As you've likely heard, the issue du jour is whether to withdraw the troops from Iraq. Politicians eyeing the White House in '08 have each staked out a strategic peninsula, careful to look tough but not fence themselves in to any substantive policy that is either too radical or too conservative. Frankly, I wish the debate could move past the "cut and run" sloganeering and the vague pledges of Republicans to "stand down when the Iraqis can stand up." In my mind, and I'm sure in some of yours, the truth is that American troops will be in Iraq long after "W" is gone.
You see, we've only just begun in Iraq. Despite the laughable protestations of Republican hawks and Bush apologists that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil, we all know that it at least played a role in the decision to invade. That's the only aspect of the invasion I think was arguably justifiable. The oil that fuels the American economy is under Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and, in smaller amounts, other countries in the Middle East. Iraq happened to be the easiest target, both politically and militarily. The US maintains a cozy economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, but domestic political pressures there forced the royals to boot the American military out of the country. Iran, while certainly scoring high on a political axis, scored very low on the military axis because it is a giant, rugged country with a military that has not suffered under draconian sanctions for the last decade. Iraq scored high on the military axis and, given a little selective use of intelligence information and some fear mongering, became a "slam dunk" on the political axis.
Once we had conquered the Iraqi military and gained control over the country's oil fields, Haliburton set about building a sprawling, high-technology fortress that will act as the American embassy in Iraq. American contracts have also been let to build large, seemingly permanent military air bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it conceivable that we would pay for all of this improvement to infrastructure, built to American specification, and then abandon it a few years later? It simply would not make sense-- even to the freewheeling spenders in the Bush administration.
You see, we've only just begun in Iraq. Despite the laughable protestations of Republican hawks and Bush apologists that the invasion of Iraq was not about oil, we all know that it at least played a role in the decision to invade. That's the only aspect of the invasion I think was arguably justifiable. The oil that fuels the American economy is under Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and, in smaller amounts, other countries in the Middle East. Iraq happened to be the easiest target, both politically and militarily. The US maintains a cozy economic relationship with Saudi Arabia, but domestic political pressures there forced the royals to boot the American military out of the country. Iran, while certainly scoring high on a political axis, scored very low on the military axis because it is a giant, rugged country with a military that has not suffered under draconian sanctions for the last decade. Iraq scored high on the military axis and, given a little selective use of intelligence information and some fear mongering, became a "slam dunk" on the political axis.
Once we had conquered the Iraqi military and gained control over the country's oil fields, Haliburton set about building a sprawling, high-technology fortress that will act as the American embassy in Iraq. American contracts have also been let to build large, seemingly permanent military air bases in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is it conceivable that we would pay for all of this improvement to infrastructure, built to American specification, and then abandon it a few years later? It simply would not make sense-- even to the freewheeling spenders in the Bush administration.
Moreover, both Iraq and Afghanistan act as extraordinarily important strategic location for combating (figuratively, for now) the growing influence of both India and China. By having substantial air and ground resources stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has implicit leverage in the regional politics of Southern Eurasia, with nations like Syria, Iran and what, if anything, might be left of Palestine bending under the yoke of American influence and threat of direct military intervention.
Also, recent history teaches us that American troops shouldn't leave Iraq or Afghanistan. It wasn't long ago that we funded both Saddam (against Iran) and the Afghan Mujihadeen in their battle against the Soviet invaders. In each of those instances, the forces we armed were subsequently used against us. Despite the nearly continuous stream of mistakes, disappointments and outright stupidity that emanates from the Bush White House, I firmly believe that they would not be dumb enough to rebuild infrastructure and rearm local security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and then leave those resource-rich nations with no military to protect the newly acquired American interests.
These are the facts as I see them. As alluded to in the opening paragraph, I wish that these facts could be acknowledged and for the debate to mature from sound bites to policymaking. The policy question is simple: does the United States need control of the oil in these regions to maintain its place as a world superpower? In the short term, that answer is clearly yes. In the long term, however, oil is a non-renewable resource and one day, sooner or later, it will run out. Every country will be faced with an uncertain future and the potentially catastrophic consequences of an industrialized world economy that suddenly runs out of fuel.
If the United States wishes to maintain its influence over world affairs, it must address this eventual crisis with a thoughtful and long-ranging solution. Getting in front of the parade on a new source of energy (whether solar, hydrogen, wind or nuclear), putting substantial resources behind that solution and acting as the lead manufacturer of the fuel, byproducts and services is the only way the United States can maintain its standing as a first-world country in an oil-deprived world.
So, should we withdraw the troops? Absolutely; but just not now. For now, we must stay and bleed, both personally with our troops and financially with our wallets. The only palatable cut and run scenario is to withdraw after adopting a bipartisan energy policy that promotes the vast and rapid development of new sources of energy. Ergo, if you really want to support the troops then support the American creation and production of alternative energy sources and, please, support it now.
These are the facts as I see them. As alluded to in the opening paragraph, I wish that these facts could be acknowledged and for the debate to mature from sound bites to policymaking. The policy question is simple: does the United States need control of the oil in these regions to maintain its place as a world superpower? In the short term, that answer is clearly yes. In the long term, however, oil is a non-renewable resource and one day, sooner or later, it will run out. Every country will be faced with an uncertain future and the potentially catastrophic consequences of an industrialized world economy that suddenly runs out of fuel.
If the United States wishes to maintain its influence over world affairs, it must address this eventual crisis with a thoughtful and long-ranging solution. Getting in front of the parade on a new source of energy (whether solar, hydrogen, wind or nuclear), putting substantial resources behind that solution and acting as the lead manufacturer of the fuel, byproducts and services is the only way the United States can maintain its standing as a first-world country in an oil-deprived world.
So, should we withdraw the troops? Absolutely; but just not now. For now, we must stay and bleed, both personally with our troops and financially with our wallets. The only palatable cut and run scenario is to withdraw after adopting a bipartisan energy policy that promotes the vast and rapid development of new sources of energy. Ergo, if you really want to support the troops then support the American creation and production of alternative energy sources and, please, support it now.
No comments:
Post a Comment