It's the oil, stupid

Shorter Ted Koppel: Blood for oil forevah.

Where the Bush administration has failed, tragically and repeatedly, is in explaining to the American public why U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in the first place, and why they must remain there now.

Certainly, the United States has a moral obligation to deal with the chaos and anarchy that were, at least partially, unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But that falls into the category of something we're doing for them. The president cannot and should not expect Americans to give their open-ended support to a nation that seems overwhelmingly to regard our troops as "invaders and occupiers."

What, then? There is a reason for keeping U.S. troops in Iraq that has more to do with American interests: stability in the Persian Gulf, the world's single largest producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.

Which means, of course, we can never leave.

Such steely-eyed realism, but "at least partially?"

But I don't quite get this. Are the various factions in the middle east incapable of action that isn't controlled by the U.S.? Oil is a commodity. It is no good to anyone if it isn't pumped from the ground and sold. Koppel seems to assume that, if it weren't for the guiding hand of the U.S., the nations of the middle east will simply collapse in the face of... Islamofascists he does not quite bring himself to say...and the U.S. economy will henceforth collapse. Strange world view that assumes that governments in the region will ultimately not act in their own best interests (i.e., retaining power and selling their one natural resource besides sand), but then again, Ted Koppel's entire career was built on the dark forebodings of what the Iranian revolution would imminently mean for the United States.