US military subsidy of Mid-East oil

Came across this article in my web travels.

Mid-East oil 'too costly' for Europe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2336539.stm

"Paid predominantly by the US, the costs of protecting our Middle
East oil supplies are as high as $15-25 a barrel - that is about a
dollar a gallon."

The US government pays the tab for protecting the world's oil supply
but only relies on Mid-East oil for 30% of its domestic consumption.

http://www.progress.org/energy09.htm

"The biggest concern when it comes to foreign oil, say energy and
national security experts, has been focused in recent recent weeks
focused on Saudi Arabia. That country, home to the holiest site in
Islam, presides over one-fourth of world oil reserves and supplies
the United States with nearly 20 percent of its petroleum imports.

Another 8 percent of the oil the United States consumes comes from
countries like Iraq and Kuwait, bringing U.S. reliance on the region
to nearly 30 percent of current needs."

Meanwhile, Asia is a huge importer

http://www.iht.com/articles/1745.html

"Asia, led by its four largest economies Japan, China, South Korea
and India imports 60 percent of its oil. The International Energy
Agency in Paris expects this figure to rise to almost 90 percent in
2020, ``with a corresponding increase in Asian vulnerability to any
oil supply interruption."

So, US citizens pay and the benefits accrue mainly to Europe and
Asia. Will things change in the future. Not likely.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1664240

The Bush Doctrine of maintaining or augmenting America's military,
economic and political preponderance pretty much relies on a huge
military infrastructure, and active US presence overseas.

Makes me wonder whether the means or the ends are what is important.

"An offshore balancer can afford to be a bystander in the opening
stages of conflicts. Because others' security is more immediately at
risk, it makes more sense to let them take the first crack at
dealing with trouble-making states. Usually they will do so promptly
and successfully. If they do not, an offshore balancer can always
step in to defeat an aggressor."

If the ends are important, then perhaps the off-shore balancer is
the route to take. If having means are the important goal, then
having the strong military requires finding a need for it to
fulfill, ergo, the status quo.

And in conclusion, if the ends are important, then perhaps a
reduction in overseas presence, or alternatively, a cost-shifting to
those countries who benefit from the military protection, could free
up funding for SPS, and awaken within the policymakers, a
realization of its geo-political benefits.

But, if the means are the truly important policy aspect, then the
military lobby will rule the day and the status quo shall continue.

TangoMan