"Why else would the US go to such extreme lengths (Iraq, Libya) to protect the petro-dollar? Without near infinite global demand for dollars we would be complet

"Why else would the US go to such extreme lengths (Iraq, Libya) to protect the petro-dollar? Without near infinite global demand for dollars we would be completely crushed under our own debt." This position conspiratorial and non-factual and has no sound logical basis. Yes - the US does use some geopolitical muscle to protect the 'petrodollar' but there are clear and unambiguous facts that fly in the face of the notion that Iraq/Libya were petrodollar issues. 1) The petrodollar is important, but not an existential issue for the US. The USD is so deeply entrenched as a global currency, the transactional amount for USD for Oil is relatively small in comparison, moreover, nobody needs to hold dollars to buy Oil, they just need it to transact. The statement 'near infinite amount of demand' isn't remotely true. 2) The US can easily use basic diplomatic pressure to keep Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Norway in line. Outside of that - there is no real control. Iran, Russia et. al. can do as they please today. 3) Your argument is a little upside down: the US Fed is fighting deflation not inflation - meaning that the US would love to have some softening of the currency overall. 4) The US is not carrying debt anything like most unstable countries. People loan to the US not because they have faith in the petrodollar, but because they have faith that the US Gov will pay them back - which is ultimately a function of the health of the economy - and relatively speaking, it's good. Or at least compared to most places. Your position takes a simple thing and turns it into the extreme: 'Because the US has a petrodollar - all it's wars and geostrategy revolve around this'. It's like saying 'look at the bad cop on the news' and surmising all cops are bad.