George W. Bush will perhaps be remembered as the most controversial president of the twenty-first century. America is likely to vote in roughly 20 more presidents over the next 92 years and many will have to devise policies that directly deal with the fallout of his actions.  But were Bush’s actions as bad as people currently perceive?  Despite whatever misgivings might have come as to the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq, the fact remains America has now committed troops to the region and is invested in the future of the country good or bad. Current presidential candidates discuss Iraq by touching on one or two issues, and almost always focus on how the outcomes will affect the United States. However, the success of this campaign will prove vital to global economic stability especially that of the United States, Europe, Japan and most importantly, Russia.

An Iraq that works with US companies and follows the advice of consultants to run a proficient and profitable oil producing nation will inevitably lead to the supply of oil to the global market and profits to the US.  Also, a successful Iraq campaign could potentially cut the strangle hold Russia has on Europe’s, particularly Germany’s, energy industry.  The EU and Japan, another Russian client, should gladly accept an offer from alternate providers of energy especially if they feel the lines and source are protected by the United States.

Mr. Putin has shown the world several times that Russia no longer flexes its muscles with threat of nuclear warheads, human wave attacks or overwhelming tank invasions.  Rather he cuts oil and natural gas supplies until dependent countries choke and give into his demands.  The European Union’s industrial core is dependent on Russia for the one thing that makes economies move and the lack of these resources has historically led to armed conflict.  Many Americans are still witnesses to the events of December 7th, 1941.

Even more troubling is the vulnerability of the EU’s currency. The European Central Bank has several deep, liquid economies that stabilize its currency, yet it will remain vulnerable if those economies are dependent on an unpredictable energy supplier like Russia.  The Euro has been performing well over the past several years so much so that many on the world market prefer to trade with it rather than the US Dollar.  The Euro’s most current success is partly a reflection of Europe’s stable economy and the US markets volatility due to the sub-prime fallout and oil prices.  However, it is also linked to German industrial output that relies almost solely on Russian oil.  If Mr. Putin were to cut off energy supplies how would the Euro hold out on the markets?

Dependency on Russian supplied oil is not unique to Europe.  Japan is another major industrial nation that must import energy from the former Soviets.  With a growing economy Japan’s demand for oil is likely to dramatically increase and they must be careful to diversify their energy suppliers.  Russia could look at a US failure in Iraq as an opportunity to seize the majority of Japanese energy imports.  Shrinking the number of suppliers would not be difficult for Mr. Putin because geographically Russia is Japan’s closest supplier naturally reducing time and risk.

A successful campaign in Iraq could also bring more competition to the global energy market.  Competition is not something Mr. Putin wants and as a man of vision he cannot afford to allow the success of US forces in Iraq.  He has taken a number of precautions in recent months to ensure that nations bordering the oil rich country have protection from America’s “global empire.”  He has gone as far as giving Iran advanced air missile systems and promoting the success of their “civilian” nuclear program.  Not to mention the untold Russian funds which are funneled into “extremist” training camps and terrorist groups. The Iranian regime has recently revealed its confidence to challenge the United States by harassing warships in the Persian Gulf.  An attack on a US warship is an act of war and the Iranians could not risk such close encounters if they did not feel they were adequately backed by a more powerful nation.  The Iranians are banking on the fact that America will not fully commit troops to Iran and will do much to avoid and unpopular conflict.   

Mr. Putin was a Soviet, and the Soviets knew the importance of having influence in the Middle East and Western Asia.  They sought a similar strategy with their invasion of Afghanistan in the early 1980’s attempting to acquire a foothold in the vast and untapped energy supplies the region holds. Thus far Americans have struggled to see the parallel between Afghanistan and Iraq and we cannot afford to make the same mistakes as the Soviets. The US played a role in Afghanistan by supplying the Afghan rebels with weapons and resources that would ultimately help the cause prevail.  Now it’s Russia’s turn to fuel a rebellion and thus far have done an above average job.

Additionally, Russia is gathering allies, which curiously, are not world superpowers.  Instead they are oil rich developing nations that are bartering their energy supplies for weapons, liquid money, training for their “soldiers” i.e. terrorists and more recently nuclear technology.  Soon Russia may accomplish the same goal its Soviet predecessor hoped for, a foothold in Western Asia.  However, this one will be built on capitalism rather than communism, a stronger bond by far.  Like the Afghan rebels, Islamic Extremists are simply foot soldiers in a greater war and without funding and resources cannot really do much damage.  The country funding them is the true enemy and it doesn’t cost nearly as much to fund other country’s freedom fighters, nor does it take a political and emotional toll on the supplier’s population when mercenaries are killed in battle.

The world and Russia are just starting to realize the role the former Soviet country will come to play in the global economy. The United States saw a glimpse of a future that had Russia dangling the puppet strings above Europe, Japan and possibly China’s economy and it scared them enough to start a war.  Iraq might seem like an ill-advised location to attack Russia but perhaps that is exactly what the current administration hoped to accomplish.  Russia and the United States battling for global dominance through smaller, developing countries sounds reminiscent of the Cold War. However, things have changed and today instead of dominating eastern European and other developing countries Russia is simply monopolizing their energy industries. They learned an interesting lesson from the Cold War, you can loose with out firing a shot if your economy is in shambles.  Russia is wining the post-Cold War era with a new strategy: Russian capitalism.

Mr. Putin has also realized that with an energy monopoly in Europe, the UN will be much easier to control.  Russia holds additional clout with their veto powers as well as close ties to Communist countries such as China, another voting member of the council.  The recent emergence of the Russian and Chinese economies has weakened the US influence on the council and Mr. Bush’s global policies have done further damage. With his stock rising in the UN Mr. Putin will not find it hard to block the US in their Middle Eastern affairs and peace process.  Peace in the region does not help Mr. Putin’s cause and he will continue to undermine the fragile plans at every turn.  A failure in Iraq may cause the US to think about other world councils to devote their resources and influence.

Alternate sources of energy are good investments for the US; our reliance on oil and other petroleum products will need to be reduced drastically in the 21st century.  However, they have been expensive and slow to develop.  Success in Iraq will allow the US to remain influential in the current energy markets while the alternative sources catch up and hopefully surpass petroleum products in production.  America cannot simply give up on Iraq with the hopes of alternate energy sources bailing us out of the global energy markets in the near future. 

The US is dangerously on the brink of global energy isolationism.  The idea that US ingenuity will provide the country with alternate energy sources in the next two decades that will rid America the need to rely on OPEC and other countries is far too dangerous.  Until alternate energy run products are readily available to consumers and industries at fair market prices, that is equal to petroleum products or cheaper, isolationism is a disastrous route. With oil reaching $100 a barrel at the end of 2007 American influence over a founding member of OPEC, could help keep levels less volatile.  President Bush recently asked OPEC to increase the supply of oil on the market to hedge rising prices.  OPEC has been reluctant thus far and energy prices have not been driven down.  Despite our strong ties with the Saudi’s we still cannot dictate our own energy fate and American’s have started to feel the affects of an energy crunch.

If one stopped people on the street and asked them who they felt America’s greatest enemy is a majority would answer Osama Bin Laden.  Fair enough, but America must be careful of Vladimir Putin.  After all Mr. Putin isn’t living in a cave with several thousand troops looking for him day and night and despite Bin Laden’s personal wealth it pales in comparison to the funds Mr. Putin has at his disposal.  Mr. Putin’s incessant search for energy resources is very evident, he recently suggested that an artic shelf, thought to hold vast oil reserves, belonged to Russia and that research and drilling were a future possibility.  It was later determined by experts however, that ownership of the shelf is inconclusive and must be further researched. Mr. Putin is not slowing despite the set back and his quest of energy supplies will continue, as will his investments in countries that currently export such supplies, especially if those countries vehemently oppose the United States on world affairs.