Another good article by James Carroll, although a little longer than his usual 700 words at around 844 words; the title “all power, no influence” is right on point.
“… what really endangers the United States today. Arguably, the single largest threat to national security [world peace] is the growing gulf between desperately impoverished peoples [ not only impoverished or poor, people with a loss of self-esteem, but indigent in many other human ways: for an example, the availability of a simple glass of clean water] and those who have what they need to live [only in the sense of affirming, and promoting equal political, economic, social, and civil rights; it does not mean to simply give them money to make them economically equal]. What is the Pentagon budget to that? Environmental degradation is also a massive national security threat. How do aircraft carriers help with that?”
Moreover, I might add, how do we develop an alternate source of energy and make a transformation for domestic purposes to include in that transformation an alternate to oil dependence a fuel for an M1 Abrams or a F-16 Fighting Falcon, or for that matter any of the other military assets that need gasoline, naphtha or kerosene to operate? How does this figure in our reluctance, seemingly (our postulations and desire seem only to be rhetorical), to find an alternate for oil? What would be the cost of transformation to another energy source for our military? Would we have the same capabilities or diminished capabilities? I am not an engineer, obviously, but in reality can it even be accomplished?
In a previous life, an incarnation where I was somewhat belligerent – a time when I thought war was probably necessary -- I operated an M47 Patton tank. It took a ton of diesel to fill it -- around 230 gallons. I would assume that the M1 Abrams is more fuel-efficient than the M47, which was manned by a five man crew and whose firepower utilized 90 mm rounds (weighty in and of themselves, and carried on board at full battle readiness 70 rounds) and a couple of machine guns. Nevertheless, the M1 still must take a ton of fuel to operate. It just makes me wonder how oil calculates into our need for hegemony in the Middle East, and, as a result of that need, the premeditated, preemptive Iraq War. Why our belligerent posture toward Iran? And, please don’t tell me it is because Saddam was a bad man as the reason we are in Iraq, or that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is another Hitler (the same rhetoric was used for Saddam) and needs to acquire WMD’s to dominate the world, therefore there is a need for regime change in Iran. It’s not complicated -- “It’s the oil, stupid!”
I agree that maybe the single largest threat to national security is the growing disparity between desperately impoverished peoples and those who have what they need to live. However, it is not the only threat, the need for oil as an energy source may be, arguably, the largest.
If you do not agree, please let me know.
James Carroll's column appears regularly in the Globe.
