IN THE GREEN ZONE II
Given time pressures (no blogging tomorrow, I'm off to a anti-terrorism seminar in Washington) and the amount of coverage the Hariri assassination has received already (see today's library for some good links), I don't feel I have more commentary to add regarding the crime. Except perhaps this: tryanni Syriaci delendi sunt!
On the other hand, before the Metroliner departs from Penn, I'd like to respond to reader Tom Strattner's comments on yesterday's post "In the Green Zone." For simplicity's sake, let me excerpt the kernel of his viewpoint. After politely reprimanding me for drifting into matters seemingly beyond my ken, Tom adds,
I assume your (and Tom Friedman's) simplistic and erroneous equation of continued U.S. oil consumption with continued necessity for military intervention in the Mideast stems from passionate environmentalism. Whatever the cause, something clouds your capacity for rational thought on this subject.
Do your loyal readers--like me--a favor and educate yourself with basic information. For instance, the U.S. consumes FIVE TIMES as much oil as the next leading country (China). Removing all SUVs from America's roads tomorrow wouldn't bring that consumption down by even one multiple. More's the point, only three Mideast countries are among the world's top 10 oil exporters. Their contribution to net supplies only makes a difference short term. So if we shut off these countries' spigots tomorrow and returned their ruling classes to relative poverty, do you really think they'd cease exporting Islamofascism?
My answer to that last question is--yes. But more on that in a minute. Right now, let's use Tom's comments as a jumping-off point for discussion. I'm not going to pretend expertise on energy policy. I am, however, interested in symbols, context, ideas, the whole ineffable wizardry of making truth (as opposed to reporting reality). And this brings me back to the SUV.
For argument's sake, I'll assume Tom is correct: that eliminating from America's roadways every one of those vans-on-steroids would hardly dent our nation's oil consumption. But what about all gas-guzzling cars? To me (and others, evidently, see "Xena's" response to Tom's comments), the SUV is a symbol--a synecdoche, for you semioticians out there--for Detroit's unnecessarily fuel-inefficient automobiles. For numerous reasons--from the environment to Koran-quoting terrorists--demanding greater mileage-per-gallon from the automotive industry seems a rational act of self-preservation. The kind of thing school children will read about centuries from now and wonder, couldn't they see this for themselves?
But the SUV is more than just a pointless, roll-over-prone boondoggle which, like bottled water, Madison Avenue has convinced the American people they need. It is a symbol of our nation's heedless profligacy. No, I'm no fan of Jimmy Carter cardigans and 65-degree thermostats (note to Tom: I'm not even an environmentalist--to Warrior Woman's exasperation, I consider the virtues recycling as another urban myth). But unlike the Carter years, today we are at war. Wars call for sacrifices. The Bush Administration, pandering to our complacency, would cut taxes and have us spend the economy into strength. Perhaps that will work. But on a core, visceral level--where the heart, conscience and will intertwine to forge a moral commitment to a cause--it feels wrong to needlessly consume, to squander, energy when we have soldiers in the field fighting enemies who are directly or indirectly funded by our bad habits.
Would turning off the Middle Eastern spigots reduce terrorism? I believe so. There is little doubt that the infiltration of Wahhabi ideology throughout the Muslim ummah has enjoyed the support of billions of petro-dollars which flowed into the House of Saud's royal coffers beginning in the mid-1970s. Iran would most likely prove less energetic in its terrorist funding were its oil fields were not pumping black rials into the mullah's hands. The issue becomes even more serious if you consider that the best long-term solution to jihadism is democratic reform. As others have noted, the "curse of oil" undermines democracy by centralizing the powers of government around a single resource, controlled from a single source, by a single group of people. Reducing the cost of a barrel of oil to $18, as Tom Friedman mused in a recent column, would force these nations to diversify their economies--and their societies as well.
But, again, perhaps none of this would cap the geysers of oil riches pouring to the anti-Western sheiks and mullahs of the Middle East--especially with China about to ratchet oil consumption to unprecedented levels. I return, then, to the level of symbolism. Reducing, or--insha'allah--eliminating SUVs would signal America's commitment to a more directed and concentrated war against Islamofascism. It would help create the context for the much-talked about 21st century "Manhattan Project" dedicated toward new sources of energy. Domestic conservation would also make the drilling of domestic sources of oil more politically palatable. No boxer goes into a fight overweight and expects to win: if we are going to fight the Islamofascists, we must be as lean, mean and willing to sacrifice as they are.
During World War II, people planted "Victory Gardens" and mounted scrap metal drives to assist the war effort. Were these effective, or even necessary? Of course not. But as Roosevelt knew at the time, they gave the American people a sense that they, along with U.S. soldiers, were contributing something to the war. Today, we can do the same. Tom may be right--that giving up SUVs and our profligate energy ways in general may have little practical effect in the war against Islamofascism. But this war, like all wars, is not only practical. There is the symbolic, the moral dimension to the conflict. Lose this, and we lose everything.