Whoa. Let's be practical here. This is like saying cut the taxes then hope the government gets smaller, not a good approach.

Quickly clarification. Military efforts in the Middle East are not aimed at literally taking the oil. Rather they are aimed at maintaining and creating a market system in a free society that facilitates the maximum extraction of oil. Military efforts are also the tip of an effort that incorporates diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic efforts as well.

Yes, we are stabilizing the region (Middle East) from which we are dependent upon to receive oil. Yet so-long as we are also furthering the interests of that region's residents, we should have few qualms with securing our economic interests.

Alternatives are of course the best solution, but they are also a long-term solution, and, until they are implemented, the reality remains that our economy is dependent upon oil and most of that oil lies in a politically volatile region, requiring some stabilization on our part.

The fact that the stabilization has been very poorly executed and that the alternatives are not forthcoming are two very big counts against the current administration, but their solutions remain vastly superior to abandoning the Middle East to focus on alternatives.

Alternatives take time, and in the interim, we will still need oil. This on top of the fact that the instability of the Middle East also produces terrorism, it is in both the United States economic and security interests to continue stabilization until it is a prosperous  region, and we have developped alternatives.


Military efforts in the Middle East are not aimed at literally taking the oil. Rather they are aimed at maintaining and creating a market system in a free society that facilitates the maximum extraction of oil. Military efforts are also the tip of an effort that incorporates diplomatic, humanitarian, and economic efforts as well.

Yes, we are stabilizing the region (Middle East) from which we are dependent upon to receive oil. Yet so-long as we are also furthering the interests of that region's residents, we should have few qualms with securing our economic interests.

Sounds good but it's Pollyanna horse shit.  U.S. aggression in the ME are aimed at establishing large military bases from which to protect the flow of oil from that region to the U.S. and other points west.  It will take two generations of war and occupation to have any long term influence on how the Arabs view the Western world, and by then it will be too late - the oil and gas will be long gone.

"It will take two generations of war and occupation to have any long term influence on how the Arabs view the Western world"
That's a very contestable point. These viewpoints are not so fixed as one may imagine, and had the war been properly carried out, I imagine that we would already have succeeded at putting Iraq on the road to modernization, and thus establishing a cultural base which might influence the rest of the Middle East.

But that misses the larger point, that it is probably solely due to US intervention that the Middle East is as stabile as it is, and if it were not for our presence its' citizens would be much more miserable and the oil would not be flowing. For over a decade now it has the been the US that has been key in maintaining a balance of power amongst the nations, and to simply withdraw, as you propose, would be to pull the carpet out from under them, screwing the Middle East, the United States, and ultimately modern society.

By the way, the fact that we are obliged by current economics to create and maintain such efforts (military initiatives, support for dictatorships, etc.) in the Middle East is one of the best reasons to develop alternatives to oil. But we've got to stop consuming oil before we stop supporting the Middle East.