| >This is such a stupid strategy. The right thing to do is to look at the root cause of all this. After all, there are lots of angry people all across the world that hate the Western world and want to hurt it, but most can't. Put this way, it's even more stupid. It's as if people go about "hating the west" for no reason (or because their "religion tells them so", which is a Glenn Beck level argument). A thing called colonialism did exist. Some hundred million people were killed in invasions and wars and while fighting for their freedom, and some 2 billion people were living under foreign occupation. And then you had a thing called post-colonialism, that does exist. With hundreds of interventions and resource-grubbing all over the world. With so called "banana republics" set up. And with countries thousands of miles away of some areas, have the audacity to believe they have "strategic interests" in those areas, and that it gives them the right to intervene, get their resources for cheap, place puppet governments, etc. You know, like some country in the American continent controlling Philippines or killing people in Vietnam. What sets the Arabs apart is their vast oil riches. Without that, they wouldn't have the money or power to do anything to the West. Arabs, as in "arab states" could not care less about "doing anything to the west". What sets those people apart is indeed their vast oil riches, that had provoked unprecedented resource-grubbing, puppet government establishment and invasions western powers. Does anyone imagine what a foreign power invading the US would mean to the US people, and under some BS pretext at that? But invading Iraq under the BS pretext of WMDs, wrecking the country in the process, killing hundreds of thousands, taking control of the oil and leaving them in a state of civil war by playing into the competing tribal and religious interests, is somehow "normal", because they are "arabs". So, the people there have a lot of reasons to "blame the west". It's not like they have any spectacular resources, either. WWII era guns and ammo, and cheaply made stuff, while the "west" kills them with drones and 21st century military technology. >The minute that crude oil loses its relevance to the Western world, the Arabs will just go back to what they were before - a bunch of desert nomads with no real power. Actually they had a huge empire, including parts of Europe, even before the crude oil gained relevance. The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil. |
All that is true, but it doesn't change what America needs to do now to ensure it remains in control in the most efficient manner. Moreover, with domestic and renewable sources of energy, we wouldn't need to get involved in the Middle East, so they would benefit too.
> The west managed to turn them to "a bunch of desert nomads with no real power" precisely when it wanted to get ahold of cheap labour and later the crude oil.
Great civilizations rise and fill. Regardless of how they got there, that's where they'll be when the US leaves. My point is that their ability to attack the US will be neutralized the minute their cash flow stops.