Should independence be a goal?

I sent the following letter, the first of two, to the WSJ this morning:

Much has been written (T. Boone Pickens and Rod Hunter are recent examples), explicitly or implicitly, about how we should wean ourselves from foreign oil for strategic reasons. The argument typically revolves around the fact that some of the countries most hostile to America are among those we buy a significant amount of oil and in buying that oil, we compromise our national security. But are there strategic reasons why shouldn’t work for energy independence?

If we as a nation are so beholden to these foreign countries who only want to see our downfall, why haven’t they already done something about it? Surely they know how catastrophic it would be for us if they simply shut off the valves. Doesn’t the reason have something to do with the fact that American consumers are the source of their wealth? Their way of life is tied to our way of life; they can’t disrupt ours without disrupting their own. I think the same could be said regarding acts of physical aggression. If foreign powers (such as Iran) decide to, say, fire a missile, when would they do it? When the benefits (whatever they might be) as they perceive them exceed the costs (lost oil revenues). The more we become energy independent simply for the sake of independence, we more we lower the costs of hostile behavior, making such behavior more likely. One of the great benefits of international trade is that it forces countries to behave because doing so is in their economic interest.

Matt Hutchison
Atlanta, Georgia