We are only the third or fourth largest oil exporter in the world because of current political reality of non-conservation.

We are not an oil exporter at all. We are an oil producer — a very large one — and we would be an exporter if we didn't demand more oil than we produce ourselves.

Hopefully that's not too hard to follow.

As for "current political reality of non-conservation," I have no idea what that means, though I'm sure you meant something specific by it.

We're actually #15 in the world as far as actual oil reserves

Proven, or extrapolated?

See, that's an important distinction because OPEC rules divide up power based in part on extrapolated reserves, which is as fuzzy a concept as it probably sounds like, and so therefore subject to much funny business within OPEC.

One of the reasons why the oil market is so screwy today is precisely that — it's hard to tell how much oil is really still left in the ground, because OPEC members each have a vested interest in pretending that they have as much as possible, whether or not there's any reason to actually think it's there (and there increasingly isn't).

So, you know, if the Saudis say, "Oh, we have waaaaay more oil than anyone else, we swear, we just haven't gotten around to proving it all yet," I'm not sure I would believe it.

Since no one in OPEC does run around the world telling anyone else what to do...

Perish the thought. A bunch of toothless old oil magnates is all they are. What possible influence could they ever have?

what would be the profit motive be if we domestically were exporting oil and energy-independent?

I don't know, why not ask the 1950s?

Or maybe, just maybe, our motives for creating this globe-spanning military system do not actually begin and end with oil. Which is what I'm trying to suggest.

I know this is crazy talk but what if the US economy was something other than a single natural resource? What if it actually consisted of massive global commerce in technology, agriculture, weaponry, finance, pop culture, raw materials, even manufactured goods still, of which oil was only a part?

What if a progressive movement that persuades itself that all they have to do is solve the oil problem never really faces up to the larger issues of global political economy, and is unprepared when they come to the forefront?

They are NOT democracies as we understand them, they are democracy-like with authoritarian leaders.

What is "democracy-like"? If people vote for elected representatives who have independent power to enact laws, that is pretty democratic.

You could call it weak democracy, if the independent power is not very great, or growing democracy, if the customs of democratic society are coming slowly to people unused to them, but the effort by the small Gulf states to democratize is serious business. If it weren't, it wouldn't bother the religious conservatives so much.

When Turkey's government approved American staging out of their country during the initial invasion of Iraq, and rescinded their approval in the face of widespread popular opposition, that was an example of a country that did not want us around.

Likewise with the Saudis. The people wanted us out, and we left.

Or the UK.

Or France.

The problem with your argument is that you figure that the global American military system is bad because people don't want it. But you don't reckon on the possibility that some people might actually really like to have American military power around — any time that is the case, your argument ceases to be persuasive to anyone who doesn't already agree with you. As Yoda says, "That is why you fail."

Why can't the global American military system be bad whether or not it's popular? There are plenty of places where it is, for all kinds of reasons — or people who will complain about the Americans but would readily say that anyone else would be worse, even their own country.

The People tell them NO NO NO and the "democratic" government of the USA tells them to eat cake.

And then a few years later the People send them back into office anyway. Eighty percent of the population may have been unhappy with the bailout, but 95% of our legislature gets re-elected anyway, and few of them ever hear from their constituents in any meaningful way.

And we sit here wondering why these people have no incentive to end their business as usual.

Do you actually understand that the PEOPLE of Japan are not all that pleased with the Americans and their bases there?

You mean, the Japanese bases, funded by the Japanese, that they insisted on taking control over, and which we gave up to them, but which they still let the Americans use because whenever they decide they want us gone they get into a parliamentary fight over jacking up their own military spending to fill the gap?

Those bases?

Or are you still thinking of the 1950s?

In any case, the "PEOPLE" of Japan have seen fit to elect the same party to power year after year for the past half century, deciding on the unheard of innovation of letting the opposition rule for a little while only in the last 15 years.

I'm not sure that those are quite the radical agitators you're thinking of.

Let's ask for 100% democratic referenda in all the ME countries (hell, ALL countries) and see what the local people actual say to US bases being in their country rather than leaving it to corporatist governments that habitually ignore the wills of their people. What have we to lose if we are so desirable and our bases so very loved?

I'm all for it.