The Chapter entitled “Fill ‘Er Up With Dictators” in Thomas Friedman’s book Hot, Flat, and Crowded detailed the dangers of relying too much on oil from the Middle East. He first describes how our addiction to oil has helped fund both sides of the War on Terror. While our tax dollars fund our armies at home, the money we spend on oil is indirectly funding terrorist organizations by financially strengthening Islamic nations in the Persian Gulf that, “share their windfalls with charities, mosques, religious schools, and individuals” and proceed to donate many of those proceeds to anti-American terrorist groups. These so called “petropolitics” are also funding radical islamist groups that don’t focus solely on anti-American actions. Saudi Arabia has been able to use much of their money to fund simply intolerant and anti modern groups. They are able to export their terrorists and kill groups in other countries that they don’t like, such as the Shiites, which has also reduced terrorism as a whole within Saudi Arabia.

He then details how the price of oil and the pace of democracy are directly correlated. Friedman calls this correlation the First Law of Petropolitics, which states that, “in oil-rich portliest states, the price of oil and the pace of freedom tend to move in opposite directions.” Friedman then goes on to detail how when oil prices are lower, many governments feel forced to invest more in their own people, because they cannot survive without their entrepreneurship and education. However, when oil prices rise, they can create enough capital without their own people, which means they have no reason to represent their people or give them what they want at all.

This entire article was riddled with fallacies, contradictions, and anti-Muslim propaganda, that it was difficult to ascertain any real value from it. Just one example of a fallacy Friedman includes is when he is talking about the Saudi’s increased funding for schools that indoctrinate their students with extremist Islamic teachings. He claims that these schools are creating generations of brainwashed students and “thinking twenty, forty, even sixty years ahead to a time when their armies of extremism will have the numbers to swarm over Pakistan and the rest of the Islamic world.” If this does not scream “slippery-slope” fallacy, I’m not sure what will. Also, I found it interesting that he said his Law of Petropolitics didn’t apply to developed nations such as the United States. I’m not sure how you can create a supposedly universal law that Friedman can then pick and choose where to apply it in order to make his case.

I actually agree with Friedman that the world’s addiction to oil and the greed that comes along with it is detrimental to our global society as a whole. Too many lives are lost as a result of the struggle over who controls the world’s oil, but unfortunately so much power lies in having control over that that the government’s of the world often lose sight of the needs and rights of their own people in order to keep the upper hand. Friedman’s conclusion that it is imperative we work towards finding clean energy sources and “going green” is becoming increasingly important in terms of our environment, as well as national security, is, I believe, a sound conclusion. However, I struggled to get on board with much of his argument that clearly used the Islamaphobia that has plagued our country since 9/11 to push across an anti-Islamic agenda throughout much of the article.