On NPR this morning, Juan Williams interviewed David Frum and Richard Perle for their new
"War on Terror" book. I don't disagree with the premise--that we have to be critical about our current model of fighting enemies, which is based upon the Cold War and the threat of countries. Even some of their recommendations--particularly removing intelligence officers who failed in their jobs (and I would start with Rice, Powell, and Bush who falsified the threat of Iraq)--others, if not most, completely miss the point.
I have a couple of comments; I don't have the exact quotes because I was driving at the time, but I'll correct as needed or possible.
After a question from Williams about terrorists in other parts of the world besides the Middle East and the role of oil, Frum responded, "It is oil that is important to them. It is what gives them their power." This is a very important statement because there is probably little you can do about extreme ideology: You cannot stamp out an idea, at least militarily. And the Wahhabi sect has been around for several hundred years. This leaves with, then, their source of power. How can we weaken them so that they are not as much of a threat where they can, like al Qaeda, afford to send $3 million a month to support the war in Afghanistan or Iraq (as reported in Newsweek)?
Frum's response actually makes Jimmy Carter's attempt to find alternative means of renewable power all the more prescient. The following diagram (source) shows how Carter's moving us away from a dependence on foreign oil was negated by 16 years of Republican presidents and Clinton.
And before conservatives start saying "Why oppose drilling in the ANWR?" let me point out some facts as I've read all the versions of the geological reports of oil in the ANWR. First is that the oil in ANWR is not in any one place a la Prudoe Bay. It is scattered. Second, because of this and normal oil production procedures, it will take 10-12 years before we see any significant flow of oil from there. Third, and far from least, supporters of drilling in the ANWR are quoting the best case statistics--a scenario with only a 5% probability of happening.
The point here is that the idea of drilling in the ANWR will save us from dependence on foreign oil is silly and misguided.
So, if oil is the source of the power that attacks us, why are we not 1) changing our habits of consumption and 2) finding alternative sources of energy? I know the answer, and so do most Americans: Bush is too beholden to the oil industry to think in any way other than "what's good for Amurcan oil companies is good for Amurca."
I'm not advocating environmental "extremism" or even a vote for the Green Party. If we are to truly weaken the enemy, then I think it is obvious that we should do the following things.
Call Americans to action to conserve fuel: Turn off lights, reduce heat and cooling consumption, buy more fuel efficient cars, etc. We responded before in the 70s, and we can do it again.
Increase the fuel efficiency beyond Bush's meager 1.5 mpg proposal. Make it aggressive.
More aggressively fund alternative fuel research. Be presidential and set an aggressive goal for all Americans. Even a statement like "I'd like to see all American households with at least one hybrid or electric vehicle." Even without passing a law, I think such a statement of leadership could be significantly influential.
Make laws that require greater fuel efficiency for all powered tools and equipment, like lawn mowers.
Extend the tax break for owning hybrid vehicles that just ended in December 2003. Repeal any tax breaks for fuel inefficiency (like, ahem, Hummers).
And there are certainly more. If this is truly a war on terror, then let's treat it like one, and call for action by the home front (other than duct tape and plastic). Don't be so paralyzed by a fear of the effect on the economy (which is what left our airlines vulnerable to begin with) that we do not properly defend ourselves. In fact, this call for action is not exactly like that in previous wars, where we had rationing. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil actually is an offense attack on the enemy.
I realize that such a reduction in the consumption of energy, especially of oil and gas based energy, hurts some Americans. But I grew up in East Texas with brothers, nephews, and cousin in the oil and gas industries. Many still are. Buyouts, like BP and Amoco, have hurt American workers. Their jobs are already at risk. But this push away from fossil fuels does not have to yield job losses, not if we are pursuing alternative forms of energy. In other words, I don't think we can only curb our consumption: We must find an alternative source and, thus, create new jobs.
If Frum is right about the importance of oil in funding terrorism against the U.S. (and I think he is), then he was wrong when he said this morning that the first thing we have to do fight the war on terrorism correctly is to re-elect Bush.
To re-elect Bush is to ensure that we will fight empowered terrorist enemies.
Update:
Terri Gross also interviewed Frum and Perle today. In general, these guys sound a great deal like those see a conspiracy (which they do actually): They have enough facts to make their position sound true, but they take the facts (or make up more) to come up with wild ideas.
For example, look at how they take their own basic premise and contradict it. We don't need a Cold War military, with nuclear submarine and "planes to darken the skies," because, as Frum said, no country is foolish enough to wage war on us. Thus, preparing for wars against countries makes no sense in their "new world." Yet, they support pre-emptive war . . . against countries! But didn't they just say . . . truly, it is some horrible reasoning they present.
In fact, they say that the "soft liner" view that al Qaeda is simply "Pancho Villa" and a specific group that can be hunted down is wrong. But the fact is that al Qaeda is a group that needs to be eliminated. As clearly shown by the Iraq War, their solution utterly fails to reduce their threat.