The Influence of the War on Terror Vs. The Peak Oil Theory on U.S. Foreign, Security and
Energy Policy.
American foreign policy has for the last few years held as its goal, the ultimate protection of its population against terrorism and has totally embraced the fight against what they term as Islamic fundamentalism and their extremist nature. The U.S. government has greatly intensified measures to defend its citizens against Islamic extremist insurgents who the U.S government perceives as the perpetrators of the said atrocities. n the same breath its security policies and energy policies have also been gradually influenced by this war on terror. Their does indeed seem to be some intellectual credibility in the ideal that the war on terror may be motivated by factors that have little to do with Islamist fundamentalism. This paper therefore seeks to that make a case for the fact that the U.S. security foreign and energy policies have in recent years been influenced and do continue to be heavily influenced by the same factors and have continually merged closer and closer together .This paper reflects research using various books and articles regarding the history oil and fossil fuels, the peak oil theory, the war on terrorism as well as research on the impact of all these factors on U.S. policy formulation as a whole.
De-Mystifying Jihadism and the War on Terror
The United States security, foreign and energy policies have in recent years been influenced by the increasing tension between itself and Islamic jihadists whom the government perceives as a threat to security. As such the country’s security policy has been adjusted to accommodate the tightened measures against terrorism. Foreign policy has also been reviewed so as to equally accommodate all the precautions that have to be taken against increasing jihadists’ extremism. It is however necessary to understand the explanation behind the terrorism and Islamist jihadism that has been attributed the cause for the said policy changes. To a large extent the American population and the rest of the world does not fully understand the reasons for the continued tensions between Islamic extremists and the resultant retaliatory attack of Iraq (mainly viewed to be the origin of these insurgents by the U.S. In a campaign rally, Huckabee (2008) a presidential hopeful observed that “American foreign policy needs to change its tone and attitude, open up, and reach out”. He went on to assert that the Bush administration’s arrogant bunker mentality has been counterproductive both in America and abroad ( Huckabee, 2008).Huckabee observes the following concerning the subject
A more successful U.S. foreign policy needs to better explain Islamic jihadism to the American people. Given how Americans have thrived on diversity — religious, ethnic, racial — it takes an enormous leap of imagination to understand what Islamic terrorists are about, that they really do want to kill every last one of us and destroy civilization as we know it (Huckabee, 2008).
The theology and ideology behind Islamic terrorism has never really been fully explained to the American population or the world. The government has also not completely convinced its citizens of its ruthless fanaticism (Huckabee, 2008).
In this light, the theory of Peak oil is easily palatable in its suggestion that the tensions between U.S. and Iraq may be motivated by other reasons-in this case a war over oil and fuel resources. the attack of Iraq may have been internally instigated by the U.S government in a strategy to gain control over dwindling oil resources in Iraq.
History of fossil fuel exploration and Use
Man’s preoccupation and obsession with oil drilling dates back 4000 years ago. Russian engineer F. N. Semyenov drilled for oil as early as 1848.at this time, the well produce 90% of the world’s oil. British Oil Company and Burmah Oil began drilling for oil in 1905 and they found large amounts of oil. In 1933 Saudi Arabia granted The Standard Oil Company of Carlifornia oil concessions. In 1944 it was reported that Saudi Arabia had oil resources amounting to about 25 million barrels. Many more companies joined the search for oil. In Iraq the government seized control of oil resources in the country (Gee, 2012).Gee aptly notes that “ Eighty percent of the worlds readily accessible oil reserves are located in the Middle East”(Gee, 2012).
Peak Oil Theory
The term “peak oil” is used to describe the point at which the earth’s supply of oil will no longer be able to meet our energy needs (Gee, 2012). Since oil is not a renewable source of energy, it is expected to completely be use up at some point in the future. However, because it is difficult to actually take stock of current oil levels it is difficult to approximate a date for complete oil depletion. As a results there have been many debates concerning this date. King Hubbert however predicted a global oil peak between the year 1995 and 2000 based on his own research ( Peak Oil News,2012)
The peak oil theory is however just that,-a theory and has not been undoubtedly proven to be more . . A theory is a doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation. It may also be said to be an exposition of the general principles of a given field of study. A simple way to understand the concept of a theory is that it is the premise or set of premises upon which an argument is built whether proven or not (Peak Oil News, 2012) . However more scientific evidence and opinions from experts such as geologists increasingly agrees that oil reserves are depleting at a very fast rate.Energy creates money, not the other way around. most of the earth’s oil deposits have already been mapped and the finite nature of oil deposits is now being fully understood. although more technology is now available for the detection of more oil, in recent years, discoveries found have been consistently lesser than the daily required amounts for consumption around world. The complete halting of the use of fossil fuels would cause a collapse of the industrial revolution on which most countries are founded on. Many fundamental sectors of civilization as we know know it would be completely immobilized. The transport sector globally would come to a literal stand stand still. Many production and processing industries which use one form or another of petroleum products would. be unable to function. this situation could be catastrophic and could potentially lead to a lot of wars andupheavals around te world.
“The most important question facing the human race is how we respond to the interconnected crises of Peak Oil, Climate Change, overpopulation, and resource conflicts” ( Kunstler, 2006 ). The world seems to be undergoing a lot of impending shortages and it is no longer just a question of pea oil, buy also peak money, peak communications e.t.c. In this light, there is need of more solutions towards this end. “Peak oil, minerals depletion, deforestation, depletion of fisheries, soil degradation, toxic and nuclear waste, declining per capita food production, desertification, climate change, ultraviolet radiation increases, overpopulation, declining natural gas extraction, the limits to growth on the electric grid and other “critical infrastructure” — these and many other facets of our overload on the planet are natural limitations on the cancer-like endless growth of industrial civilization” ( ).
The problem with peak oil is that the possible depletion of oil resources on the planet is interested with many other factors and this is because it is interrelated with man factor. Since most of the world economies are largely dependent on oil resources to run their economies, the availability of oil resources or the lack of them becomes a highly political. This is why the issue has the ability to cause the change of foreign and energy policies in a bid to ensure maximum profit from available oil resources on earth.
An anonymous writer observes the following about peak oil debates in the world:
“An engrossing, encompassing and interesting debate is raging and the entire energy fraternity is passionately involved. Proponents and the opponents of the peak oil theory are out in open — putting across their diametrically opposite arguments, in a charged atmosphere. Leading from the front, Saudi Aramco Chief Executive Abdallah S. Jum’ah is now forcefully arguing that at the current consumption levels, the world has enough oil to last — for at least 140 more years” ( Peak Oil News. 2012).
However, despite such assertions there are many who are convinced that global oil resources are rapidly dwindling and some have speculated that this may be the leading reason for the Iraq invasion by the United States under the pretext of combating religious radicalism. There has also been so connections suggested between the event of September the 11th 2001 which has more commonly come to be referred to as 9/11.crritics of the war on terror justifications for the invasion of Iraq by the United States as well as other formidable critics suggest that9/11 and the Iraq invasion are closely connected and could in fact have been well choreographed so as to justify the invasion. This, it is speculated is for the ultimate goal of taking control of oil resources in Iraq.
Based on considerable literature and evidence available it emerges that the peak oil theory may be more than just a theory and that world resources are indeed on a decline. There is therefore a scramble to secure the few remaining resources. This it emerges is the U.S.’s motivation in its ‘war on terror’. This directly translates to a conclusion that U.S foreign and security policy id directly and indirectly influenced by its energy needs.
Peak oil, 9/11 and the war on terror
Peak Oil and 9/11 complicity are inseparable issues, even if most who focus on one or the other chose to look at them in isolation from each other ( Robinowitz, 2012). It has been suggested that the United States government was actively participated in the September 11th attacks against its own population. This, is it suggested, was a necessary step so as to be able to justify an invasion against Iraq, the ultimate goal of which was to secure control of numerous Iranian oil resources .________________ ( ) states that peak oil was the main motive of the Bush administration when they allowed and even assisted 9/11 attacks. Without the invasion it would have proved incredibly difficult and even impossible for America to invade Iraq and take over their oil fields. The United States aimed to establish a dominant military position in one of the world’s main oil production regions
Robinowitz (2012) observes the following on the subject of involvement of the Bush administration in facilitating 9/11:
The first cabinet meeting of the Bush administration (after they stole the White House) included discussion of how they were going to attack Iraq. In the spring of 2001, the Cheney energy task force included examination of maps of Iraqi and other Persian / Arabian Gulf oil fields and which companies had drilling rights. Vice President Cheney was on record as knowing about Peak Oil before entering the White House, and presumably the oil company connected officials in their administration were also aware of this basic fact. The energy task force happened around the same time that warnings that 9/11 was imminent were pouring into the White House from close US allies and even from within the FBI -which had agents tracking the flight schools that some of the perpetrators were training at. ( Robinowitz, 2012).
The suggested connection between the government-facilitated Iraq invasion and a desire to control oil in the Middle East is certainly a plausible theory given the vague understanding of the actual reasons for the Iraq invasion that the government offered American citizens and the rest of the world. In this regard it is then possible to give an explanation as to the possible influence of United States policies by these issues. Since foreign policy and security policy are directly interrelated and since energy resources drive economies, energy policies are also increasingly becoming politicized and interrelated with foreign and security policy.In another observation about the war on terror , a United States judge observed the following;
“Every single major terror alert issued by either the US, Canadian or UK
governments has proven to be either a manufactured facade, an entrapment
sting or an outright hoax [using mercenaries]… Evidence of government
sponsored terror and how they use the fear of terror to control society is
bursting out at the seams.”(Fetzer, 2012).
There is a feeling among many critics that every terror alert issued by either the US, Canadian or UK governments has proven to be either a manufactured facade, an entrapment sting or an outright hoax [using mercenaries].critics claim that there is increasing evidence of government sponsored terror and the use of fear to control society. This fear then makes it possible to alter fundamental government policy without much opposition from people.Regarding foreign policy for instance, recent years have seen the tightening of regulations, restrictions and policies to ridiculous proportions with regard to travelers.
Many of the actual participants since the war against terror – the soldiers are themselves not convinced of a need for the war. Many give accounts of the terrorsof a war that they do not still understand the justification for. Many came back after the war with many physical and mental scars from the war. Many succumb to that “age old war phenomenon, known to various generations by different designations, soldiers’ heart, shell shock, and most recently Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” ( Boudreau,2008).He further asserts that “soldiers can cope with their mental wounds if they believe their war to be just – a fight to liberate a people for example, but they cannot when the war is not just, when it is a war of acquisition, say, for oil” ( Boudreau, 2008,p.209).
According to two veteran repoerters, the sitting president at the time of the 9/11 attcks took the nation to war using faulty and fraudulent intelligence.The two also suggest constant wrangles and disagreement sbetween Bush’s administration and the CIA a well as the intelligence community over supposed existence of weapons of mass destruction and the Bush administration’s misleading sales campaign for war. They allege conspiracy, backstabbing, bureaucratic ineptitude, journalistic malfeasance, and arrogance by the government in their endeavors to invade Iraq for oil control (Isikoff &Corn,2006).
Impact of Peak oil Theory and the War on Terror on Policies
The on-going global war on terror launched by the Bush administration following the September 11 attacks has greatly reshaped many aspects of US foreign policy and will have a far-reaching impact on international relations and global strategic configurations (Foreign Policy, ).The Bush administration has been widely criticized for adopting much too unilateral an approach in foreign affairs. For purposes of isolating terrorists and to build up an international consensus and coalition against terror the previous (Bush-Cheney) administration came up with a ‘with –us –or – against-us resolution ,a doctrine that does not differentiate terrorists from those who harbor them .it also does not allow the taking of a neutral stand on the matter but rather coerces countries globally to choose sides in the war on terror ( ).the government has also on numerous occasions threatened countries that are thought to harbor terrorists with military action. In the end, a full scale invasion which has led to full blown war in Iraq resulting in high costs in precious lives and finances. It is estimated that the cost of war went into the billions( Stiglitz & Bilmes, 2008).
In another development and implementation of harsher security policies, the council on foreign policy( )states that“ under the pretext of an anti-terror war, the Bush administration has formulated an aggressive national security strategy characterized by the right to strike preemptively and the development and eventual deployment of a national missile defense system supposedly to deal with threats of mass destruction”.
The U.S government has published its national security strategy, formally endorsing preemptive strikes at perceived threats a part of its foreign policy ( ).
The war on terror and its resultant accompanying changes in foreign policy have affected foreign relations between the U.S. and other countries.
It is plausible therefore to believe that all these changes in security and foreign policy under the guise of war of terror have been as a result of the need to acquire control over oil resources and thus more of an energy policy issue than security issue.
Alternative energy, alternative strategies
The use of the term “alternative” presupposes a set of undesirable factors in other sources of energy technology against which the new sources are contrasted. British petroleum and Royal Dutch sell petroleum mega companies estimated that in the next twenty years, more than a third of the world’s energy will need to come from sources other than petroleum. These include sources like solar, wind, water, nuclear energy and other renewable energy sources (Alternergy.org, 2012). The increasing climate change , increase in population as well as dramatic fossil fuel depletion means that alternative energy sources will increasingly play a larger role in future energy provision globally.Alternergy.org notes the following :
Alternative energy refers to energy sources that have no undesired consequences such for example fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Alternative energy sources are renewable and are thought to be “free” energy sources. They all have lower carbon emissions, compared to conventional energy sources. Combined with the use of recycling, the use of clean alternative energies such as the home use of solar power systems will help ensure man’s survival into the 21st century and beyond. Home security and home independency are the catch cries of the new era in sustainable development and self sufficiency (alternergy.org, ).
Solar Power
Solar power is one of the best alternative energy solution especially from an environmental perspective. A 1.5 kilowatt PV system will keep more than 110,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, out of the atmosphere over the next 25 years ( Alternergy.org, ). Solar energy will stop the need to burn coal which will lead to easing of acid rains and sub-urban smog and other kinds of pollution. It is surprising that solar power has been so little harnessed by governments around the world given its infinite nature and the relatively reasonable costs involved. Solar energy can be turned to electricity and may be used in the running of large machines and if developed larger industrial plants. In various parts of the world various appliances and even motor vehicles are being designed in such a way that they are able to use solar energy as their main powering source of energy. In some third world countries and in large parts of China solar energy is used to charge mobile phones, radios cameras, televisions , cookers and other small and home appliances.
Solar energy is mainly harnessed through the use of solar panels which capture energy from the sun and convert it into useful energy depending o the particular functioning of that appliance.
Wind Power
As early as 5000 BC societies have taken advantage of wind power. Initial use of wind energy was mainly based on sails for boats. By 900 AD Persians had been using windmills to pump water and grind grain . Earlier still Cretans used wind energy to pump water fro crops and animals ( alternergy.org, 2012 ).
Currently in today’s world, decreasing fossil fuel resources have renewed interest in wind as an alternative source of energy. “The cost of wind has dropped by 15% with each doubling of installed capacity worldwide, and capacity has doubled three times during the 1990s and 2000’s.As of 1999, global wind energy capacity topped 10,000 megawatts, which is approximately 16 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.” ( alternergy.org, 2012 )
Wind energy is also affordable than others and is also pollution free. However one of it drawbacks include the lack o f energy density. Large number of wind turbines of wind are required to produce large amounts wind energy. This also requires a lot of land on which to install the wind generators. Wind turbines may also not be erected anywhere, because some areas are just no windy enough. It Is further observed that when an appropriate place is found, building and maintaining a wind farm can be costly. It “is a highly capital-intensive technology.” ( Alternergy.org, 2012 )There is more research going into larger scale use of geothermal, wave energy and biomass. So in the future there is a possibility of many more sources of energy being discovered Many countries are also investing in a fair amount of research to go into the possible harnessing of nuclear energy for more productive purposes. In coming years it might be put to use to run civilizations. There has particularly been a lot of interest in alternative fuel for vehicles. In this regard development of hybrid and battery electric vehicles are now increasingly commercially available and are gaining a lot of popularity(Peter, 2009) Nissan USA for instance has introduced the world’s first mass-production Electric Vehicle “Nissan Leaf” (Nissanusa.com, ). Hydrogen gas is a completely clean burning fuel; its only by-product is water.[29] It also contains relatively high amount of energy compared with other fuels due to its chemical structure.[30]
Conclusion
Literature on the subject reveals that indeed energy resources are an issue that is fundamental to any government. It is plausible that the United States may have had ulterior motives in its invasion of Iraq given that its oil reserves reached a peak oil state about four years ago. several sources also support the idea that key individuals form Bush administration had prior knowledge about plans to invade Iraq and sieze control of their oil reserves. The argument for a peak oil motivation for the Iraq invasion emerges as a somewhat more plausible explanation fro the war against terror as opposed to the current vague and little-understood explanation .it is therefore the conclusion of this paper that oil control might actually be the reason for the ‘war against terror’
This would explain the recently tightened energy, security and foreign U.S, policy. The extent to which U.S security, energy and foreign are merging into one is increasingly apparent .The three area of American policy are becoming increasingly interrelated due to their connection with the war on terror and peak oil crises. The security policy and the foreign policy connect in their uited duty to protect citizens against real and perceived terror attacks. Energy resource issues are however the cause for the ‘war on terror and the main reason for the change in foreign and security policies. The threre policies thus become very interrelated as they are used as tools to drive the larger agenda of acquiring control of oil resources. Each of these three policies affect the other two and thus must be in sync so as to ensure that certain actions that need to be taken are taken.
References
Isikoff, M. & Corn, D. (2006). Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the
Iraq War. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Stiglitz, J.E. & Bilmes, L.J.( 2008). The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq
Conflict. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Boudreau, T. E. (2008). Packing Inferno: The Unmaking of a Marine. Washington: Feral
House.
Coll, S. (2004). Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and bin Laden –
12/27/79 – 10/10/01. New York: Penguin Press.
1. ^ Hijikata, Tsuneo. 2001. Research and Development of International Clean Energy Network Using Hydrogen Energy. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy; 27: 115-129
.
