War would be an obvious reason to have those oil supplies at the ready.  Since WWI and WWII proved that rapid ramp up in industrial ability and the ability to mobilize quickly, even if the target of a first strike, is critical to getting on a winning footing, then I could easily see the Russians or other nations wanting to have an oil supply which can be used rapidly and not be dependent on geology at hand.

Not everything is about market warfare, and I think there are a lot of players getting more nervous about energy than what is let on.

1. Russia oil assets can be thousands of miles from population centers and ports capable of loading tankers. Should Russia experience a technical issue that prevents them from tranporting oil from its fields, the SPR can be called upon for the emergency.

2. Exporters typically have long term contracts with customers. A distruption could be costly for them

3. Some fields are located in northern regions. A severe cold snap could force a temporary production shutdown.

You make it sound like charity, while both sides in the cold war had a clear strategic interest in maintaining military presence in "their" respective parts of Europe.

Not meaning to make it sound like charity.  I understand the strategic importance for the US to have been present when they were.  However I think Europeans of late, due to the anti-Americanism, take for granted the defense edge they have which is provided by American forces.

European countries taken together have more soldiers than the US, and enough high-tech toys to put out small fires.

More soldiers may be useful, but how well trained?  Britain certainly has some well trained units, but how does say Spain, or Greece compare?

As for toys... how many of those toys were sold to the Europeans after American tax dollars funded the research.  Granted there are weapons divisions in Europe, but most of their toys were bought from American defense contractors.

I'm not trying to take anything away from European defense forces.  They have some fine soldiers, and are worthwhile allies.  But don't go marginalizing the benefits that the US has provided Europe simply because you disagree with the current actions of the US.

I'll also be really curious what Russian removal of resources will do to promote European hegemony under the EU banner.  I could easily see the EU becoming a LOT more Imperial once resource rich countries start looking after themselves, and all those diplomatic deals start to fall through.  What would a few cold winters or record breaking summers without steady energy do to motivate the EU towards militarism?  Ugly thought, but certainly not unthinkable.

I think, on the whole, that Europeans were fairly comfortable with the military role played by the US during the Clinton era (not trying to personalize this, still less to become party-political! Just a matter of historical dating, you understand?)

i.e. this "global policeman" thing, while a lot of the intellectuals didn't like it at the time, was not contested by the "European street", and sure as hell looks like a golden age now. The US engineered an end to armed conflict in the Balkans, and truly put Europeans to shame in doing so.

In the meantime, Europe as a defense community struggles to get any traction (Rumsfeld splitting it down the middle over the Iraq war is probably the proximate cause of this, and this paralysis was undoubtedly his aim). It'll take time to get co-ordinated, but the UK and France have the technology, know-how and logistics to form the backbone of a credible Euro force, filled out by the other members. It can certainly defend its own territory, and project a viable presence anywhere in the world. For the life of me I can't see why Europe actually needs to go begging cap in hand to the US to defend it (against whom?)

For the US : The worst possible outcome, for the world in general, would for the US to go into an isolationist phase. The best possible outcome (my preference) would be Wes Clark as president -- he understands this stuff. (Any other general, Dem or Rep, would be a good second choice).

As for the UN - strange that an institution designed by Americans to serve American interests is so disparaged by Americans that the current American ambassador to it joked about blowing part of the UN building up. (And people say Americans have no sense of irony.) It is part of the dismantling of 50 years worth of American designed and implemented international institutions which is so incomprehensible to me - no nation has ever been as wasteful as the U.S. And the reasons for throwing away such power seem so short sighted and petty - for example, international conventions prevent torture, so America, needing a free hand, just throws it out. No wonder Bush was so worried about an international justice system - it would have tied his hands, where the American system uses plastic ties, hoods, and shackles. What an insult to American values that other people find torture barbaric. Oh wait - that used to be the other way round when I was younger, when the evil empire was the Soviets, with their mandatory ID for travel and wiretapping and secret detentions. You just needed to ask a Republican about those sorts of evils, and why America was superior.  

And that part about Germans living with themselves? Partly they can because they are brutally honest about their mass murdering, warmaking past. Their past is also part of what motivates Germany in being a society deeply interested in pacifism, and trying to live in a way which avoids war - such as avoiding conflicts based on struggling for natural resources, which is one reason renewable energy sources are a major goal here. Of course, this is only one motivation among many, and German society is diverse.

But every German who goes to school visits a concentration camp as part of learning about their history. In Virginia, it is pretty hard to find the slave quarters in all the Virginian founding fathers' estates I'm aware of, and they tend not to be part of the guided tour, in general. It certainly was not part of the tour before the end of the civil rights era - who cared about slaves? After all, the  the slaveholders' views on freedom were important, not how their unpaid help lived.

Yes, it is easy to find fault. What is hard is to live differently as a result. I thought around 2 million dead Southeast Asians would be enough for America to reflect about itself and change, but I was wrong.

It seems to me Europeans want it both ways

I think not. I can't see the Euro strategic interests that are advanced by having US troops on European soil. Two European nations have an independent nuclear deterrent. What is it that we want from the US, again?

The Iraq War was a given, and this was recognized by the Democrats and Republicans alike.  Clinton had plans drawn up to do something very similar.

I'm not sure how true this is, but let's assume it is. He would not have intervened without a truly broad coalition; the motives and objectives would have been clearly stated; he would have planned for the occupation, rather than forbidding any planning; etc... Globally he would have acted pragmatically, rather than being driven by neocon wish-fulfillment fantasies.

And it still would have been a mess.

But he probably would have cut and run after a year or so, which would have been preferable for all concerned.

The Cold War was not about America selflessly sacrificing itself to protect Europe. After all, the American concept of how to make peace in Europe after WWI was ignored, and look at what happened as a result.

But I do keep wondering how long everyone is going to have faith that America retains the power it did a generation ago. That was one of Bush's greatest mistakes, in my opinion - he has put on display for years the limits of American power, both soft and hard, and quite honestly, there was no reason to. Saddam would have happily sold oil to the West - he was already, after all - and the rate of dead and tortured Iraqis would likely have been the same, with the blood on Saddam's hands, not America's.

See, Europeans know how to play that sort of game, since they are so cynical. Not only do they want things both ways, they will actually balance pragmatism against principle while admitting (openly or not) they have interests which outweigh their principles.

I keep taunting, in a way, but again, Carter said America had a strategic interest in mid-east oil, and he backed it up with actions. Why is it not possible for any tough interrogation, decider type person to say the reason America remains in Iraq is oil? I mean let's be honest - after all, knocking off a dictator who did have the massive strategic point of being an opponent of Iran/Shias/anyone threatening his power without having any replacement means that if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, the Iranians will be able to fill the power vacuum, and just coincidentally take over a significant percentage of those oil reserves which were supposed to be pumping for the West.

Truly, can you imagine that if a Democratic president like Clinton or Carter had committed such an epochal strategic blunder, the major Republican complaint would be that the American media was too negative? And again - I don't care for Democrat or Republican - I have never, in my entire life, voted for either, and can never imagine voting for either the rest of my life - and for those believing this is throwing away a vote, thank you for demonstrating how deeply flawed the current American political system is. As a side note - in 2004, I voted for a candidate who was pro-gun, anti-Iraq War, anti-abortion, and pro-debt reduction - and his reason for running is that since the Democrats couldn't even be bothered to field a candidate, he thought it important to support democracy by at least having two candidates run. 'Best democracy money can buy off' is probably the simplest way to sum up the current American system. Until the number of citizens clearly outweighs the number of consumers, that won't change either - and remember, all the economic news is about consumers, since an informed citizenry tends to make life harder for corporations. Democracy is always a flawed system, which is one of its charms - other systems trumpet their benefits, while democracy is embodied by how it handles never-ending problems.

As for 'the Europeans' wanting to be protected by the Americans.... pfffft. The fact that US bases remain on European soil is to do with the weakness and greed of European leaders. I would venture that most Europeans (as opposed to politicians) want the US out. Europe faces no military threats and can take care of itself in any case. And who would think the 'protection' afforded by military incompetents is worth anything anyway? As expat has already pointed out, the world now has very good evidence of just how ineffective US military force really is. People were scared of the myth. Now they see the reality, and laugh.

Ah, why bother. The future will soon teach the Americans, but I doubt they'll be listening anyway.