Acidus wrote:

There was one thing that certainly shocked me, especially that such a high ranking general made such a point calling our attention to it.

And then the final thing I'd say is it's hugely important for us to keep in mind that the flow of oil and the flow of natural resources through the Straits of Hormuz, the Bab-el-Mandeb, and the Suez Canal have got to continue. And that falls to the United States Armed Forces, which is why we currently have about 215,000 Americans serving in my region.

I'm not such a crazy lefty that I don't realize that Oil is a strategic resource and we want to protect our resources (especially when "our" resources are in other country's borders), but when the General in charge of all military operations in the Middle East says that safe guarding the flow of oil is "why" we have almost a 1/4 million troops there is a little shocking.

When you consider the role of oil export in the national economies of the region, it's clear this is not a question of being selfish.

In January, a Boston Globe article reported that

[Iraq's] oil industry ... accounts for about 60 percent of Iraq's gross national product and more than 90 percent of government revenue.

If this oil couldn't reach its customers, Iraq's pain would greatly exceed ours, and theirs would arrive almost immediately, whereas the US has a strategic reserve. Iran has a much larger national economy, but petroleum still accounts for 80% of total exports; none of Iran's oil is headed to the US. For Saudi Arabia, petroleum represents 90% of total exports, about 16% of which is headed to the US.

noteworthy wrote:
When you consider the role of oil export in the national economies of the region, it's clear this is not a question of being selfish.

In January, a Boston Globe article reported that

[Iraq's] oil industry ... accounts for about 60 percent of Iraq's gross national product and more than 90 percent of government revenue.

If this oil couldn't reach its customers, Iraq's pain would greatly exceed ours, and theirs would arrive almost immediately, whereas the US has a strategic reserve. Iran has a much larger national economy, but petroleum still accounts for 80% of total exports; none of Iran's oil is headed to the US. For Saudi Arabia, petroleum represents 90% of total exports, about 16% of which is headed to the US.

I'm not blind to the mutual need for oil exporting. Even a temporary closing of the Straits of Hormuz would drastically hurt economies in the region and (when western reserves are depleted) the world as a whole. Its major damage for mature economies, but I wonder if someone like Iran could weather a (temporary) storm. I'll try to find some facts about the oil embargo in the 1970s and its affects on Iran.

Remember, It's not MAD if the otherside survivies...

Acidus wrote:
he ducked a question about how many resources the US is spending on training new Iraqi solders to kill the new insurgents as opposed to cutting out the middle man and doing that ourselves.

AFAIK, the whole point is to cut in the "middle man" so that we can leave and local forces can handle security.

I'm not such a crazy lefty that I don't realize that Oil is a strategic resource and we want to protect our resources (especially when "our" resources are in other country's borders), but when the General in charge of all military operations in the Middle East says that safe guarding the flow of oil is "why" we have almost a 1/4 million troops there is a little shocking.

Its their resources... I'm not sure why this is shocking. If the oil can't move, the money can't move. If the money can't move, the country won't have an economy. If the country doesn't have an economy, it can't become self-sufficient...