Op-Ed
On November 28, 2006, I had the following piece published on the Op-Ed pages of the Jakarta Post.
Why the U.S. must maintain its current strategy in the Middle East
By Nicholas Taranto
This past Wednesday, these pages published an opinion piece entitled “U.S. thirst for oil will keep driving Middle East conflicts.” While many of the author’s points were salient within a certain context, they failed to envision the current situation in the Middle East with the proper long-term geopolitical purview that it warrants. The American presence in Iraq may at the moment seem arbitrary and oil-centered. However, if the U.S. were to end its presence in the Middle East, the region and the world would undoubtedly be much worse off. For those concerned with creating a better and more peaceful future, having a permanent U.S.-led multinational force patrolling the Middle East is of the utmost importance. The end of war is within our historical reach. In order to get to that point though, the U.S. must continue its obligation to bring security and globalization to the Middle East. The following four points show why America can not, should not and will not leave the region anytime soon.
First, if the United States and the rest of the world were not pursuing the massive fossil fuel reserves that exist in the Middle East, the region would be the poorest in the world. Consider what would be of the Middle East if oil had not been discovered there. We could expect a situation similar to, if not far worse, than that of Sub-Saharan Africa. The only product or service that the region produces – and has produced for the past half century – is oil. Without oil and the U.S.-led international presence that follows it, the Middle East would be little more developed than it was a century ago.
Second, Middle Eastern states must begin to use the vast profits they make from fossil fuels to invest in themselves and other exportable goods and services. At this point, limited by Islamic usury laws, almost all of the Arab states’ assets sit inactive in non-interest earning accounts. If this were only several million dollars, it would not be an issue. However, currently over a quarter trillion dollars sit, for all intents and purposes, doing nothing while Middle Eastern states and their peoples stagnate. Aided by the U.S. politico-military machine, that money could be invested in a host of homegrown infrastructure, development, and business projects that would have knock-on effects for decades to come. The U.S. government and American multinational corporations would clearly profit from such a situation. Yet the economic, social, and political benefits derived by the citizens of the Middle East would dwarf the American rewards.
Third, even though many more nations than just the U.S. rely on Middle East oil exports, the U.S. is the keystone supplier of Middle Eastern security. If the U.S. left the region, global oil supplies would most likely sustain themselves for several weeks or even months. However, in a region prone to conflict, the first sign of trans-border animosity in the region would lead to plummeting oil production, which could in turn very easily promulgate a global economic crash. Remove American security from the global equation, and in return you will see international arms races, unchecked defense spending, and mass violence erupting all over the world. The U.S. has the world’s only functional blue water Navy, the world’s largest air force, the world’s most technically advanced weaponry, and the world’s best trained soldiers, meaning the U.S. military can deploy anywhere on the face of the globe in times of crisis. While the U.S. presence in the Middle East is not optimal for anyone, it is most certainly necessary for everyone.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the way that that the U.S. is waging war in Iraq will define peace in this century. After 9/11, the U.S. developed myriad new sets of rules to fight terror. Unfortunately, the American government has done a poor job of describing these rules, not just to its enemies, but to its own citizens and allies too. The U.S. is fighting in the Middle East not just to prevent terror, although that is a goal. The U.S. is also trying to create a new future where all citizens of the world have the opportunity to make their own life decisions, where people don’t have to turn to terrorism because they and their children have no hope. The ultimate goal of globalization is giving hope through opportunities of connectivity. The American model of future peace is a fully integrated, globalized world where the U.S. exports surplus security in exchange for broadening nations’ access to all the resources of the modern world. Let me be clear here: The U.S. will not leave the Middle East until the benefits of globalization have arrived there, and those benefits will not arrive until Middle Eastern rulers acknowledge their peoples’ right to a better life. The U.S. is offering the people of the Middle East economic, political and social security, not only because America wants to see a secure Middle East, but because that is the only way America can remain free.
If you are like most sane individuals, you would rather live in a world of perpetual peace than unpredictable violence. With continued U.S. military support, and sincere commitments of reform and progress from its Arab and Muslim partners, peace in the Middle East can become the reality of our future. No other region besides the Gulf can supply the oil that the emerging world of the twenty-first century demands. No other security force besides the U.S. can provide the region with a veritable measure of safety. The U.S. has made similar efforts before and changed the world for the better. In the name of peace, America must be allowed to stay its course in the Middle East.
The writer recently graduated from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, USA. He is currently on a Fulbright grant to Madiun, East Java where he teaches English and works with local microfinance organizations.
Why the U.S. must maintain its current strategy in the Middle East
By Nicholas Taranto
This past Wednesday, these pages published an opinion piece entitled “U.S. thirst for oil will keep driving Middle East conflicts.” While many of the author’s points were salient within a certain context, they failed to envision the current situation in the Middle East with the proper long-term geopolitical purview that it warrants. The American presence in Iraq may at the moment seem arbitrary and oil-centered. However, if the U.S. were to end its presence in the Middle East, the region and the world would undoubtedly be much worse off. For those concerned with creating a better and more peaceful future, having a permanent U.S.-led multinational force patrolling the Middle East is of the utmost importance. The end of war is within our historical reach. In order to get to that point though, the U.S. must continue its obligation to bring security and globalization to the Middle East. The following four points show why America can not, should not and will not leave the region anytime soon.
First, if the United States and the rest of the world were not pursuing the massive fossil fuel reserves that exist in the Middle East, the region would be the poorest in the world. Consider what would be of the Middle East if oil had not been discovered there. We could expect a situation similar to, if not far worse, than that of Sub-Saharan Africa. The only product or service that the region produces – and has produced for the past half century – is oil. Without oil and the U.S.-led international presence that follows it, the Middle East would be little more developed than it was a century ago.
Second, Middle Eastern states must begin to use the vast profits they make from fossil fuels to invest in themselves and other exportable goods and services. At this point, limited by Islamic usury laws, almost all of the Arab states’ assets sit inactive in non-interest earning accounts. If this were only several million dollars, it would not be an issue. However, currently over a quarter trillion dollars sit, for all intents and purposes, doing nothing while Middle Eastern states and their peoples stagnate. Aided by the U.S. politico-military machine, that money could be invested in a host of homegrown infrastructure, development, and business projects that would have knock-on effects for decades to come. The U.S. government and American multinational corporations would clearly profit from such a situation. Yet the economic, social, and political benefits derived by the citizens of the Middle East would dwarf the American rewards.
Third, even though many more nations than just the U.S. rely on Middle East oil exports, the U.S. is the keystone supplier of Middle Eastern security. If the U.S. left the region, global oil supplies would most likely sustain themselves for several weeks or even months. However, in a region prone to conflict, the first sign of trans-border animosity in the region would lead to plummeting oil production, which could in turn very easily promulgate a global economic crash. Remove American security from the global equation, and in return you will see international arms races, unchecked defense spending, and mass violence erupting all over the world. The U.S. has the world’s only functional blue water Navy, the world’s largest air force, the world’s most technically advanced weaponry, and the world’s best trained soldiers, meaning the U.S. military can deploy anywhere on the face of the globe in times of crisis. While the U.S. presence in the Middle East is not optimal for anyone, it is most certainly necessary for everyone.
Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the way that that the U.S. is waging war in Iraq will define peace in this century. After 9/11, the U.S. developed myriad new sets of rules to fight terror. Unfortunately, the American government has done a poor job of describing these rules, not just to its enemies, but to its own citizens and allies too. The U.S. is fighting in the Middle East not just to prevent terror, although that is a goal. The U.S. is also trying to create a new future where all citizens of the world have the opportunity to make their own life decisions, where people don’t have to turn to terrorism because they and their children have no hope. The ultimate goal of globalization is giving hope through opportunities of connectivity. The American model of future peace is a fully integrated, globalized world where the U.S. exports surplus security in exchange for broadening nations’ access to all the resources of the modern world. Let me be clear here: The U.S. will not leave the Middle East until the benefits of globalization have arrived there, and those benefits will not arrive until Middle Eastern rulers acknowledge their peoples’ right to a better life. The U.S. is offering the people of the Middle East economic, political and social security, not only because America wants to see a secure Middle East, but because that is the only way America can remain free.
If you are like most sane individuals, you would rather live in a world of perpetual peace than unpredictable violence. With continued U.S. military support, and sincere commitments of reform and progress from its Arab and Muslim partners, peace in the Middle East can become the reality of our future. No other region besides the Gulf can supply the oil that the emerging world of the twenty-first century demands. No other security force besides the U.S. can provide the region with a veritable measure of safety. The U.S. has made similar efforts before and changed the world for the better. In the name of peace, America must be allowed to stay its course in the Middle East.
The writer recently graduated from Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, USA. He is currently on a Fulbright grant to Madiun, East Java where he teaches English and works with local microfinance organizations.
posted by Nick Taranto | 12:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home