I spent a good part of this weekend reading Michael Scheuer's outstanding book Imperial Hubris, which makes a forceful case that cultural presuppositions have led the West to badly underestimate the appeal of Osama bin Laden's global jihad. The core of the book is the argument that -- contra Tom Friedman and scores of other self-righteous commentators -- bin Laden is not engaging an offensive war because he hates what we are. Rather, he is struggling defensively (as he sees it) because of what we do to Muslims: occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan; US military bases on the Arabian peninsula; propping up Israel; supporting Russia, India, and China in those countries' war on their own Muslim populations. Exporting democracy at gunpoint won't help, argues Scheuer, because one the one hand it provides more antagonistic fuel for propaganda against us, and on the other because it does not address these core policy complaints. Unless we are prepared to alter our policies, we can only expect a long and bloody conflict.
Against this background I watched with interest a Newshour segment on the possible benefits of high oil prices. The key here is that high prices will create a real economic incentive for conservation in all its forms: more energy-efficient vehicles, production methods, housing, city planning patterns, work habits. Currently cheap oil is the foundation of the US economy, and (by implication) of the entire Imperium Americana: without cheap fuel lubricating our economy, our military strength would be diminished. And, of course, imperial ambition goes hand-in-hand with the need for this cheap fuel. So we support corrupt regimes like that of Saudi Arabia, regimes which are hardly credible among their own people, and which themselves preside over a society that produces thousands of jihadis.
Perhaps extremely high oil prices would be the lever that finally causes us to trim back our imperial wings. We can only hope. But, as observed in Slate today, some neoconservatives are embracing the energy-efficient lifestyle for its geostrategic benefits: using less oil will make us less dependent on Persian Gulf producers, which could allow us more flexible policy in the Middle East. The neocons, however, don't seem interested in reducing the American empire, but in preserving it. For them,
the fact that energy efficiency and conservation might help the environment is an unintended side benefit. They want to weaken the Saudis, the Iranians, and the Syrians while also strengthening the Israelis. Whether these ends are achieved with M-16s or hybrid automobiles doesn't seem to matter to them.
From a Green perspective the marriage of convenience with neoconservatives might make sense. But from an anti-imperial standpoint, it amounts to more of the same. We may withdraw our military from the Gulf, yes, but without changing other aspects of our position we're going to be stuck with a widespread global insurgency.
>> bin Laden is not engaging an offensive war because he hates what we are.
Spot on. In fact, you don't have to read a CIA analyst's book to figure this out: Osama bin Laden's speeches are quite clear on this point -- he has specific strategic objectives, mostly having to do with getting us out of the Middle East, and if those are accomplished, he'll leave us alone.
Of course, actually reading OBL's own words would be downright unpatriotic, which is why, as a red blooded American, I would never do any such thing.
Posted by: dylan at January 28, 2005 01:19 PM