^I do not like them, but there are positive attributes to their point of view. I hope you can see that, as your position is not as strong as you might lead yourself to believe if you cannot unbiasedly judge the other side.
When taken out of the context of the world in which we live, where energy costs are going to rise, where the convenience of oil is likely to bring about significant conflicts that can very well ruin the environment and preclude any practical means of shipping oil over oceans, yes, a strategy that has the United States take military action first to secure its place at the trough to draw oil to ship over the open seas after traveling through several potentially hostile straights and narrows, may make sense. To some. Taken in the context of a national energy policy that has no other funded, visible, leg as a national priority to wean us off Middle East oil, the strategy is completely without merit even if no Americans or Iraqis were being killed. With the growing demand for oil from places like China and India, the strategy would have to include the elimination of billions of potential competitors for that oil to last more than half a century immediately. That would mean going to war against those potential competitors, not just the present owners of the oil, to keep it flowing in our direction.
Energy is the issue and we have no viable national strategy. Spend $200,000,000,000.00 a year for a decade and we will have a viable solution, or rather, set of solutions for energy independence. Spend that money fighting the owners of the oil for the right to pump it into ships headed our way when we will be fighting the rest of the world for it during the transportation leg, and we are doomed. We have nothing left to invest in a solution.
No, Shane, I don't see the benefits unless I make a series of unsound assumptions. Jim