but its own network of outlets fornpetroleum products in Europe. Kuwaitnhas the Middle East’s largest nitrogenousnorganic fertilizer industry. It hasnoverseas ventures in both oil and fertilizern(including ownership of oil reservesnin the United States). It has anstock exchange and a general reserve ofngovernment-owned financial assetsnthat have in some years yielded incomenrivaling that produced by its oil fields. Itnalso had a long-term economic plan tonassure its citizens prosperity for anotherncentury.nWhat Kuwait lacked was the abilitynto defend itself against a powerful andnaggressive neighbor. Its unguardednwealth was an open invitation to plunder.nThis is not the first time gold hasnfailed to provide a shield against iron innthe modern Middle East. Lebanon wasnonce the prosperous center of financenin the region, but the bankers were nonmatch for the local warlords whonturned luxury hotels into high-risenbunker systems.nIt is fashionable to claim that thenadvent of a global economy has finallynelevated gold above iron in world politics,nbut the global economy is alreadynfive hundred years old, and its principalneffect has been to widen the scope andnincrease the scale of conflict. It is’ thenvery fact of interdependency thatnmakes it vital for governments to projectntheir power in an attempt to controlnevents in distant lands or mold theninternational system itself in ways beneficialnto its interests.nThe concept of a “new” world ordernbased on cosmopolitan commerce divorcednfrom nation-state politics is annahistorical illusion. Its imminent establishmentnhas been falsely heralded fornnearly three hundred years. Thus appealsnto its enlightened values are unlikelynto persuade Saddam Hussein tongive up the wealth his army has won innKuwait. Indeed, a U.S. policy of politicalnand military appeasement that dependednonly on economic sanctionsnwas sure to fail. Business “realism”nwould subvert any long-term boycott ofnIraqi-controlled oil that was not backednby a credible show of force. PresidentnBush had to throw American “iron”ninto the balance.nAmericans need a refresher coursenin world history. During this centuryncommunism generated a great deal ofnbloodshed through war and revolution,nand Soviet imperialism also served tonamplify many other conflicts whosenorigins had nothing to do with Marxism.nBut the attention given the ColdnWar often made it seem a uniquenphenomenon, leading to the belief thatnif it would only abate, the world wouldnreturn to its “normal” condition, whichnwas erroneously thought to be peace.nYet there have been other wars in thisncentury that were rooted in ideologiesnother than communism as well as warsnbased on religion and plain old Realpolitik.nAmong them must be countednthe two world wars. During the 1980’s,nin addition to supporting the Contranwar against the Sandinista regime innNicaragua and liberating Grenada,nAmerica used its military against noncommunistnfoes in Libya, the PersiannGulf, Lebanon, and Panama.nThe respite in the Cold War has notnchanged the fundamental nature of theninternational system. It has onlynchanged the balance of power withinnthe system. The current crisis in thenPersian Gulf has revealed that thendecline of Moscow has not meant thenrise of Washington. Indeed, just thenopposite has occurred. Instead of seeingnchanges in Eastern Europe and thencollapse of the Soviet economy as annopportunity for America to regain thensuperior position lost in the 1970’s,nAmerican leaders have taken events asnan excuse to do even less.nThe decline of both superpowersnprovides an opportunity for regionalnpowers to expand. Iraq is the first, butnwill not be the last, to take advantage ofnthis change in the global balance. Atnthe same time, American military capabilitiesnwill be drastically reduced bynpoliticians whose primary interest isncutting the budget.nThe day after Iraq invaded. PresidentnBush proclaimed a new forcenreduction target; a 25 percent cut innactive forces by 1995 instead of by then1997 date set earlier. This is still notnenough for congressional Democratsnwho want the military cut by a fullnthird. The argument is that with thenSoviet threat reduced in Europe, thenUnited States now has a vast surplus innmilitary capability that should be reduced.nWhat is forgotten is thatnthroughout the Cold War, Americanand its NATO allies operated at a hugendeficit in conventional forces versus thenSoviet Union-Warsaw Pact, a deficitnnnthat required the West to rely on theneady use of nuclear weapons shouldnwar erupt.nThe Iraqi challenge has revealednthat current U.S. force levels still showna deficit. Even if every division andntactical air unit could be transportednfrom Europe to Saudi Arabia by magicn(the only way it could be done givennthe lack of sea and airlift capacity), it isnan open question whether these forcesncould defeat the batfle-hardened million-mannarmy of Hussein that wouldnoutnumber them by more than threento one. Of course, the question willnsoon be moot as American forces arenbrought home from Europe to bendeactivated.nIt is bad enough that budget decisionsnare being made with a blind eyento current events. But to make plansnbased on the notion that nothing adversenwill happen the rest of the decadenis irresponsible in the extreme. Politicalnchange in Europe may make it prudentnto withdraw some or most of thenAmerican units now stationed there.nHowever, these units should be retainednas a strategic reserve in thenUnited States, combat ready and supportednby expanded transport and logisticalncapabilities. There is a highnprobability that they will be needednelsewhere.nThe notion that America only needsna small “contingency army” composednof light units (paratroopers, rangers,ninfantry) without the heavy armorednunits deployed in Europe is dangerousnnonsense. Equally false is the notionnthat aircraft carriers, cruise missiles,nand stealth fighters are only needed tonfight the Soviets. Tanks, heavy artillery,njets, submarines, and missile systems ofnall types fill the arsenals of governmentsnaround the world. Forty-onenThird World states possess a total ofnover 250 submarines. A dozen regimesnhave 1,000 or more heavy tanks (Iraqnhas 5,500, triple what the U.S. has innEurope). Forty have domestic armamentnindustries. Many states in LatinnAmerica, Asia, and the Middle Eastnare developing ballistic missiles of intermediatenrange. And Iraq has successfullyntested a three-stage rocket itnclaims can reach orbit (meaning itncould be used as an ICBM). Nuclear,nchemical, and even biological weaponntechnologies have also proliferated.nThe countries acquiring these newnNOVEMBER 1990/7n