Op-Ed: We could at least be honest about Iraq.

What might historians say about the “preemptive measures” in Iraq fifty or one hundred years from now? While the public relations campaigns for tyranny and WMD were certainly powerful they fall short of the real story. The real story is twofold: quashing the roots of terrorism and addressing the looming energy crisis. Taken together these issues underlie the real reason for “regime change” in Iraq.
Global terrorism, at least the likes of which we saw on Sep. 11th, stems from differences in religious as well as political views. In the U.S. the two are separate, whereas in the Middle East they are one. It is a mistake to assume that Muslims hate American’s for some religious or spiritual reason. The reality is that the people are banded together in groups, or tribes, of “the faithful” to support whatever political cause. The larger issue is that the U.S. is the biggest world power involved in the Middle East and by attacking the U.S. these terrorists gather support for their cause while potentially destabilizing ongoing political relationships.
It is important to note that a large number of these particular terrorists, and their financial sponsors, originated in Saudi Arabia, our “ally” in the Middle East. Wahabism, one of the most extreme sects of Islam that allied with the Saudi monarchy in the 20th century, dominates much of the socio-cultural values within the Saudi kingdom. This unstable alliance enabled the union of the territory of Arabia by the house of Sa’ud but also limits political, as well as religious, dissention within the realm. Unfortunate for the U.S. is the fact that twenty-five percent of the world’s oil reserves are within that realm and any efforts to pressure the Saudi political structure towards reform are likely met with tension over oil production.
As we are currently dependent on oil as our largest source of fuel for production of electricity and transportation, our relationship with the Saudis, despite their unwitting support of terrorism, is a necessary evil given the inconsistency of other sources. What the recent California energy crisis made apparent to federal officials is the necessity for conservation or new sources of generation and production. Outlined by the president was the need for rapid expansion of the energy grid – from exploration to production to generation, clearly the latter.
Given the enormous capacity of the Iraqi reserves, it should not surprise anyone that we would desire a “regime change.” Had Saddam been quick to comply with UN mandates and provided a consistent source of oil production, any change would have been unnecessary, though not impossible considering the regional political impact. Saddam did not comply, however, and “preemptive attack” was decided upon. By securing U.S. control of Iraqi production through whatever “coalition approved” regime, we have essentially removed Saudi resistance to political pressure, as we are now capable of securing consistent production elsewhere.
While environmentalist might argue, and rightly so, that conservation is undoubtedly a better way to handle the energy crisis, the proverbial cat is already out of the bag. Like it or not, we are a target, and terrorists are already active and supported. If we chose to use our financial strength to fund alternative energy sources, in addition to conservation efforts, we might reduce our dependence on oil, but not our position on the world stage. Our prominence makes us a focus for attack not because of some instinctive hatred, but because rallying “the faithful” around a common cause gains support for extremist agendas.
One might also contend the lack of coalition support from our European allies, for action in the Middle East, should make us reevaluate our position. To this one need only observe the growing differences in worldview. Currently the largest NATO participant, the U.S, surprisingly shoulders the majority of the European defense budget. The smaller European portion of the NATO budget allows them to fund alternative energy sources as well as conservation efforts. As such, our European allies are naturally reluctant to ally themselves with a target, not to mention reaping comparatively small benefits to the U.S, who would, and does, ultimately wield power in the Middle East.
Today, post-regime, we are in a unique position. If we were to remove ourselves from Middle Eastern conflict, we are not simultaneously removed as targets. While energy conservation is obviously a better option for dealing with our looming energy demand, it is not necessarily the most viable option for diminishing our risk of terrorism, not to mention quenching the public’s insatiable appetite for automotive monstrosities. Obviously a fine line must be tread between developing alternative energy sources and providing for our National Security, but at least we could have an open discussion of the real issues.