Matthew Yglesias offers some thoughts on Kazakhstan, and his points are worth considering (Hat Tip: Eve Tushnet). It's worth noting, however, that Kazakhstan has more than oil to offer - like the post-Soviet WMD facilities on its territory, which need to be secured. This both complicates policy, and makes the consequences of an implosion there potentially greater. Likewise, U.S. policy also has to take into account the strategic posture of Kazakhstan's neighbours like Iran, Russia, and China. Those constraints can't just be wished away. Having said that, these are not the only constraints and risks worth paying attention to. Support for dictators with oil in regions with large Muslim populations makes eminent sense to the "realist" school of foreign policy, and it's cheap in the short term. In the long run, however, it's extremely costly - and if you want realism, well, I have some film footage to show you that's very real indeed. This, too, is a lesson of 9/11, and effective ways of addressing these issues need to become part of the broader strategic debate. The last thing we need is to grow another generation of Saudi-like oil ticks, and more authoritarian rulers who divert their people's attention toward manufactured external enemies in order to hang on to their power and wealth. Been there. Done that. Haven't enjoyed the experience.