First, let me congratulate you on the fine debate that you had with Dave. It was a first rate performance from the both of you and a kind of exchange that hopefully will be emulated by others in the future.

As to substance, regarding the price of oil, correlation does not equate with causation. By the standard you are using(deepening American engagement)the price of oil should have skyrocketed in the 1990's with Gulf War I., American troops in KSA and Kuwait, the enforcement of "no fly zones" in Iraq and Operation Desert Fox in 1998, the second intifada with the Clinton brokered talks with Arafat and Barak and so on. Yet oil prices plunged despite the time being a (then) high point of U.S. involvement in the Mideast.

Historically, the freer commodity markets are, the greater the fluctuation with a longitudinal trend toward real declines in price until either a seller(s) establishes monopoloy/oligopolistic control (Standard Oil, Alcoa aluminum, 1970's OPEC)or demand rises through market expansion, or both. Real demand for oil and gas are rising due to increased Asian energy consumption which coincides with the poorly handled occupation of Iraq and major oil producers being in need of structural reinvestment for the oil industries ( Russia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela - and in general, the global energy market needs greater refining capacity.

My longwinded way of saying that the volatile price of oil cannot entirely be laid at the door of Mr. Bush or American policy in the Mideast.

Furthermore, as Dave has argued, I suspect you overestimate how American actions impact the worldview of what Olivier Roy would call "neo-fundamentalist" Islamists or violent Salafi jihadists. This is an ideological movement that has been evolving and reifying for approximately 130+ years and did not start in 2001, or 1989 or 1979 or even 1965 when Faisal decided to start exporting Wahabbism using Saudi financial muscle.

We come very late in the game to people like Bin Laden - even the Palestinians and Israel are a throwaway mention or tag line in AQ videos. Doing everything that you would suggest would not move radical Islamist opinion one iota in a favorable direction toward the United States if aiding the Afghan mujahedin against the Soviets or the Bosnians and Kosovars against the Serbs did nothing.

Can we pursue our interests in a more intelligent fashion while generating less "friction" in the Arab world ? Certainly, and we should. Can we sacrifice our interests to pursue intangible gains in public opinion in the Arab world? Not really.

Thanx James, but my geek gf say it just isn't going to work. not sure why, she gave me a bunch of gobbledygoop explaining it, but it could have been greek to me.

Go here: http://www.openoffice.org/ download and install version 3.0 (or later) and try the link again, you should be good to go.

At the end of this debate, let’s poll the readers of OTB

That sounds like a good bad idea.

who are, on the whole part of the best informed and most thoughtful blog community out there.

We are? Seriously? That doesn't bode well...

Let’s ask them who they think won the debate.

Well that's easy, we'll pick whomever was advocating the side we already agreed with. Bithead will think Dave one, Anjin-san will think you won, etc. Even I am favorable to your argument, but I at least know it's mostly because your argument said I am right.

In reality, neither of you won, neither argument was really strong enough to convince enough people of the opposite persuasion. But don't let that get you down, it was still one of the best pieces of journalism blogging I've seen in a while. I look forward to seeing this format applied to other topics.

In short, Dave believes that the Middle East is more stable now that the U.S. is more involved. He’s wrong. It isn’t. The price of oil is not more stable. And conflict has not particularly diminished.

I have to say I find this rather persuading. Bernards #'s on the price of oil is rather damning, and while open conflict among the various states of the ME at the present time is non-existent, there are several simmering pots waiting to boil over: The Hamas, Israel, P-A dynamics, Lebanon, and Iraq are the obvious ones, but there is also the pressure these situations put on the other players there as well. Jordan and Egypt have a lot at stake in the WB and Gaza, Syria is a major player in Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, and Iran all have a lot at stake in Iraq, and I don't even need to mention Israel.

Between the fact that none of these players give a rat's ass about our best interests, and only use us to further their own goals (this is only natural) and every time we take a direct role any where there, it seems to backfire on us, has me leaning towards

America’s Middle East policy is a disaster. It cries out for change, and the burden of proof for the status quo rests firmly in those proponents of the status quo.

But I could still be persuaded otherwise.