PxPixel
Is Barack Obama Becoming Dick Cheney? - Opposing Views

Is Barack Obama Becoming Dick Cheney?

Author:
Publish date:

Back in September 2001, Dick Cheney was, according to Jane Mayer inThe Dark Side, being chauffeured around Washington “in an armored motorcade that varied its route to foil possible attackers."  In the backseat of his car (just in case), adds Mayer, "rested a duffel bag stocked with a gas mask and a biochemical survival suit." And lest danger rear its head, "rarely did he travel without a medical doctor in tow."

Ah, weren’t those the days?  How quiet, how boring his life must be now, his new ticker in place,hostingfundraisers for Mitt Romney in Jackson Hole, Wyoming,auctioningoff lunches with himself for charity, and -- for a little genuine excitement --slammingPresident Obama as an “unmitigated disaster.”  And yet, what if thousands of miles from Washington, years from his "taking off the gloves” heyday, promoting “enhanced interrogation techniques,” and plunking for invasions in the Greater Middle East, his ghost still lives in the nation's capital, and not in some vague way somewhere in the Republican opposition, but deep in the beating heart of the Obama administration.  It’s the sort of thought that should take you aback and yet Michael Klare,TomDispatch regularand author most recently ofThe Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources, makes the case that the Cheney ticker is beating hard right now in President Obama’s chest.  Don’t believe it?  Then, take a deep dive into Cheney’s... I mean, Obama’s world. (To catch Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio interview in which Klare discusses imperial geopolitics as the default mode for Washington since 1945, clickhereor download it to your iPodhere.)Tom

Is Barack Obama Morphing Into Dick Cheney?
Four Ways the President Is Pursuing Cheney’s Geopolitics of Global Energy

ByMichael T. Klare

As details of his administration’s global war against terrorists, insurgents, and hostile warlords have become more widely known -- a war that involves a mélange of drone attacks,covert operations, andpresidentially selected assassinations-- President Obama has beencomparedto President George W. Bush in his appetite for military action.  “As shown through his stepped-up drone campaign,” Aaron David Miller, anadvisorto six secretaries of state,wroteatForeign Policy, “Barack Obama has become George W. Bush on steroids.”

When it comes to international energy politics, however, it is not Bush but his vice president, Dick Cheney, who has been providing the role model for the president.  As recent events have demonstrated, Obama’s energy policies globally bear an eerie likeness to Cheney’s, especially in the way he has engaged in the geopolitics of oil as part of an American global struggle for future dominance among the major powers.

More than any of the other top officials of the Bush administration -- many with oil-company backgrounds -- Cheney focused on the role of energy in global power politics.  From 1995 to 2000, he served as chairman of the board and chief executive officer ofHalliburton, a major supplier of services to the oil industry.  Soon after taking office as vice president he was asked by Bush to devise a new national energy strategy that has largely governed U.S. policy ever since.

Early on, Cheney concluded that the global supply of energy was not growing fast enough to satisfy rising world demand, and that securing control over the world’s remaining oil and natural gas supplies would therefore be an essential task for any state seeking to acquire or retain a paramount position globally.  He similarly grasped that a nation’s rise to prominence could be thwarted by being denied access to essential energy supplies.  As coal was to the architects of the British empire, oil was for Cheney -- a critical resource over which it would sometimes be necessary to go to war.

More than any of his peers, Cheney articulated such views on the importance of energy to national wealth and power.  “Oil is unique in that it is so strategic in nature,” hetoldan audience at an industry conference in London in 1999. “We are not talking about soapflakes or leisurewear here.  Energy is truly fundamental to the world’s economy.  The Gulf War was a reflection of that reality.”

Cheney’s reference to the 1990-1991 Gulf War is particularly revealing.  During that conflict, he was the secretary of defense and so supervised the American war effort.  But while his boss, President George H.W. Bush, played down the role of oil in the fight against Iraq, Cheney made no secret of his belief that energy geopolitics lay at the heart of the matter.  “Once [Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein] acquired Kuwait and deployed an army as large as the one he possesses,” Cheney told the Senate Armed Services Committee when asked to justify the administration’s decision to intervene, “he was clearly in a position to be able to dictate the future of worldwide energy policy, and that gave him a stranglehold on our economy.”

This would be exactly the message he delivered in 2002, as the second President Bush girded himself for the invasion of Iraq.  Were Saddam Hussein successful in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, Cheneytolda group of veterans that August 25th, “[he] could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East [and] take control of a great portion of the world’s energy supplies.”

For Cheney, the geopolitics of oil lay at the core of international relations, largely determining the rise and fall of nations.  From this, it followed that any steps, including war and environmental devastation, were justified so long as they enhanced America’s power at the expense of its rivals.

Cheney’s World

Through his speeches, Congressional testimony, and actions in office, it is possible to reconstruct the geopolitical blueprint that Cheney followed in his career as a top White House strategist -- a blueprint that President Obama, eerily enough, now appears to be implementing, despite the many risks involved.

That blueprint consists of four key features:

1. Promote domestic oil and gas production at any cost to reduce America’s dependence on unfriendly foreign suppliers, thereby increasing Washington's freedom of action.

2. Keep control over the oil flow from the Persian Gulf (even if the U.S. gets an ever-diminishing share of its own oil supplies from the region) in order to retain an “economic stranglehold” over other major oil importers.

3. Dominate the sea lanes of Asia, so as to control the flow of oil and other raw materials to America’s potential economic rivals, China and Japan.

4. Promote energy “diversification” in Europe, especially through increased reliance on oil and natural gas supplies from the former Soviet republics of the Caspian Sea basin, in order to reduce Europe’s heavy dependence on Russian oil and gas, along with the political influence this brings Moscow.

The first objective, increased reliance on domestic oil and gas, was highlighted inNational Energy Policy,the energy strategy Cheney devised for the president in May 2001 in close consultation with representatives of the oil giants.  Although mostly known for its advocacy of increased drilling on federal lands, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Cheney Report (as it came to be known) largely focused on the threat of growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil suppliers and the need to achieve greater “energy security” through a damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead program of accelerated exploitation of domestic energy supplies.

“A primary goal of the National Energy Policy is to add supply from diverse sources,” the report declared.  “This means domestic oil, gas, and coal.  It also means hydropower and nuclear power.”  The plan also called for a concerted drive to increase U.S. reliance on friendly sources of energy in the Western hemisphere, especially Brazil, Canada, and Mexico.

The second objective, control over the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, was, for Cheney, the principal reason for both the First Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Although before that invasion, the president and other top officials focused on Saddam Hussein’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, his human rights record, and the need to bring democracy to Iraq, Cheney never wavered in his belief that the basic goal was to ensure that Washington would control the Middle Eastern oil jugular.

After Saddam’s ouster and the occupation of Iraq began, Cheney was especially outspoken in his insistence that neighboring Iran be prevented, by force of arms if need be, from challenging American preeminence in the Gulf.  “We’ll keep the sea lanes open,” hedeclaredfrom the deck of an aircraft carrier during maneuvers off the coast of Iran in May 2007.  “We’ll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.”

Cheney also focused in a major way on ensuring control over the sea lanes from the Strait of Hormuz, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf (out of which 35% of the world’s tradable oil flows each day) across the Indian Ocean, through the Straits of Malacca, and into the South and East China Seas.  To this day, these maritime corridors remain essential for the economic survival of China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, bringing oil and other raw materials to their industries and carrying manufactured goods to their markets abroad.  By maintaining U.S. control over these vital conduits, Cheney sought to guarantee the loyalty of America’s key Asian allies and constrain the rise of China.  In pursuit of these classic geopolitical objectives, he pushed for an enhanced U.S. naval presence in the Asia-Pacific region and the establishment of anetwork of military allianceslinking Japan, Australia, and India, all aimed at containing China.

Finally, Cheney sought to rein in America’s other major great-power rival, Russia.  While his boss, George W. Bush, spoke of the potential for cooperation with Moscow, Cheney, still an energy cold warrior, viewed Russia as a geopolitical competitor and sought every opportunity to diminish its power and influence.  He particularly feared that Europe’s growing dependence on Russian natural gas could undermine its resolve to resist aggressive Russian moves in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

Image placeholder title

To counter this trend, Cheney tried to persuade the Europeans to get more of their energy from the Caspian Sea basin bybuildingnew pipelines to that region via Georgia and Turkey.  The idea was to bypass Russia bypersuadingAzerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan to export their gas through these conduits, not those owned by Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled monopoly.  When Georgia came under attack from Russian forces in August 2008, after Georgian troops shelled the pro-Moscow enclave of South Ossetia, Cheney was the first senior U.S. official tovisitTbilisi, bringing a promise of $1 billion in reconstruction assistance, as well as an offer of fast-track entry into NATO.  France and Germanyblockedthe move, fearing Moscow might respond with actions that could destabilize Europe.

Obama as Cheney

This four-part geopolitical blueprint, relentlessly pursued by Cheney while vice president, is now being implementedin every respectby President Obama.

When it comes to the pursuit of enhanced energy independence, Obama has embraced the ultra-nationalistic orientation of the 2001 Cheney report, with its call for increased reliance on domestic and Western Hemisphere oil and natural gas -- no matter the dangers ofdrillingin environmentally fragile offshore areas or the use of hazardous techniques likehydro-fracking.  In recent speeches, he has boasted of his administration’s efforts to facilitate increased oil and gas drilling at home and promised to speed drilling in new locations, includingoffshore Alaskaand the Gulf of Mexico.

“Over the last three years,” heboastedin his January State of the Union address, “we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75% of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.  Right now -- right now -- American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years… Not only that -- last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years.”  He spoke with particular enthusiasm about the extraction of natural gas via fracking from shale deposits: “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years.  And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

Obama has also voiced his desire to increase U.S. reliance on Western Hemisphere energy, thereby diminishing its dependence on unreliable and unfriendly suppliers in the Middle East and Africa.  In March 2011, with the Arab Spring gaining momentum, he traveled to Brazil for five days of trade talks, a geopolitical energy pivotnotedat the time.  In the eyes of many observers, Obama’s focus on Brazil was inextricably linked to that country’s emergence as a major oil producer, thanks to new discoveries in the“pre-salt” fieldsoff its coast in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, discoveries that could help the U.S. wean itself off Middle Eastern oil but could also turn out to be pollution nightmares.  Although environmentalists havewarnedof the risks of drilling in the pre-salt fields, where aDeepwater Horizon-like blowout is an ever-present danger, Obama has made no secret of his geopolitical priorities. “By some estimates, the oil you recently discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves we have in the United States,” hetoldBrazilian business leaders in that country’s capital. “When you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.  At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

At the same time, Obama has made it clear that the U.S. will retain its role as the ultimate guardian of the Persian Gulf sea lanes.  Even while trumpeting the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq, he hasinsistedthat the United States will bolster its air, naval, and special operations forces in the Gulf region, so as to remain the preeminent military power there.  “Back to the future,” is how Major General Karl R. Horst, chief of staff of the U.S. Central Command,describedthe new posture, referring to a time before the Iraq War when the U.S. exercised dominance in the regionmainly throughits air and naval superiority.

While less conspicuous than “boots on the ground,” the expanded air and naval presence will be kept strong enough to overpower any conceivable adversary.  “We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region,” Secretary of State Hillary Clintondeclaredlast October.  Such a build-up has in fact beenaccentuated, in preparation either for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, should Obama conclude that negotiations to curb Iranian enrichment activities have reached a dead end, or to clear the Strait of Hormuz, if the Iranians carry outthreatsto block oil shipping there in retaliation for the even harsher economic sanctions due to be imposed after July 1st.

Like Cheney, Obama also seeks to ensure U.S. control over the vital sea lanes extending from theStrait of Hormuzto the South China Sea.  This is, in fact, the heart of Obama’s much publicized policy “pivot” to Asia and hisnew military doctrine, first revealed in a speech to the Australian Parliament on November 17th.  “As we plan and budget for the future,” hedeclared, “we will allocate the resources necessary to maintain our strong military presence in this region.”  A major priority of this effort, he indicated, would be enhanced “maritime security,” especially in the South China Sea.

Central to the Obama plan -- like that advanced by Dick Cheney in 2007 -- is the construction of anetworkof bases and alliances encircling China, the globe’s rising power, in an arc stretching from Japan and South Korea in the north to Australia, Vietnam, and the Philippines in the southeast and thence to India in the southwest.  When describing this effort in Canberra, Obamarevealedthat he had just concluded an agreement with the Australian government to establish a new U.S. military basing facility at Darwin on the country’s northern coast, near theSouth China Sea.  He alsospokeof the ultimate goal of U.S. geopolitics: a region-embracing coalition of anti-Chinese states that would include India.  “We see America’s enhanced presence across Southeast Asia,” both in growing ties with local powers like Australia and “in our welcome of India as it ‘looks east’ and plays a larger role as an Asian power.”

As anyone who follows Asian affairs is aware, a strategy aimed at encircling China -- especially one intended to incorporate India into America’s existing Asian alliance system -- iscertainto produce alarm and pushback from Beijing.  “I don’t think they’re going to be very happy,”saidMark Valencia, a senior researcher at the National Bureau of Asian Research, speaking of China’s reaction.  “I’m not optimistic in the long run as to how this is going to wind up.”

Finally, Obama has followed in Cheney’s footsteps in his efforts to reduce Russia’s influence in Europe and Central Asia by promoting the construction of new oil and gas pipelines from the Caspian via Georgia and Turkey to Europe.  On June 5th, at the Caspian Oil and Gas Conference in Baku, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan read amessagefrom Obama promising Washington’s support for a proposed Trans-Anatolia gas pipeline, a conduit designed to carry natural gas from Azerbaijan across Georgia and Turkey to Europe -- bypassing Russia, naturally.  At the same time, Secretary of State Clinton traveled to Georgia, just as Cheney had, toreaffirmU.S. support and offer increased U.S. military aid.  As during the Bush-Cheney era, these moves are bound to be seen in Moscow as part of a calculated drive to lessen Russia’s influence in the region -- and so are certain to elicit a hostile response.

In virtually every respect, then, when it comes to energy geopolitics the Obama administration continues to carry out the strategic blueprint pioneered by Dick Cheney during the two Bush administrations.  What explains this surprising behavior?  Assuming that it doesn’t represent a literal effort to replicate Cheney’s thinking -- and there’s no evidence of that -- it clearly represents the triumph of imperial geopolitics (and hidebound thinking) over ideology, principle, or even simple openness to new ideas.

When you get two figures as different as Obama and Cheney pursuing the same pathways in the world -- and the first time around was anything but a success -- it’s a sign of just how closed and airless the world of Washington really has become.  At a time when most Americans are weary of grand ideological crusades, the pursuit of what looks like simple national self-interest -- in the form of assured energy supplies -- may appear far more attractive as a rationale for military and political involvement abroad.

In addition, Obama and his advisers are no doubt influenced bytalkof a new “golden age” of North American oil and gas, made possible by the exploitation of shale deposits and other unconventional -- and often dirty -- energy resources.  According toprojectionsgiven by the Department of Energy, U.S. reliance on imported energy is likely to decline in the years ahead (though there is adomestic priceto be paid for such “independence”), while China’s will only rise -- a seeming geopolitical advantage for the United States that Obama appears to relish.

It is easy enough to grasp the appeal of such energy geopolitics for White House strategists, especially given the woeful state of the U.S. economy and the declining utility of other instruments of state power.  And if you are prepared to overlook the growing environmental risks of reliance on offshore oil, shale gas, and other unconventional forms of energy, rising U.S. energy output conveys certain geopolitical advantages.  But as history suggests, engaging in aggressive global geopolitical confrontations with other determined, well-armed players usually leads to friction, crisis, war, and disaster.

In this regard, Cheney’s geopolitical maneuvering led us into two costly Middle Eastern wars while heightening tensions with both China and Russia.  President Obama claims he seeks to build a more peaceful world, but copying the Cheney energy blueprint is bound to produce the exact opposite.

Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, aTomDispatch regular, and the author most recently ofThe Race for What’s Left: The Global Scramble for the World’s Last Resources(Metropolitan Books). To listen to Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio interview in which Klare discusses imperial geopolitics as the default mode for Washington since 1945, clickhereor download it to your iPodhere.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch, join us onFacebook, and check out the latest TD book,Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050.

Copyright 2012 Michael Klare

undefined

Popular Video