Today Matthew Yglesias (who was himself a war supporter who has since reformed) puts the argument much more subtly:
The goal of much of America’s terrorgenic policies is to secure our economic interests in the face of oil price shocks, but this holds up to very little cost-benefit scrutiny.
It is an operational fact of our foreign policy that US military support for Saudi Arabia and other autocratic Middle Eastern governments is motivated at least in part by a desire to control global oil prices. It is also an operational fact that US military spending in this region contributes not just to "anti-American sentiment" but to actual identifiable attacks on US personnel stationed abroad.
It's possible the tradeoff - increased economic security, decreased physical security - is worth it, but no one seems to be able to demonstrate this, and it runs counter to our stated goal to prioritize the physical security of Americans over other foreign policy concerns.