Another Battlefront

Last Tuesday night, President Barack Obama declared a new war. In addition to the open frontlines in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House established another battle front that is no less complicated. But this time the enemy is no dictator like Saddam Hussein, no terrorist organization like al-Qaida nor even supposed weapons of mass destruction.

After almost a year and a half in office, Obama, in better style than his predecessor George W. Bush, opened fire against the North American dependence on fossil fuels. And, judging by the circumstances, the announcement is not a metaphor. It is the result of the immense disaster caused by 2 million gallons of petroleum spilled into the Gulf of Mexico following the sinking eight weeks ago of the offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon, which is under lease to the British-based multinational BP.

To reassert his war clamor, Obama chose to deliver his allocution from the Oval Office, which is the same site where former presidents have informed the nation of momentous decisions. In fact, it is the first time since the boycott of OPEC 31 years ago that such a speech has addressed the topic of oil. In the president’s discourse bellicose references abounded: he not only announced a “battle” in favor of an energy reform that went through Congress but also said that the oil spill was an “assault” on the coasts. He has already qualified the uncontrollable spill of 35,000 gallons daily into the ocean as an “environmental 9/11,” in reference to the terrorist attacks of 2001.

The dramatic quality of Washington’s response is due to both the colossal nature of the ecological tragedy and the great harm to the government’s public image that the black stain is inflicting. More than 47 percent of Americans disapprove of the steps Obama has taken so far, and 52 percent reject the manner in which the White House is handling the crisis. Added to this are the recent revelations about the weak vigilance of the regulatory agencies regarding offshore oil drilling in the open sea, the confused and late governmental reaction to the social and environmental consequences of the leak on the same area hit by Hurricane Katrina, and the failed attempts of BP to seal the well.

Although Obama’s plan to turn the disaster into a push for pending energy reforms is audacious, he’s demonstrating that it’s easier to blast an Afghan mountain than to close up a stream of crude oil. Aside from the president both forcing the oil company to create a compensation fund of $20 billion yesterday and suspending their dividend payments, the technological strategy for putting a halt to the spill remains unclear. In the short run, the White House is in the hands of the BP engineers, who are the only ones with the technology to fix the offense. Meanwhile, government officials are requesting a firm hand to be used against the company. All of this comes right before the legislative elections in November — elections which the Democrats stand to lose.

In his strong discourse, the U.S. president did not offer greater details about, first, how he will find endorsement for both the reform under way and the law on climate change or, second, the way in which they will stimulate the use of alternate forms of energy to substitute for hydrocarbons. Notably absent from the allocution were concrete paths to transform the culture of North American society, which is addicted to gasoline and made up of highways and suburbs and consumerist vocation. Additionally, more government intervention needs to be put in practice since it was the lack of supervision in the first place that was part of the problem. To continue with the war metaphor, Obama is a general who, with neither a battle plan nor a clear strategy, faces a powerful and enormously complex enemy.