U.S. Security Policy Objective: Help Friends, Hurt Foes

A sterile map of the Middle East belies the

political and social havoc on the ground.

US Security policy should help our friends and hurt our enemies. In the Middle East and North Africa, we are apparently unsure of exactly who are friends are and who are enemies are. Thus we have the muddle that is current US security policy which has both left and right confused, opposed, and asking, “What the heck is going on?”

For example, we got rid of Egyptian President Mubarak, a friend, and now the New York Times admits the most organized element in that country is the Muslim Brotherhood, our enemy. Elections are in six months.

In Yemen, at the gates of the straits of Hormuz, is run by a gang of crooks. They take our money, occasionally do the right thing, but mainly line their pockets. It is the headquarters of what is called Al Qaeda in the Saudi peninsula, a collection of jihadi terrorists that see in the “land of the shrines” an endlessly giving bank account called “oil.”

Who are those demanding the ouster of the regime? The thing is in many of these countries we do not know. Are former regime officials and military officers involved? Yes. Is there an assortment of shop keepers, imams and students? Yes.

Now some argue it doesn’t matter. “It is not our fight” they claim. Or even if it is a fight we “wish” to come out a certain way, we have no business interfering, one way or the other. Thus, the political camouflage erected over our mission in Libya. We cannot overtly say our military action is actually hoping or trying for regime change–that would be too much like “Bush.”

But the matter of regime change goes to the very heart of what US security policy in the Middle East should be, especially on energy. While it may be easy to throw up our hands and support all the rebels and demonstrations, in the interests of “hope and change,” the consequences could be devastating to our security.

For example, an Egypt hostile to Israel and the US presence in the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean could help turn the area over to the jihadis.

A Bahrain no longer hospitable to the US Navy might very well be home to Iranian warships. A Yemen interested in collecting bribes to keep the straits of Hormuz open would not exactly be helpful in setting the price of petroleum.

Already Iran is describing a Shia crescent from Lebanon, through Syria and Iraq, down through Iran, allied with countries across North Africa and in the Persian Gulf, working to take control over the Saudi peninsula.

Too many in America–especially academia, Hollywood and the media–worrying about the security of the supply of petroleum is so, well, crass. After all, the United States and its 310 million people are only 4% of the world’s population of near 7 billion. So what are we doing “consuming” 25% of the annual production of crude oil?

This thinking, of course, animates the supporters of Kyoto, global warming controls and cramming down US energy consumption. The premier of China says “we have to work to get Americans out of their cars.” Our Secretary of Energy contemplates how to get the US commuter and trucker to pay European prices for gasoline.

Other administration energy officials dismiss concerns over falling oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and a massive slowdown in the permitting process, with an explanation that Saudi Arabia can “always increase oil production.” And of course we have the irony of some Americans praising the Brazilian push for off-shore oil production, noting that we–the United States–hope to be their best customer.

But as friends Gal Luft and Annie Korin argue in Turning Oil Into Salt: Energy Independence Through Fuel Choice, “it’s time to bring about U.S. energy independence, insulate our economy against future oil shocks and defuse our entanglement in the Middle East by transforming oil from a strategic necessity to just another commodity.”

As proposed by Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, a flex fuel vehicle or open fuel standard would begin the process. Every car sold in America would be able to use methanol, ethanol, gasoline or diesel, or some combination. Legislation to do that is pending in Congress.

Cars sold in Brazil by General Motors now meet that standard, according to the chairman of General Motors, at an extra cost of $70. That is $2 more a month for a three year car note or lease.

Brazil is now exporting oil. Nearly 90% of its transportation fuel is liquids other than petroleum. It is exploring for and finding oil–such as recent offshore finds that may approach 30 billion barrels.

In ANWAR on the North Slope of Alaska lies some 30 billion barrels of oil. Some 70 miles away is the TAPS, the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System. That pipeline was approved in 1973 during the oil embargo. The Senate voted 95-5 in favor of the project. As an intern with Senator Mike Gravel, I helped shepherd the bill through Congress approving of the project.

The 800-mile-long TAPS stretches from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It started up in 1977 after 3 years construction and for 34 years has brought a total of 16 billion barrels of oil to America’s economy, worth today nearly $1.7 trillion at wholesale prices. Now, on average nearly 600,000 barrels a day is pumped.

So while we contemplate what Middle Eastern domino is going to fall tomorrow, or hang on, and as we scratch our heads wondering what US policy is or should be, we might seriously weigh the consequences of continuing an energy policy that ties our economy to a cartel–OPEC–of national petroleum producers, many of whom are state sponsors of terror, (Iran and Venezuela), and others who are a target rich environment for these very same terror masters.

Let us wish for the lunatic criminals and terror masters and their associated crime families now running both Syria and Iran to be hauled off to the nearest prison. Up the revolution! But wishes do not make a security policy. Instead of being at the mercy of events beyond our control, why do we not start to seize control of our own future and adopt an energy policy of choice and freedom worthy of what it means to be an American? That is what they meant when they said “Provide for the Common Defense.” Adopt the open fuel standard today. Faster, please.