The long plateau

Part of the problem is that the idea that the United States would explicitly use military force for natural resource gain goes against the grain of American history (outside of the conquering and colonization of the american west) and the international legal regime that we put into place at the end of the Second World War. The influence of the United States in ending colonialism cannot be ignored. Our actions in the Suez Crisis in 1956 forcing the British to withdraw from trying to forcibly protect the Suez Canal is an example (i recognize the lack of subject/verb agreemen in this sentence, plural subject to singular verb) of the type of actions we took against our own allies to prevent continued colonialism. Fighting a war for oil would require overcoming such a tradition.

Secondly, the free-market ideology that pervades this country would have to be overcome. Talk about a major governmental intervention in economic life, nothing really could be bigger than conquering a country for the sake of forcing its oil sales to the United States. That type of mercantilist monopoly would have to be sold over the prevailing free market ideology. The simple rhetorical response to arguments for such a policy is we should let the market decide, and find ways to work within the marketplace.

I realize that is somewhat incomplete of answers, but I am busy with something else at the moment and will return to the topic later.

Also,

Dionne's piece was basically a rundown of what the Administration is doing wrong, and why Bush's poll numbers might remain low regardless of whatever he does to try to boost them.
It was interesting, but didn't contribute much overall.