This stopover is crucial for understanding American policy in the Persian Gulf – a policy which for decades has insisted that military might is the only way to secure the flow of oil from the region. But has America’s decades-long militarization of the area led to better energy flows out of the region, or worse?

This question is critically important, given the debate over whether a handful of U.S. ports should be owned by Dubai Ports World. To recap, in mid-February the U.A.E.-based company was set to acquire six U.S. ports, thanks to its $6.9-billion takeover of Britain’s Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company. The news of the takeover – and the idea that Arabs might be controlling American ports – caused an uproar in Congress, and the Dubai company quickly agreed to sell the ports to a U.S. firm.

But the damage has been done – to America’s standing as a free-trade advocate and potentially, to America’s military capability in the region. Dubai’s Jebel Ali port services more U.S. Navy ships than any in the world. Last year, according to Shaikha Lubna Al Qasimi, the U.A.E.’s economic minister, some 600 U.S. Navy ships docked at Jebel Ali. The Dubai port is the only one in the Persian Gulf that can handle America’s biggest warships – ones like the USS Ronald Reagan. And guess who runs the Jebel Ali port? That’s right: Dubai Ports World – the very same company that Congress doesn’t want running ports in the United States. Thus, the U.S. Navy is entrusting the most expensive boat in its fleet (at $5 billion) to the company that politicos like Senator Hillary Clinton effectively ousted from the American shipping business.

And there’s the problem: Congress and the neocons may not like it, but the global market – in energy, in microchips, in shipping – is becoming ever more integrated. And as it does, the key factors in determining strategic interests are turning out to be economic, not military.

The war in Iraq – which now costs America $2.5 billion and the death of 10 to 15 G.I.s per week – has been an unmitigated disaster. No matter how you slice it, oil was the main theme of the Second Iraq War. And the tangible result of the war is clear: increased energy insecurity, both in Iraq and in the global marketplace. Iraq’s oil exports have been decimated. Last year, they averaged just 1.4 million barrels per day – half the prewar average of 2.8 million barrels per day. Thanks in part to the instability created by the war, crude oil prices have skyrocketed. On March 20, 2003, a barrel of WTI sold for about $28. Today, that same oil fetches about $70.

America’s militarization of the Mid-East has had other deleterious effects. For one, it has resulted in a new energy alliance between Iran and Iraq. The two countries, formerly bitter enemies, are trading increasing amounts of electricity and oil. Also, America’s military presence in Saudi Arabia was a key motivator for Osama bin Laden, who has frequently talked about the presence of “infidels” in his home country. Thus, the rise of al-Qaeda can be directly tied to America’s unrelenting military presence.

Of course, America’s military dominance in the Mid-East has had a positive side. During the Cold War, it prevented the Soviets from controlling the region’s oil. And by getting the Iraqis out of Kuwait back in 1991, the U.S. military stopped Saddam from taking a controlling position within OPEC.

But America’s militarization of the region has come at a high cost. When measured in constant dollars, the U.S. military now spends more – over $500 billion this year – than it did during the height of the Cold War. And that $500 billion doesn’t include the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Someday soon, the U.S. is going to have to choose between militarism and trade. We’ve tried the former. Maybe it’s time to try the latter.