"The US is destabilizing theregion, not stabilizing it. Thatwould not be necessary if weweren’t dependent on

petroleum."US & MIDDLE EAST 

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was in the Gulf on Friday at a conference ofdefense ministers from the region, including the Gulf Cooperation Council andIran.

Hagel underlined American commitment to the security of the Arab states onthe littoral of the Gulf, including Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United ArabEmirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait (the six of which make up the GulfCooperation Council) and toward which he said the military balance of powerhad shifted. He said the US had sold $75 billion in sophisticated militaryequipment to those countries in recent years, more than in the previous 15.

Hagel said that the US had and would keep 35,000 military personnel in theGulf region, some 10,000 of whom were army soldiers with armor orhelicopter gunships. In addition, some 40 US naval vessels patrol the Gulf waters, including an aircraft carrier battle group.

The US commitment to the Gulf is because some 22% of the world’s petroleumis shipped out through its Strait of Hormuz. Qatari and other LiquefiedNatural Gas is also shipped out by this route. While the US imports relativelylittle from this region, its military allies, including Japan and the NATOcountries of Europe, heavily depend on it. (But so too does China, whichimports from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries and is now the world’s largest oil importer. Beijing is getting a free ride on energy security because the US is paying for the costs of providing it.)

The GCC and other Arab states wanted to hear these reassurances from Hagel,since they’re as nervous about American negotiations with Iran as long-tailedcats in a room full of rocking chairs.

 

In fact, the idea of the GCC as a military power in the Gulf is darkly humorous.These are countries with small populations, with the exception of Saudi Arabia, which probably has 22 million citizens. Qatar has 250,000. None ofthem could defend themselves from Iran or Iraq, the other states on thelittoral, which are bigger and have proper military establishments, thoughIraq’s is fragile from having been recently rebuilt from scratch. While theSaudi military is well equipped, it is small and lacks combat experience or,from all accounts, much practical know-how or esprit de corps. I wouldn’tcount on them being able actually to deploy all those shiny weapons W. sold tothem.

It has cost the United States $8 trillion to provide military security in the Gulfsince 1976. According to Roger Stern, a Princeton economist, the US has spentas much on Gulf security as it spent on the entire Cold War with the SovietUnion! In recent years through 2010 it has been $400 billion a year, thoughthe US withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011 and the gradual withdrawalfrom Afghanistan this year and next presumably means that the figure issubstantially reduced. Still, we have bases in Kuwait, Qatar and elsewhere, anda Naval HQ in Bahrain, none of which is cheap. If it were $200 billion a year,that is a fair chunk of the budget deficit the Republican Party keepscomplaining about. And if we could get that $8 trillion back, it would paydown half of the national debt.

"It would be like paying hundreds of billions of dollars a year to ensure that peoplecan get access to meth, which then ruins their health."

Some argue that since the US itself imports relatively little petroleum from theGulf, we’re crazy to pay for policing it. But this argument seems to me not theright one for several reasons. First, petroleum is more or less a single globalmarket (with a spread of say $10 in different spot markets). If the Gulfcouldn’t export petroleum, it would put the price up so much that everyone’seconomy would collapse, including that of the US. Second, US policy has beento encourage Germany and Japan not to militarize, in return for an Americansecurity umbrella. American geopolitical power benefits from having fewercredible rivals, and that is part of what we are paying for. The US has to policethe Gulf if Japan is to stay strong in the face of a rising China, and if Germanyis not to be Ukrainized.

The right argument is that we shouldn’t be using petroleum and nor shouldour allies. The supreme tragedy is that the US has bankrupted itself ensuringmilitary security for the oil-producing nations of the Gulf when oil production

 

is destroying the world. We need a crash program to get the world offpetroleum, some 70% of which is used to power automobiles. People should begiven incentives to move back to cities so they don’t have to commute. Betterpublic transport is needed. Portland is an example of how a concerted pushcan change the urban transportation situation quickly. 8% of commuters inPortland now get to work on bicycle, 10 times more than any other Americancity. Portland adopted a global warming action plan in 1993 and has renewedit, and demonstrates what can be accomplished in only 20 years if a city putsits mind to it. And, we should move as quickly as possible to hybrid plugins or where practical electric vehicles (EVs).

Moreover, we should be pressuring our allies in this direction (Germanydoesn’t need any encouragement but Japan and others do). Otherwise we arelocking the world into as much as a 9 degrees Fahrenheit increase in averagesurface temperature over the next century, which could well destabilize ourclimate. And we are paying through the nose for the privilege! It would be likepaying hundreds of billions of dollars a year to ensure that people can getaccess to meth, which then ruins their health.

 A tiny fraction of the $8 trillion we spent through 2010 (surely it is up near$10 trillion now) on Gulf security would, if invested in research anddevelopment in solar energy and other renewables, and in reformulating oururban transportation systems, save the world. We are told we don’t havemoney for that effort. But we had plenty of money for aircraft carriers and wars in the Gulf.

Getting some of this security investment back by selling the Gulf nationssophisticated weaponry is a very bad idea. The bigger the conventional armsstockpiles, the greater the likelihood they will be deployed in war. The US isdestabilizing the region, not stabilizing it. That would not be necessary if we weren’t dependent on petroleum. 

The answer to the security dilemmas of the Oil Gulf is not aircraft carriers, 39other big naval vessels, over a dozen military bases, and 35,000 troopsgarrisoned there. It is a crash program to get off petroleum and to get ourallies off petroleum. Buy a plug-in hybrid for your next car. You’d be savingthe world and also helping bring some of our young men and women homefrom al-Udeid and other bases in the Gulf