You aren’t getting Trump’s point (probably deliberately): he said ISIS shouldn’t have it, that we should take it -—so they don’t get it. So what if they blow it up? They don’t get it. They don’t blow it up, we get it with minor security commitment, either way they don’t get it which was the original context of the comment.
I'll readily admit to not being a big Trump fan, but I'm not deliberately missing Trump's point, at least not the way you're implying. I know Trump has been saying 'take their oil' for quite awhile.
In 2011, before ISIS, he was talking about taking Iraqi oil to reimburse us at least $1.5T for our expenses there. He probably was saying that even earlier, but that was the first old reference google found for me. So when Trump starting talking about taking oil in regards to ISIS I was thinking of his earlier claims. If I were talking about blocking ISIS from oil revenues (Trump being correct in pointing out how late Obama came to that game) I'd talk about taking out their oil infrastructure not about "taking their oil." I don't recall much more enthusiasm for a large US footprint in Iraq in 2011 than in today. And I share Stephy's skepticism that Trump's plan back then could have been done without one, although Trump did claim it could be in the piece I'm linking. That's the Trump proposal I was pushing for details on. If I'm falsely conflating Trump then vs. Trump now, then I've either paid too much attention to him or have too good a memory to be a Trump supporter.