No one advocated "endless war" as a means of safeguarding the nation's vital regional interests. There are concrete ways to protect such interests. First, the U.S. could continue to work to maintain an effective balance of power consistent with safeguarding its vital interests and allies. The balance of power might well be the most effective means for reducing the risk of regional conflict. Second, the U.S. could work aggressively to diversify its energy consumption practices/supply. Vigorous lip service of Democratic and Republican administrations notwithstanding, the U.S. has failed to take substantive measures to address its energy-related vulnerabilities. Hence, the importance of the Persian Gulf is actually increasing, given the allocation of the world's proved oil reserves. Third, backed by a combination of the balance of power and reduced U.S. vulnerability, U.S. diplomatic leverage would be increased and that diplomatic leverage could also facilitate the nation's ability to protect its vital interests.
Abdication or isolation, on the other hand, would merely abandon U.S. vital interests, add to the nation's risk exposure by degrading the nation's perceived or actual ability/willingness to protect its vital interests, undermine deterrence that rests on U.S. abilities/willingness to exercise power when necessary/enemy calculations, and demoralize its allies. Enemy states are highly unlikely to interpret wholesale abdication or isolation on the part of the U.S. as an expression of good will. Instead, they would interpret it as an indication of a lack of U.S. power and resolve. In short, abdication could actually increase the kind of risks to the U.S. that its advocates believe current posture has amplified.
Of course, all power is limited. That the neoconservative illusion of a unipolar world highlighted by U.S. preeminence never existed doesn't mean that the U.S.cannot or should not safeguard its vital interests. At the same time, one should not be tempted to believe that the U.S. is impotent. It is not.
The reality is that in a multipolar world, tradeoffs and prioritization have always been necessary. In such a world, I would suggest that taking the measures necessary to safeguard the nation's access to Persian Gulf Oil is magnitudes of order more important than intervening directly or indirectly in, let's say, a localized civil conflict in a failed state such as Somalia where no legitimate government exists, no major U.S. interests/interests of strategic allies are involved, etc. If one is going to refocus U.S. foreign policy, the place to trim U.S. commitments is in areas that are of peripheral importance to the U.S., not those that are critical or vital.
Putting aside the sweeping and, I believe completely unfounded language of the Middle East's 'running red with American blood," I have seen hardly any credible public support for the kind of sacrifices and investment that would be needed to reduce U.S. dependency on imported oil. Opposition to significant fuel, carbon, or other energy consumption taxes (looking at the issue of geopolitical vulnerability, which exists with or without the climate change debate) aimed at a siginficant reduction in the nation's energy consumption are widely opposed. There is no strong level of public support for a crash Apollo- or Manhattan-style project to move away from such dependency. Fuel efficiency standards are increased only timidly, at a rate that is far below that which a wide range of technological applications have advanced. Political claims of commitment to energy independence--or at least less dependence--ring hollow on a bipartisan basis--as they amount mainly to words, backed by little or no concrete actions or meaningful investment. In short,currently there is no public movement for reducing the nation's energy vulnerability. Instead, actions--governmental and public opinion--amount to a ringing defense of the status quo, even as that status quo is leading to greater geopolitical risk.
