The United States has always been a country that understands the need for teamwork. It has taken the unity of tremendous team efforts to win many of the conflicts in our past. Likewise, our current war on terrorism will require such an effort.
But we must pick our teammates wisely. Like captains in the schoolyard choosing sides, this international fight must have a delicate mix of talent. The U.S. and Britain have assumed the captaincy, but whom will they include?
There are various reasons supporting a broad coalition of nations, yet the nature of the constituency must not undermine its unambiguous and honorable purpose. The clarity of the cause on which we have embarked runs the risk of clouding.
There are, inevitably, those who would turn this new war on terrorism to their own profit. That is nothing new. But war profiteering is a bad and dangerous business. It is divisive, ugly and potentially catastrophic.
Recently and most visibly in our own camp, certain Republican leaders in Congress who favor drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, have stridently attempted to condition funding legislation for the war on terrorism with allowing oil drilling in the last fragile frontier of Alaska. These political war-profiteers have specifically reasoned that, because some of the countries we are fighting are in the Middle East and because that is where we buy much of our oil, we need to drill in the pristine wilds of Alaska.
No.
There are at least four reasons that immediately come to mind as to why this troublesome behavior is seriously disruptive to our war on terrorism. First, it is not a palpable solution since, at its best - on some future date - it would address only about five percent of domestic consumption. Second, it is a discordant political position vigorously opposed by at least one half of Americans. Third, it is foolishly destructive, literally and symbolically, of our nation's last untouched frontier. (As the events of this past weekend prove, when a drunken hunter accidentally shot the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline and spilled more than a quarter million gallons of oil, whatever can go wrong usually does.) And fourth, while sending the ironic message to our oil producing "war on terrorism coalition" well-wishers that we do not really trust them, it signals our continued weakness about our voracious appetite for oil at any price.
It is this last point that marks the Gordian knot. Our nation's leaders encourage our insatiable appetite for oil, thereby trapping our national policies - both domestic and foreign - in a gambit of dependence on oil production from any available source, including Muslim countries in the OPEC oil cartel. Thus, America finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Because we cannot wean ourselves from the oil habit, we find ourselves inevitably sucked into the vortex of these producers' impenetrable plots and conspiracies. This conundrum and linkage has become the principal source of a skewed and wavering foreign policy. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have made clear beyond doubt that America and its principal Western allies are not engaged in a war upon Islam. In addition to being antithetical to the organic beliefs of the post-Middle Ages civilized world, such a war against a religious tradition and belief system would be futile. But, significant numbers of the populations of many of the countries aiding, abetting and sympathizing with the terrorists are predominantly Muslim. Therefore, America and its principal partners in the war against terrorism must be mindful of whom they choose to be on their side and what price they are willing to pay for such cooperation. Like success, the chemistry of freedom is fragile. While the moderate Islamic states that we consider allies should rightfully be included, there is no empirical reason why a coalition of states to fight terror must include all Islamic nations. Two such nations undeserving of inclusion are Iran and Syria. These nations are host sponsors of terrorism around the world; Iran spends $100 million annually for such dastardly ends. Others might argue, though, that by including these fringe nations in our coalition, they may ultimately be persuaded to change their ways. This hope is a stretch and the position is flawed. Our leniency toward Iraq at the end of the Gulf War did not assuage Saddam's desire to accumulate weapons of mass destruction nor has it stopped his funding of terror. If we are to truly pursue all "nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," as President Bush has said, then we must be careful how we select our teammates. America cannot afford to lay aside the global partners with whom it shares its value system for short-term convenience or to lose its way in the dark tangles of the oil patch.
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.