Allan Topol is a partner in a large Washington-based international law firm. He has a science and engineering degree from Carnegie Mellon, and a law degree from Yale University. For almost 40 years, he has been involved in issues at the height of the Washington power structure.
He is also a national bestselling novelist, using the thriller genre to explore international geopolitical and military issues. His new novel, ENEMY OF MY ENEMY, dealing with an American pilot shot down over Eastern Turkey and Russian nuclear weapons, was released February 1, 2005.
His 2001 novel, SPY DANCE, is about a former CIA agent on the run and Saudi Arabian oil. His 2003 novel, DARK AMBITION, deals with the corruption of power in Washington and China's threatening posture toward Taiwan. In January 2004, his new novel CONSPIRACY was released dealing with a foreign leader's attempt to influence an American presidential election and the possibility of renewed militarism in Japan.
Allan Topol contact info:
Allan Topol Website
Email Allan Topol
Allan Topol Books:
Spy Dance
Dark Ambition
Conspiracy
Allan Topol Archives
Military Opinions Index
Discussion
Board
Have an opinion on this article? Sound off.
|
|
|
|
|
Your Two Cents
Submit your stories, news items, or a benefits update -- and help Military.com bring the best, most important stories to your fellow servicemembers, veterans, and family members. Contribute here
|
|
|
June 29, 2005
[Have an opinion about the issues discussed in this column? Sound
off here.]
President Bush was very wise to make his Iraqi speech this week. He and his advisors are following the same public opinion polls we all are. Polls show that support for the war among Americans has been falling.
Time has now become an enemy, almost as threatening as the insurgents, to the President's ability to achieve a victory. Our nation does not have much patience for fighting wars that are not discernibly winnable in a relatively short period of time. With congressional elections next year, anti-war sentiment could easily be expressed by voters -- resulting in the erosion of the Republicans' overwhelming control in both houses. Even a Democratic party with no vision of its own could be the beneficiary of hostility toward the war.
Thus, the President has to continuously assure the American people about the status of the war against insurgents and Iraqi nation building to keep his support from sliding further. Against this objective, Tuesday evening's speech was a respectable effort of dealing with a very difficult issue. Bush was correct in not setting a date for the United States' exit from Iraq. However, notwithstanding the President's optimistic assessments, the war against the insurgents does not appear to be winnable in a matter of months. Nor does it seem likely that a democratic government in Iraq can be in place, presiding over a secure nation, in the foreseeable future.
One of the most vexing questions for many Americans is why exactly are we fighting, and why so many Americans are dying or being wounded in this far away place called Iraq. In the days before the war, the answer was because of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had. Though the President may have been correct in relying on that rationale based upon the intelligence then available to him, the evidence failed to support that explanation. The second rationale was that Saddam Hussein was a horror to his people and a threat to his neighbors. That was absolutely correct, but Bush's foes contend that we aren't forcefully removing every terrible despot around the world.
The rationale given in the President's speech is that Iraq is the critical battleground in a war against Islamic terrorists who were responsible for the 9/11 attacks. There is no doubt that the fundamentalist Jihadists who would destroy freedom and democracy in the west in and in the Middle East are flowing into Iraq to fight the United States. The President's opponents claim that we are responsible for creating the terrorists by our presence. This is unfair. The terrorists were mobilized even before we toppled Saddam. It's better that this war not be fought on American soil.
The question still is whether the 9/11 rationale is enough for the American people to accept the casualties and costs of the war. Are we willing to become modern day crusaders intending on beating back the potential threat to our way of life from Middle Eastern terrorists. The jury is still out on that question, with the answer depending on how many casualties we suffer.
There is, however, another justification for the war that the President didn't raise in his speech and has never spoken about publicly, but must be an important part of the discussions at the White House. That is oil.
The Chinese bid for Unocal has underscored what has been obvious for some time. The United States' economy and our way of life depend upon oil -- sixty percent of which is imported. Faced with a surge in demand from China and India and the disruption of supplies to the US because of political issues in Venezuela, Nigeria and elsewhere, we must ensure that the flow of oil on the world market continues from Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations. If we withdraw prematurely from Iraq and leave chaos behind, the Jihadists will no doubt destabilize Saudi Arabia and other gulf producers. We cannot afford to let that happen.
The time has come for the President to state publicly what most of Washington has long been discussing. The Iraqi war is about oil and its continued flow to the United States. This is something the American people can understand.
 Email
this page to friends RSS feed
© 2005 Allan Topol. All opinions expressed
in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those
of Military.com.
|
