't realize that just as large corporate interests lobby for legislation on their behalf, they also lobby to get their people in high positions in government. There is tremendous lobbying going on over cabinet picks, VP picks, all political appointments.
People who think these are merit appointments are naive. There are large corporate interests, especially the military-industrial complex at work influencing government, including democratic administrations. These large corporate interests know that they have to influence democratic administrations as well as republican ones- they are working both sides to get their people in there.
And they do get their people in there. Personnel = policy. If they get their people in positions of power, then they get their interests taken care of while the rest of us don't.
"'consider an end to the moratorium on the production of oil and gas off our lands and off our shores,' and that 'the nuclear sector has to be reenergized and reinvented.' He further lamented, 'we haven't built a nuclear power plant in this country in over 30 years.' It is these controversial energy recommendations..." -- These are recommendations? When Obama said he would "think about" offshore drilling in the third debate, McCain jumped on him for not backing the idea. Last I checked, considering an idea is the same as thinking about it and not a recommendation. Likewise, his statement on nuclear power, which is tangential to the oil topic BTW, does not contradict Obama's policy statements on nuclear power reform. Where is the controversy?
His on the board of Chevron, so what.
Yes he is… The Army spends over $100 per gallon on fuel for deployed bases (Iraq, Afghanistan) to run generators for a/c units and light tents, and transportation. Almost 70% of the military personnel are used to provide logistic support to the mission providing services such as operating generators, hauling fuel, and water.
The Army made no attempts during 6 years of the Iraq war (occupation) to make use of advances in energy technologies to reduce deployed troops energy consumption using technologies such as compact fluorescent lights or LEDs, solar PV tents, HCCI engines (50% more efficient than today’s engines), and etc.
He knew we had the technology that could have saved American lives, by improving the energy efficiency of equipment for deployed troops. Lives would have been saved by reducing troop fuel re-supply requirements, during which time soldiers are easily attack, injured, and killed. Believe it or not, the ARMY is still using incandescent bulbs.
Obama, has got the wrong person...
Why is the military's stance on these issues Jim Jones' fault?
Supplying fuel has been a key component of military operations for the last century. I think an Abrahms or an Apache uses a bit more fuel than a generator, and I think they're a bit more crucial to the mission.
Maybe the military isn't 100% where it could be all the time, but I'd rather see them progress a little slowly on adopting new lightbulbs before rolling out new equipment that's not field tested that puts troops in a real bind.
We'll have to see how all these new appointments play out. They can easily be replaced if need be. Let's wait and see how this team does.
Obama makes the choices about policy. He's a big boy with a good brain. There's no reason to think that he doesn't have the capacity to listen to a wide variety of thoughts and then choose the bits and pieces that work. He's done pretty well so far hasn't he? Don't dems ever grow tired of yelling, "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! I've always been an independent, and just became a registered democrat this year. I've felt pretty good about it except for all this awfulizing stuff dems seem to do. Did it ever occur to anybody that making an organization as big as the chamber of commerce feel as though they might be heard at the table too could be a good thing if you were trying to make a cohesive government for ALL the people? Everybody's invited! The President will listen to all views and then he'll come up with a plan that works for the nation. That's what presidents should be doing. Give Change a Chance--please!
Amen
Yes, a slight variation of John Lennon's words... all we are saying, is give change a chance.
Some of you are making big deals out of nothing
A politician in big oil's pocket?
I'm shocked.
Never could have imagined this in a million years.
I think Obamas got enough sense to not fight another war for oil...i hope so anyway.
I thought the plan was energy independence from oil anyway? Heck, even Jones isn't for oil either in this article!
Obama's not naming Jones to be teh Sec of Interior , Sec of Energy or head of the EPA. Jim Jones is the national security adviser and is probably going to be staying far away from energy policy -- at least as it pertains to what was discussed in the article.
The National Security Adviser's chief role is to coordinate the huge national security apparatus and run the national security council. He keeps things organized for the President. I trust an ex-marine is going to be pretty good at keeping people in line.
He can also steer intelligence in a way that serves the oil industry's interests, above our own. But that's a hypothetical, I'm sure no one would ever, ever do that, right?
I'm not at all concerned about highly placed advisers in Obama's government who bring contrasting views. That's the point Obama is trying to make. It's by strong people bringing strong arguments to the table, in a spirit of willingness to discuss and hash out, that creative and an innovative options are born. People here sometimes seem to think that Dubya did it just right when he surrounded himself only with people who agreed with him. I think that Obama's method has a tremendous potential for moving the country forward in fantastically successful ways because it offers the possibility of completely new ideas and thoughts being birthed out of the mix. Each adviser brings their possibly contrary thoughts, Obama listens to them all---and out of HIS response, something new is born. Remember when America used to be filled with innovation and creativity? That was before we became so afraid of change that we got things like the auto and oil industries investing vast sums of money to buy up and bury any new invention or discovery that might challenge their status quo. Out of the crucible comes the astonishingly new answers. Obama has just created a brilliant crucible.
well Obama did vote for the Cheney Energy bill, which gave big oil millions!
You mean the one that FactCheck.Org describes as "... the compromise Obama voted for was supported by most Senate Democrats and lacked many of the administration's original proposals. As we've said before, it resulted in a small net tax increase on oil companies."
Stick to National Security Jim and let PE Obama's Energy Secretary do his job.
Well done Big Think. I'm surprised that no one has made an issue of this yet. We are up in arms about Barry McCaffery in the NYTimes, but this guy is headed for the White House?
Looks as if Obama and King had two different dreams of what a change meant.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
