US garrisons and global gas stations

[FarCenter]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JF14Ak03.html

By Michael T Klare

American policymakers have long viewed the protection of overseas oil supplies as an essential matter of "national security", requiring the threat of - and sometimes the use of - military force. This is now an unquestioned part of American foreign policy. On this basis, the George H W Bush administration fought a war against Iraq in 1990-1991 and the George W Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003. With global oil prices soaring and oil reserves expected to dwindle in the years ahead, military force is sure to be seen by whatever new administration enters Washington in January 2009 as the ultimate guarantor of the US's well-being in the oil heartlands of the planet.

But with the costs of militarized oil operations - in both blood and dollars - rising precipitously, isn't it time to challenge such "wisdom"? Isn't it time to ask whether the US military has anything reasonable to do with American energy security, and whether a reliance on military force, when it comes to energy policy, is practical, affordable or justifiable?


How energy policy got militarized

The association between "energy security" (as it's now termed) and "national security" was established long ago. President Franklin D Roosevelt first forged this association in 1945, when he pledged to protect the Saudi Arabian royal family in return for privileged American access to Saudi oil.

The relationship was given formal expression in 1980, when president Jimmy Carter told the US Congress that maintaining the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was a "vital interest" of the United States, and attempts by hostile nations to cut that flow would be countered "by any means necessary, including military force". To implement this "doctrine", Carter ordered the creation of a Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force, specifically earmarked for combat operations in the Persian Gulf area. President Ronald Reagan later turned that force into a full-scale regional combat organization, the US Central Command, or CENTCOM. Every president since Reagan has added to CENTCOM's responsibilities, endowing it with additional bases, fleets, air squadrons and other assets. As the country has, more recently, come to rely on oil from the Caspian Sea basin and Africa, US military capabilities are being beefed up in those areas as well.

As a result, the US military has come to serve as a global oil protection service, guarding pipelines, refineries and loading facilities in the Middle East and elsewhere. According to one estimate, provided by the conservative National Defense Council Foundation, the "protection" of Persian Gulf oil alone costs the US Treasury US$138 billion per year - up from $49 billion just before the invasion of Iraq.

For Democrats and Republicans alike, spending such sums to protect foreign oil supplies is now accepted as common wisdom, not worthy of serious discussion or debate. A typical example of this attitude can be found in an "Independent Task Force Report" on the "National Security Consequences of US Oil Dependency" released by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in October 2006. Chaired by former secretary of defense James R Schlesinger and former Central Intelligence Agency director John Deutch, the CFR report concluded that the US military must continue to serve as a global oil protection service for the foreseeable future. "At least for the next two decades, the Persian Gulf will be vital to US interests in reliable oil supplies," it noted. Accordingly, "the United States should expect and support a strong military posture that permits suitably rapid deployment to the region, if necessary." Similarly, the report adds, "US naval protection of the sea lanes that transport oil is of paramount importance."



...

In reality, the use of military force to protect foreign oil supplies is likely to create anything but "security". It can, in fact, trigger violent "blowback" against the United States. For example, the decision by the senior president Bush to maintain an enormous, permanent US military presence in Saudi Arabia following Operation Desert Storm in Kuwait is now widely viewed as a major source of virulent anti-Americanism in the kingdom and became a prime recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden in the months leading up to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

...

Even as he was speaking in Riyadh, however, a dangerous new case of blowback had erupted in Iraq: on their entry into Baghdad, US forces seized and guarded the Oil Ministry headquarters while allowing schools, hospitals and museums to be looted with impunity. Most Iraqis have since come to regard this decision, which insured that the rest of the city would be looted, as the ultimate expression of the Bush administration's main motive for invading their country.

...