Oh okay, no problem! 
[And my investment in the Anti-Aggression Restraint System, to avoid lashing out angrily at posters who seem to be unjustifiably attacking my positions so I don’t end up looking like a short-tempered asshole when it turns out that I misunderstood their intent, once more triumphantly justifies its expense! Now if I could only remember to keep the damn thing on all the time. 
]
Yeah, I need to invest in that myself! And to leave the damned thing on all the time. Sorry for the confusion there…I THINK what happened is that I posted after him and yours popped up, and like the through person I am I just clicked quote then wrote without bothering to look at who I’d clicked quote on.
In any case, this is what it should have been (and might make marginally more sense):
Um…you realize that oil is global, and that just because we get most of our oil from Canada and Venezuela that doesn’t mean it would stay that way if all of the oil in the ME was out of play because we just let them deal with it…right? It would have a small change, you know?
Basically, just because we get most of our oil from Canada and Venezuela doesn’t mean that, in the event of a major cut or conflict in the ME, what we are paying for it now would remain the same…or that production would or even could be ramped up to make up the short fall (I seriously doubt it could be in the short term…or maybe even in the medium term if we are talking about Saudi being one of those off-line). Sure, US fracking has had an impact on the current glut, but that’s mainly because the Saudis controlling OPEC have (or had) pegged production and weren’t allowing members to cut it to keep the prices stable. So they dropped. But that same dynamic would work in the other way if production was seriously squeezed. It’s not just how much oil or natural gas you have, but how quickly you can extract, transport and refine it.
Oh, and I agree with this. Just for the record. The meme about the ME fighting for thousands of years and there being no solution is basically a vast and silly oversimplification. Also, as noted, Europe had a hell of a lot to do with the current mess, not the thousands of years of fighting and no resolution stuff…the real issues are much younger really, and mainly stem from post-WWI cut and paste solutions. To be sure, not all, but certainly a lot of them.
At the risk of asking a dumb question: what does oil have to do with it? Like PastTense said, won’t they still sell their oil to the highest bidder whether they’re led by a Sunni dictator or Shiite theocracy (barring the sort of incompetence that destroyed Venezuela’s oil industry)? Is the theory that we’re over there forcing them to pump oil at gunpoint, and they’d choose not to if we just left them alone? Are we supposed to be preventing this from happening?
Osama bin Laden claimed American troops in Saudi Arabia as one reason for his attacks.
If the US and the West cut all ties to the Middle East, perhaps after strictly enforcing “energy independence” (at the cost of far higher oil prices in the West), the Middle East would start going bankrupt. That would spark hate. Some Middle Eastern countries would change their behavior in order to get Western customers again… drawing hate. Even if that didn’t happen, the US and the West would be attacked for having previously interfered with the Middle East.
Interfering brings hate. Ignoring brings hate. No matter what is done, the West gets hated.
Well, I think the idea is that if there weren’t any oil there, or if people worldwide didn’t depend on oil so much as they do, then there wouldn’t be so much conflict in the region.
I’m not so sure about that, as there has historically been all kinds of conflict in the region even before oil had any economic significance worth speaking of. But I definitely agree that at least, absent oil reserves, world powers wouldn’t be so involved in the region’s conflicts as they currently are.
Do you see what’s happening in Syria? That’s pretty much the model. If the US et al pulls out of the ME and just let’s them thar savages fight it out, one likely course would be many regimes in the area under pressure of civil war. ISIS would catch a break after all…and so would AQ. And the Taliban. And several outer fundamentalist groups. At the same time, the old guard isn’t just going to wave their hands and give in gracefully. The Saudi government, for instance, pays a ton for the highest grade military weapons you can buy. The flip side of that is their training isn’t great, and their military is a mixed bag…plus there could be loyalty issues. So, worst case is you have something like Syria happening in Saudi, with the royal family and loyalist factions duke-ing it out with various rebel and terrorist groups, all fighting for control. Can you see how that might disrupt the flow of oil? What about if it’s multiple countries? Or what about if Iran decides to close the straights, since the US et al aren’t going to get involved? Or decides now is the time to build their own Shia superstate and annex Iraq? And if Saudi decides that wouldn’t be good for them? There are myriad scenarios. The short answer though is that, currently, the US, Turkey, NATO and, yeah, even the Russians balance out the various forces, keeping basically the status quo…by and large. Even WITH our intervention, such as it is, in Syria, of course, there is a total break down…with the thing dragging on, year after bloody year because no one can really get the upper hand without outside help. And the US/Europe/Turkey are at cross purposes with Russia, who is basically the only think keeping Assad afloat. If we leave then Assad probably, eventually, regains control. For now. If Russia leaves then, eventually, Assad falls…and gods know what we’d get in Syria. But the same dynamic plays out in other states, many of who are balanced on a knife edge. Have the US pull out, as the OP suggests, and you could de-stabilize the region. And that will almost certainly affect the flow of oil, regardless of whether the US currently gets the majority of it’s oil from Canada and Venezuela. WORLD oil prices will be de-stabilize.
Perhaps, eventually, production will resume with whoever wins in the end and the winner will start selling oil as before. But it won’t be quick or easy, and who knows how much damage the infrastructure will take, or what the dynamics of power will be at that time?
Like it or not, the Middle East is of huge importance to the global economy. It is vital to the national interests of the West that we do not just leave them to their own devices. To do so would be suicidal folly.
Kimera757:
Yes, but said troops were there at the request of the Saudi government, because the Saudis didn’t have the ability to defend themselves against an attack from Iraq, something the first Gulf War made clear to the House of Saud. The US did nothing to interfere with the Saudi governance of Saudi Arabia. Osama’s objection was that it offended him that infidels were on what he considered holy ground - hardly a reasonable objection from a political point of view.
‘government’ is a curious term to use for the rulers of SA. It’s an absolute monarchy, not always popular. Anyway:
up the junction:
And this makes it less of a government, how? The point, though, is that US troops that Osama bin Laden objected to weren’t in Saudi Arabia to interfere with the country as it was, but to protect it, with the blessing of the relevant authorities.
This really is the whole story. And what the OP ought to read.
If the Mideast had *never *had oil under it, the place would be as important today as Madagascar, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, or Namibia. If magically the whole world stopped burning any oil tomorrow the place would take 40-60 years to slide back into obscurity. Some of their governments might successfully make the transition to first world post-oil economy. But not many.
Certainly for the next 10-20 years the great powers would remain engaged in their proxy tussles mostly out of habit. But as the ME countries’ money ran out and the weapons got old and rusty recognition would slowly dawn that e.g. the US and the Russians remaining deadlocked in a zero-sum arm-wrestling competition over, e.g, Syria is pointless to their larger goals. So one or the other outsider would abandon the field. Probably shaking a fist over their shoulder for show as they leave.
But absent the Bizarro world where there neither oil nor money in the ME, the area remains central to the economy of the entire world. And therefore it will remain central to the governments and militaries of the entire world.
Hardly. None of those countries are the birthplace of three major religions. It would still be very important. Its governments just wouldn’t be as well-armed.
Not sure about that. Are folks more devout or more contentious because they happen to live near the historical origin of their faith?
How would things change if geography was slightly different and sea level rise submerged all the so-called holy cities without taking much of the rest of those countries’ land? Would the Saudis be less devout once Mecca had been underwater for 100 years? How about the Christians or the Jews if Jerusalem was beneath the waves? What of lesser cities mentioned in the various ancient books?
Certainly arguments and angst over ownership of those particular spots would become mostly moot. But that seems to me to be more a convenient excuse for some of the current arguments, not really an actual reason. And as far as I can tell, nobody is actively shooting anybody these days over possession of so-called holy sites.
The whole mess is simply Us/Them-ism. The more cohesive Your group the more *outré *They are. And the more distinct ethnic, religious, linguistic, or geographical groups You can pledge allegiance to, the more distinct Them’s you can identify.
The key to solving the problem of course is to reduce the impetus to think in Us/Them terms.