Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, May 17, 1993 TAG: 9305170267
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Short
That's a question asked urgently, and rightly, with regard to the mess in the Balkans. But there's at least one other troubled region about which the question may also be asked: the Persian Gulf.
After the Gulf War, America's leadership presumably knew what it should have known before the war - that a massive infusion of arms into this unstable region, combined with an overreliance on oil imported from the region, makes for a dangerously volatile mix.
But have we really learned this?
If we had, would the United States - within a year after sending 500,000 Americans to war - have announced weapons sales to the region totaling more than $35 billion?
If we had, would recently released Department of Energy statistics be showing that Saudi Arabia now accounts for 26 percent of America's foreign oil supply, up from 20 percent before the Gulf War?
As it happened, U.S. arms shipments after the war squashed any immediate prospect of a negotiated international effort to control weapons proliferation in the region.
And overreliance on Saudi oil continues to limit America's options if this energy source were to be threatened again. It also continues to fuel the trade in military equipment.
The task falls, therefore, to the Clinton administration to try to curb the Middle East arms race and stem our nation's addiction to oil from unstable sources.
Otherwise, not long from now, we'll surely be asking ourselves again: Will we ever learn?
by CNB