I'm not the leader of the free world, but if I were, what I would start doing is cultivating relationships with every country that has oil, and if necessary, propping them up with military assistance, and if possible, bases.

We've been doing this for a long time, and not just with oil nations. Egypt, for example, has no real oil to speak of. Some results have been better than others, but to listen to some people nowadays you'd think we aren't doing any diplomacy anywhere.

Afghanistan had no oil to speak of either, and became a base for those who attacked us. There are other nations that threaten to become the same thing. Somalia is going to be a new flash point in a very short time. Believe it or not, it isn't just about the oil, although we would have a lot to lose if Islamists took over the fields. Breaking ground on some nuclear reactors in the U.S., and letting the drillers actually drill some new fields, wouldn't suck either.

Once our oil supply was secure, there would be less of a risk to us of total economic collapse, but we would still be vulnerable to terrorist action, both at home and in our foreign bases. I would be tough on the international war on terror, I would use all the espionage and coercive methods I felt would help, including violations of personal privacy, torture, whatever it took. I find these methods as distasteful as anyone else, but I believe the times justify the means. On the other hand, conventional forces, in uniform, fighting against our forces would be scrupulously treated according to the Geneva Convention. I would also make it a point to communicate to Islamists that any state caught aiding and abetting terrorists would be punished, either by annexation or destruction of their assets, or even of their religious sites. Likewise, I would lavish aid and assistance on those states who were sincere allies. I would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons, but I would only use them against states which I could prove had provided nuclear materials or used them against us.

That's a lot to chew on. A few points:

The term "torture" has been pretty much gutted in these discussions, placing everything from cold rooms up to dismemberment in the same category. I would be okay with the half-dozen or so specific methods outlined by the DoD and CIA, which have produced results, but that's about it. Trying to shut down effective intelligence and financial tracking methods was inane, and I'm glad it hasn't worked so far.

The United States is the only country in war that has observed the Geneva Conventions for decades. It's a concept from another age, where even Japanese suicide bombers wore uniforms, and flew in marked planes.

Threatening nations who harbor terrorists is a good idea, but in practice, it is turning out to be more complex. We have nations like Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, among others, where the government isn't always in complete control of what's going on. A tough tightrope to walk.

With the exception of responding to a specific attack from a specific location, I would leave religious sites alone. Period.

I honestly don't think we would use nuclear weapons even against a country that attacked us with one. Our shorelines need their defenses pumped up, and missile defense needs to be kept going. Much is made of detectors at our shipping ports, but frankly, once you get the red light the bomb is already in town. Detectors at ports on the other ends are starting to be installed, and maybe we need more ways to find such things while still at sea.

I don't think Iraq is a lost cause. Too many people are getting their information filtered through people who have a lot to gain politically by a loss over there. It's easy to see the DoD looking at the bright side in their news, but nobody seems to notice the other side of that coin.

When news shows up here, it's all body counts. Nobody knows where the fights are, why they're happening, or who's coming out on top in given battles. During WWII, people used to have maps, following the war as best they could from what news they could get, and heard who was winning and losing.

Right now two key points in Iraq are the Anbar tribes and the battle with Sadr's forces. I'd post that kind of stuff here, but it's pretty much futile.

This site is one of several I find useful. So is this one, which has multiple sources, and has liveblogged elections in many countries.