Your briefing about America and the Middle East points out that barely ten percent of America’s oil comes from the Persian Gulf and that its value is far less than what America’s military presence in the region costs (“Great Sacrifices, Small Rewards,” January 1, 2011). You also point out that America’s dependence on Gulf energy is expected to fall over the next twenty-five years, as well. Thus, you argue, America is in effect protecting the world from a Middle Eastern oil shock, for the region is nothing if not volatile. In return, it charges “a world price” for its oil. According to you, the main beneficiaries are “emerging rivals,” such as China and India, which do not shoulder any of the burden of serving as the world’s policeman. “That may one day lead Americans to ask why they invest so much in a troubled region with such poor returns,” you conclude. Now, that is a very good question. With the exception of several American oil companies that actually charge a world price for the oil extracted from the Middle East, few Americans benefit. In fact, it is they who shoulder the military presence in the Gulf through their taxes. And it is they who should ask why their tax money ends up in the oil companies’ coffers.