September 2002

Views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of the AFSC.

The War Against Terrorism and the Future of Global Oil: Two Strands of the Same Strategy

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA and the author of Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (Owl Books / Henry Holt & Co., 2001).

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush Administration has launched two great foreign policy initiatives: a global war against terrorism, and a global campaign to expand American access to foreign oil. Originally, these two initiatives were viewed as separate endeavors, with each possessing its own rationale and mode of operation. As time has passed, however, they have become closely intertwined, so that today the war on terrorism and the global pursuit of oil have become one vast and unbridled enterprise.

Evidence of the growing linkage between these two priorities can be seen in current US military activities around the world:

• Central Asia and the Caucasus: When US combat troops were deployed in this region shortly after September 11, their sole objective--or so it was said at the time--was to support military operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But now, with the Taliban defeated, it appears that they will remain in the region and perform other functions. Given the stated US interest in gaining access to the vast energy supplies of the Caspian Sea basin, it is likely that these functions will include protecting the flow of oil and natural gas from the Caspian region to markets in the West. Lending credibility to this view are the recent deployment of American military instructors in Georgia--an important way-station for the oil pipelines connecting the Caspian with the Black Sea and the Mediterranean--and the announcement of US plans to refurbish a military airbase in Kazakhstan, on the edge of the Caspian Sea.
  
• Colombia: Until recently, American military involvement in Colombia was said to be intended solely for the purpose of combating the illegal trade in narcotics. In recent months, however, the White House has identified two other objectives for the US military aid program: to combat political violence and terrorism by Colombia's guerrilla organizations and to protect the pipelines that carry petroleum from oilfields in the interior to terminals and refineries on the coast. To finance these initiatives, the Bush Administration has asked Congress to approve further increases in US military aid to Colombia. In time, they are also likely to entail the deployment of additional American military advisers in the country.
  
• Iraq and the Persian Gulf: There no longer appears to be any doubt that the Bush Administration is planning a full-scale invasion of Iraq, with the ultimate objective of eliminating Saddam Hussein and installing a pro-US government in Baghdad. In preparation for such a move, the Department of Defense is expanding its already large military presence in the Middle East.  Supposedly, the sole aim of the expected US invasion is to destroy any surviving Iraqi capabilities for the production of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. At the same time, however, it is clear that Washington is worried about the future availability of petroleum from the Persian Gulf area and is determined to eliminate any threat to the uninterrupted flow of oil.
  

This conjunction between the war on terrorism and the struggle for oil is occurring in other parts of the world that harbor both large supplies of petroleum and insurgent groups linked to al Qaeda. Several key factors are facilitating this merger.

Washington, DC, April 20, 2002. Photo: Louise Dunlap

The first is geography: many of the world's largest reserves of oil are located in areas that are unstable or rent by internal divisions of one sort or another. One need only point to the Persian Gulf--the source of two-thirds of the world's oil and a major cauldron of conflict--to make this point. Large reserves are also found in other areas of unrest, including the Caspian Sea basin, Africa, and the Andean region of Latin America.

The second is growing US dependence on imported oil. As domestic reserves are progressively depleted, the United States will become increasingly reliant on oil derived from sources located abroad. At present, we obtain about half of our petroleum from foreign sources; by 2020, imports will account for two-thirds of US consumption. Even if Congress were to reverse itself, and allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the United States would remain highly dependent on foreign supplies. And because many of these reserves are located in areas of instability, the US military is placing more and more emphasis on the protection of overseas pipelines and oilfields.

Of course, the United States has long viewed the acquisition of oil from the Persian Gulf as a matter of national security.  Indeed, this became an explicit function of national security in 1980, following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Islamic revolution in Iran, when then-President Carter announced that any effort to obstruct the flow of Persian Gulf oil would be regarded as "an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America," and, as such, would be "repelled by any means necessary, including military force." This policy--soon dubbed the "Carter Doctrine"--was later used to justify US intervention in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 and the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91.

Although initially directed at the Persian Gulf area, this policy has been extended by subsequent administrations to other areas, including the Caspian Sea basin. In 1997, President Clinton affirmed that access to Caspian oil is a national security interest of the United States, and announced efforts to build military ties between this country and the newly- independent states of the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Department of Defense began providing military aid to these nations and on several occasions US troops were flown to the area to test America's capacity to intervene in regional conflicts. 

The Bush Administration has reaffirmed this policy and extended it to other parts of the world with significant reserves of petroleum. The rationale for this extension was laid out in the Administration's National Energy Policy report of May 17, 2001, which calls on the United States to diversify its sources of imported petroleum so as not to become overly reliant on one key source, such as the Persian Gulf. "Diversity is important, not only for energy security but for national security," President Bush said when releasing the report. "Overdependence on any one source of energy, especially a foreign source, leaves us vulnerable to price shocks, supply interruptions, and in the worst case, blackmail."

To avert this danger, the Administration seeks to enhance US access to oil in as many areas of the world as possible, including Latin America and the west coast of Africa. Because these areas--no less than the Persian Gulf and the Caspian basin--are rife with instability, growing US oil involvement is being accompanied by growing US military involvement. As noted, this includes increased assistance to military forces in Colombia. The United States is also expanding its military ties with key oil producers in Africa, including Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, and Angola.

These initiatives were just getting under way when Muslim hijackers struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11. For a time, the White House put a hold on these energy-related matters so as to concentrate on the war in Afghanistan, but, by the end of 2001, the Administration was ready to focus once again on the security aspects of growing US dependence on imported oil. Hence, the decisions to provide aid for pipeline protection in Colombia and to initiate counter-insurgency operations in Georgia.

With the American public fixated on the threat of terrorism, however, the Administration is understandably reluctant to portray these actions as related primarily to the protection of oil supplies. Thus the third reason for the merger of the war against terrorism and struggle for oil: to provide the White House with a convenient rationale for expanding US military involvement in the Caspian basin and in other areas that are of concern to Washington primarily because of their role in supplying energy to the United States.

For all of these reasons, the war against terrorism and the struggle for oil are likely to remain connected for the indefinite future. In all likelihood, this will entail growing US military involvement in all of the oil-supplying areas identified above. Such involvement may be limited to indirect forms of assistance, such as arms transfers and training programs, but could involve the deployment of significant numbers of US combat troops. This is especially likely in the case of Iraq, which possesses more oil than any other country except Saudi Arabia.

The Bush Administration has an obvious responsibility to take the necessary steps to protect the United States against further acts of terrorism. Such efforts have been given unequivocal support by the public and Congress. But such support does not extend to an open-ended campaign to procure additional oil from overseas suppliers and to protect these supplies from hostile forces. Before committing additional military resources to such an effort, we should consider if America's energy requirements could be better provided through conservation and alternative energy systems--thus reducing the risk of US involvement in an endless series of overseas conflicts.

Previous Article    Next Article