| Learn More About Security
What is the Problem?
What are the Solutions?
Additional Resources
What is the Problem?
As the Berlin Wall was literally dismantled by German citizens from East and West in November of 1990, a new and safer world order seemed to be in the making. Throughout a divided Europe, citizen movements for change and democracy toppled Communist and totalitarian governments. Western peace movements had slowly built relationships across the divide, and together they changed politics from below. Politicians and intelligence analysts were the last to realize the power of these grassroots groups, much less the enormity of the changes they were about to usher onto the world stage.
For five decades, the USSR and the US had divided the world into spheres of influence. The two superpowers extended the Cold War to every region of the world. Both sides created client states and militarized relationships. When the Ayatollah Khomeini's fundamentalist government held Americans hostage after toppling the Shah of Iran's government, we strengthened ties to the Iraqi government as a counter measure. Saddam Hussein became a strategic ally of the United States. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the US provided support and arms to those who fought the Soviets. In that conflict, Osama Bin Laden was the United States' ally and received arms and aid from us. Client states have become enemies. And enemies, without states from which to wage war, have become terrorists, brutally targeting civilians in their jihad against the West.
Since World War II, US national security interests have been viewed through the lens of Middle East politics. We and the Soviet Union extended our reach to Central and Latin America, Asia and to a lesser degree Africa, but nowhere in the world were the stakes as high as in the Middle East. Our strategic interests were tied not only to the security of Israel as the world community came to terms with global politics after the Holocaust. Central to the victory of the allied forces was the unlimited access to cheap oil from Saudi Arabia. Since the 1940s, our security has also been viewed through the lens of maintaining access to Middle Eastern oil.
The US-Saudi relationship has continued to be an important one for successive US presidents since WW II. Over time, the relationship to the Saudis extended to military ties and the building of US bases in Saudi Arabia. The US military presence has fueled resentment of America throughout the Arab world. Islamic fundamentalism–deeply opposed to Western ways and specifically to the “decadence” of American popular culture—is now the breeding ground for violence and terrorist movements.
Democratic and Republican Administrations alike have either struggled to respond to or neglected the festering Middle East conflicts. All too often, US action and interventions in the region have happened without the necessary understanding of the cultures involved or their regional politics.
Back to top
The terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 are the deadly by-product of a dangerous and hostile world decades in the making. Now these terrorists have become a major threat to the security of the United States and the safety of our citizens.
The central question now is where do we go from here? Should we be engaged in a war in Iraq as the key strategy for countering this new threat? How can we best secure our future?
In the pre-war months and weeks, the justification for the war in Iraq ricocheted among various arguments: our purpose was fighting state sponsored terrorism (predicated on a link with al Qaida); preventing Saddam Hussein from attaining weapons of mass destruction; and after the war began, our objective, officials argued, was the need to liberate the Iraqi people from the human rights abuses of the Hussein government.
However, a very different argument for the war in Iraq was first proposed by Vice President Cheney on August 26, 2002 to a group of Veterans in Nashville, Tennessee. The Vice President argued that if Saddam acquired weapons of mass destruction, he would “seek domination of the entire Middle East” and “take control of a great portion of the world's energy supply.” The link between energy policy (read oil) and national security was established.
Mr. Cheney had also just completed a major and fairly controversial energy policy review. It was controversial because so many big oil interests appeared to have disproportionate access to the Administration. The report stated that a major area of national security for the US was access to oil. The report essentially argued that the growing dependency on foreign oil puts America at risk. America produces “39 percent less oil today than we did in 1970, leaving us ever more reliant on foreign suppliers…Twenty years from now, America will import nearly two out of every three barrels of oil—a condition of increased dependency on foreign powers that do not always have America's interests at heart.” The two richest oil-producing countries are Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Instead of pursuing energy independence and sustainable alternatives, it appears that our energy policy has become fused to current foreign and military policy. This is a dangerous and unnecessary direction considering the wealth of new technologies available to us. www.resultsforamerica.org/environment
Back to top
The dependency on oil and foreign oil is indeed the problem. But if access to oil is the problem, is a war and continued occupation for perhaps up to ten years at a cost of $54 billion a year the answer to our problems?
The US entered the war without a clear objective, without world or domestic opinion behind it and without an exit strategy. The aftermath of the war in Iraq raises as many questions as the reasons the Bush Administration made for going into the war.
Has the war curbed or increased the threat of terrorism? Where are the weapons of mass destruction that were the excuse for the Administration's entry into the war? Can US and British led occupation forces give birth to a genuine democracy in Iraq? How can the US effectively address the terrorist threat?
Back to top
What are the Solutions?
What can be done about the ongoing occupation of Iraq and the continued loss of American lives?
Turn the contents of this analysis into a letter to the editor of your community newspaper.
Join American Jewish and American Arab efforts for peace in the Middle East . Reducing conflict in the Middle East is one way to reduce the temptation of the United States to wage war in the region. Americans for Peace Now (www.peacenow.org) and the Arab American Institute (www.aaiusa.org) are two effective organizations promoting peace in the region.
To understand the cost of the war in Iraq in terms of US domestic needs, log on to www.costofwar.com
Finally, work to reduce US dependence on foreign oil by supporting renewable energy. Check out the climate change section of this website for information on actions you can support for energy independence and for links to work for an environmentally-friendly America.
Back to top
Additional Reading
“The Geopolitics of War,” Michael Klare, The Nation, November 5, 2001(www.thenation.com)
“Saudis and Americans: Friends in Need,” The Nation, September 12, 2003
(www.thenation.com)
“Stumbling Into War,” James P. Rubin, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003
(www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82504)
Back to top |
