Oil cartels who are at the supply end - I mean the Saudis, the Nigerians, the Russians, the Canadians <g> the Mexicans and the Venezulans are pretty big determinants in the price of oil. No doubt about that. Instability in any oil producing region gives them an excuse to manipulate the price. But they don't need particular actions by the US goverment to make that happen.

It is not in the best interests of the US to try to establish any kind of hegemony. As Iraq amply demonstrates, it's more trouble than it is worth. The interconnectedness of multinational corporations make it unprofitable to do anything that disrupt markets. There is plenty of money to be made by just doing business without having the additonal overhead engendered by instability . Sure, security companies, those who deal with rogue regimes under sanction ( Oil for Food ? ) , or amoral German and French chemical cartels who would sell sarin to the devil himself benefit from security problems, but most business would prefer a non-war environment.

The problem is, when you have kakistocracies like N Korea, Iran etc. threatening unspeakable events in the future, and a Europe that has relied for so long on external protection that they are too impotent or corrupt to address the problem, the world's only superpower is placed in the position of taking both the responsibility and the heat. Frankly, I'd prefer making North Korea's nuclear weapons the sole responsibliity of Canada, peace in the Middle East the responsiblity of France, and rebuilding Africa the problem of the former colonial powers. Do you think they're up to it?

>SNIP>
>>But if there were ever a case of "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" it is in western society, since power is so diffuse. Even if one sees the US as a corporate oligarchy, it is certainly one constrained by so many powerful forces that is must behave itself in a way quite surprising for so much power. As a historian I am fascinated by so much power excercised so responsibly ( by historical - not morally absolute - standards. )
>
>Historically I believe you are dead on... counting from the 19-teens to today.
>But "historically", too, it's taken not long at all for the U.S. to flex its muscle now that it is the lone superpower on the planet! Contrary to your statement above there are NO CONSTRAINTS - internal ones - preventing the U.S. from overrunning the planet. There may be some coming, in view of the success in Iraq, but none yet to speak of. It's all in the President's hands.
>
>There are some who feel Afghanistan and Iraq are just a warm-up. And let's face it, corporations make out like bandits in war, and especially in this war.
>I assume you're aware that the private "security" firms operating in Iraq are not subject to the laws of Iraq. Actually I should say they weren't and I'm not sure if that's changed since they got "their" government there.
>
>>
>>Our great War for Oil has resulted in record gas prices. Either we are not very good at wars of aggression or perhaps that really wasn't the primary motive. ( a real War for Oil would entail seizing Saudi Arabia, expelling the Saudis, and taking control of foreign workers who actually make the place work anyway <g> ) If our goals in Iraq were entirely selfish, the smart play would have been to either ally with Saddam or, after overthrowing him, ally with the Kurds, hold the north and let the Shiites and Sunnis have at it. That would have been pretty cynical but would definitely have been to our advantage.
>
>Again, a product of the system. The only reason for record gas prices rest entirely with the oil companies! Since they own both ends of the supply chain they are most pleased to have any rumour/innuendo cause a rise in the price. And they've shut lots of refineries to ensure that supply is always marginal. War is win-win for corporations, so don't expect any serious kind of pressure to find alternate methods to take root any time soon.
>
>>
>SNIP