One of the main conclusions of the 9/11 Commission is that in order for the U.S. to prevail in the war on terror it must develop a multidisciplinary, comprehensive, and balanced strategy. In presenting the final report of the Commission, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton acknowledged that "there is no silver bullet or decisive blow that can defeat Islamist terrorism." America’s strategy in the war, he said, "must integrate all the elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law-enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, homeland defense, and military strength." But dealing with the roots of terror the commission failed to address the factor which perhaps more that anything undermines America’s national security: the increased dependence on foreign oil coming from the very same countries that export terror and proliferate a radical ideology on which terror flourishes.

Since September 11, it has become apparent that the U.S. is locked in a painful paradox. On the one hand, as the world’s policeman, it is expected to dispatch troops and dollars to various trouble spots around the world in an effort to combat terrorism and help spread freedom and democracy. At the same time, as by far the world’s largest oil consumer - one of every four barrels of oil is consumed here - the U.S. is forced to export in exchange for oil close to $100 billions a year, much of it to countries where it is greatly disliked. Every time we drive into a gas station and fill up our tank we send dollars to countries like Saudi Arabia, where, according to a latest public opinion poll by Zogby International, 94% of the population has negative view of the U.S. Even today, three years after September 11, part of this money finds its way to the coffers of terrorist organizations as well as madrassas and mosques where radical Islam is preached.

In a speech two weeks after September 11 Assistant Secretary of Energy David Garman drew the line between barrels and bombs: "It is clear that our reliance on imported oil - 56% of the oil we use - has complicated our response to the terrorist attack. There is also little doubt that some of the dollars we have exported in exchange for foreign oil have found their way into the hands of terrorists and would-be terrorists."

The link between terrorism and our excessive appetite for oil is so apparent that the 9/11 Commission’s blindness to it raises the question who in Washington really suffers from "failure of imagination." The Commission recommended that the U.S.-Saudi relations should be "about more than oil." But the U.S. and Saudi Arabia are so diametrically opposed in their values that it is hard to imagine anything other than oil that can bind them together.

The notion that the U.S. can prevail in the war on terror while continuing to pay for both sides of the war is naive. Any strategy that excludes energy as a critical element in the war on terror would be neither comprehensive nor effective.

So before the administration, be it led by Bush or Kerry, rushes to appoint an intelligence czar, pour billions into new intelligence apparatuses or inflate our bureaucracy it should take a hard look at the sources of national power of those countries whose leaders and people are hostile to the U.S. Most of them derive their wealth from oil and much of the demand comes from us.

If the same type of leadership required to overhaul America's defense and intelligence bodies were to be applied to the sphere of energy policy the U.S. would finally be able to break the yoke of its energy dependence and hence stop fueling the terror machine. A bold yet balanced energy policy based on existing technologies can reduce the role of oil in our energy basket by commercializing next generation fuels and vehicles. Until such policy is implemented the price we pay for driving Hummers at home will always be more Humvees in the Persian Gulf.

Gal Luft is Executive Director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security.

Top