Defending American Freedom vs. Defending American Consumption: Going to War on Behalf of Oil, Gas, and Energy

_{Image © Austin Cline
Original Poster: National Archives
Click for full-sized Image}

Is it right or wrong to send American troops into harm’s way in order to defend access to oil, thus hopefully keeping oil prices lower and thereby reducing the overall energy costs in the American economy? Most people here will likely be quick to answer this question in the negative, but I think that the issue is a bit too complicated for such a quick response. It may be the best answer in the end, but how we get to that answer is just as important as getting the right answer.

First, let’s address those aspects which may run against to how people might think about this: it’s not inherently wrong to use the military to defend America’s economic interests. On the contrary, if anything justifies the use of America’s military, defending the health of the economy has to qualify. Perhaps the very first use of American military power overseas was precisely for that reason: we sent ships, part of a new navy created for exactly this purpose, against the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean (notice the geographic proximity to current international trouble).

There seems to be an assumption that it’s OK to send the military for “altruistic” reasons (defend a group against unprovoked attack) but not for “selfish” reasons (defend the American economy). I don’t think that this is the right way to approach the matter; instead, it might be better to draw from traditional notions of “just war” and look at the proportionality of the American response. Whether we use the military or something like economic pressure, in both cases of defending others against attack and defending the American economy it’s possible to use too much force relative to the threat.

If a small country is invaded by a larger one, it may be appropriate for America to send military help — but it’s also possible for America to respond with much more force than is ethically justified. If something is happening elsewhere that threatens the American economy, it may be that America could respond with a very light military or diplomatic touch that is well within ethical limits. It’s not the use of military force that should be the focus, but whether the amount of force goes further than what is ethically licit (of course, by its very nature military force may go "too far" more quickly than economic pressure).

As part of this ethical calculation we must take into consideration what our goals or expectations are. If our goal is to simply protect access to energy sources and thereby prevent economies from collapsing (for example, if someone wanted to detonate nuclear weapons to irradiate and ruin major oil fields), that’s easy to defend. On the other hand, if our goal is to protect access to cheap oil and thereby maintain a high standard of living in America while keeping others in poverty, that’s hard to defend. All of this holds true whether the military is involved or not.

Unfortunately, there seem to be some who are willing to accept situations like the second example. While it may be fair to consider using the military when it comes to economic interests, it’s not fair to do so without looking seriously at both our goals and the outcome of our actions. We don’t have a right to cheap gas that is sold by authoritarian regimes which keep their people in ignorance and poverty while keeping the profits from oil for a few wealthy people at the top. The market for oil is getting tighter as nations like India and China increase their demands, and there’s nothing we can do to stop that. Energy prices are going to increase over time, but maybe we have a chance now to investigate and develop alternatives before things get worse and demands for illicit use of the military abroad grow — perhaps becoming too strong for some to resist.

Again.