Three ways Middle East fighting threatens US national security

Pentagon analysts are grappling with what this growing unrest in the Middle East means for US national security. Here are the top three ways the advance of the insurgent group the Islamic State in Iraq and violence in Gaza could endanger US national security.

2. The cost of the growing war in Iraq, both in lives lost and US GDP, could be large

Hadi Mizban/AP
Civilians inspect the site of a bomb attack in the Jihad district in Baghdad on July 19.

It is likely that the current war in Iraq “will probably look much like Syria’s soon, and may in time look a lot like Iraq itself circa 2006,” Stephen Biddle, professor of international affairs at George Washington University and a frequent Pentagon consultant, told the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

In Syria, more than 50,000 civilians have died “with no end in sight,” Dr. Biddle said. In Iraq, more than 120,000 civilians were killed between 2003 and 2011. “A renewed Iraq war of seven to 10 years duration could easily produce another 100,000 innocent lives lost,” he added. “The United States has not often intervened militarily into ongoing civil wars on purely humanitarian grounds, but the scale of potential suffering here is large. And far worse could be in store if Iraq’s war spreads.”

That is a real possibility. Of the 142 civil wars fought between 1950 and 1999, Biddle points out, “fully 61 saw major military intervention by neighboring states at some point.”

If human suffering is not a motivation for US intervention, economic loss may be. While US economic exposure to Gulf oil shocks may be declining as US shale oil and gas develop, still “serious risks will remain for the foreseeable future,” Biddle said. “A serious reduction in Gulf production would be a globally significant economic threat,” with the worst case scenario suggesting that it could exceed the largest previous Gulf oil shock (the 1973-74 OPEC embargo) by a factor of four. “The best available analysis suggests this might double world oil prices, cutting US GDP by 3 to 5 percentage points,” Biddle said. “At 2014 levels, this would imply $450 billion to $750 billion a year in lost output.”

2 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.