U.S. CHOICES AND CONSEQUENCES

Beginning this week, the United Nations will approve if the U.S. leads an international military force into battle against Iraq. So the U.S. faces an excruciating decision that inescapably involves petroleum. The world waits. Ready or not, now or later, the U.S. alone will decide whether to continue the war Saddam Hussein started last Aug. 2. And if it decides to fight, the U.S. will lead the anti-Iraq coalition in casualties. World leadership is never comfortable.

Jan. 14, 1991

4 min read

The world waits. Ready or not, now or later, the U.S. alone will decide whether to continue the war Saddam Hussein started last Aug. 2. And if it decides to fight, the U.S. will lead the anti-Iraq coalition in casualties. World leadership is never comfortable.

The U.S. occupies this role by choice. Sometime during or after World War 11 it decided to spend the money and make the other sacrifices necessary to become a world-class military power. Now, with the Soviet Union in decline, it is the world's military leader. When it wants to, the U.S. can fight extremely well.

NUDGED INTO CONFLICT

The world knows this. When something happens to upset order in the world, or to make it unacceptably disorderly, the U.S. feels nudged and cajoled into conflict with the source of the upset. And when it responds, the nudgers and cajolers stand disapprovingly by and wish out loud for greater emphasis on diplomacy, more delicately practiced.

The U.S. pursued and won this role. Now it must choose among terrible options, the worst of which is to shrink from its awesome responsibilities. If it shirks the task because choices are tough, some other country will grab for the lead-Saddam Hussein's Iraq, perhaps. This is the private and very important wisdom of the world's nudgers and cajolers.

Does this mean the U.S. can't pick its fights? Not at all. It quite properly performs as world military leader when and where its interests are at stake. In the Middle East, that means petroleum.

One of the reasons the U.S. can lead the world militarily is that it leads economically as well. And because it represents the world's biggest economy, the U.S. also leads the world in petroleum consumption. This is nothing to regret. A physically large country with a robust economy naturally consumes large volumes of the most economic fuel available. The U.S. cannot wish or regulate itself away from petroleum use, as some hope it will, with energy policies concentrating on mandatory "conservation."

What the U.S. should regret is its leadership role involving petroleum imports. It doesn't have to hold this position in the world. If the U.S. produced more oil and gas-the equivalent of another Prudhoe Bay field, perhaps-if it allowed nuclear energy to develop to potential, and if it rationalized regulations regarding coal use, it might escape the import leader's position. But it won't. It won't even allow exploration in areas most likely to yield another oil discovery the scale of Prudhoe Bay. This is too bad. When it wants to the U.S. can produce energy extremely well.

A CHOSEN ROLE

The U.S. chose its role as world oil import leader. It has preferred to import rather than produce a commodity essential to its economy. So it cannot ignore or trivialize its petroleum interests in the Middle East. And it cannot expect more than diplomatic support and token military help from countries that would never let a huge petroleum resource go unexplored and undeveloped. A choice not to produce energy hastens the decision to fight in defense of someone else's oil.

There is no new Prudhoe Bay. There is no potential surge in nuclear-generated electricity. The U.S. needs free flow of oil from the Middle East. And Saddam Hussein wants to control more of that flow than he did before Aug. 2. For the U.S., past military and energy choices may now mean war.