Yep ... nicely written and straight to the point.

Not precisely. Our presence remains the primary stumbling block to our finding alignments of interests with countries in the region. As long as American troops are in Iraq, every nation in the region is unified in the interests of continuing a conflict in which we are at the center. They may not agree on much, but they do agree that the least tenable outcome of an Iraqi meltdown is an American crusader state. The removal of the precondition appears to be the cost of admission for having any sort of constructive conversation with possible (and present) allies.

Truth be told, the untold part of this letter is that the expansion of Iranian influence into Iraqi politics is both present and inevitable given our inability to affect a positive solution. 125k troops won't do it. Half a million won't. The long and short of it is that we have expanded Iranian power and influence through the removal of their most significant strategic counterweight. The only questions that yet remains are when we choose to acknowledge this reality and what we choose to do with this knowledge.

Iran, in many ways, presents a far more promising natural ally to American interests than our current backstabbing "allies" in the region today. The Saudis are the ones supplying the Sunnis with the guns, bombs, and advanced weapons that are primarily responsible for the casualties we face. No one disputes it is primarily Sunni violence that is causing us the most trouble. The Sunnis are no friends of the Iranians, who are largely backing the Shiites in the Iraqi Civil War. The Shiite dominated areas like Basra (with all of their Iranian influence) have largely been widely publicized success stories of stability and rebuilding.

Whatever our course of action, we will eventually have to come to grips with the fact that the actions of George W Bush and the neocons have brought us to a new Middle East reality. You can't put the water back in the broken cup. The only thing that stemmed off the demographic reality of a Shiite dominated Iraq was the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein (backed in large part by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and the United States). Now that our policies have made it impossible to reform that past reality, we have to acknowledge the consequences and deal with the Iranians.

The current thinking in the administration appears to be that confronting Iran will somehow cow the 70% of the Iraqi population that is Shiite into accomodating the demands of the Sunnis and accept a power sharing agreement that satisfies them and makes them all want to sing Kumbaya together. This is a fantasy that I don't think they even buy, but it is all they have left considering how badly they have screwed things up. The predictable outcome of this is that it will embolden the Sunnis to commit more and more audacious acts of violence both against us and the Shiites they wish to intimidate. And in a tragically ironic case of the tail wagging the dog, the Saudis have publically threatened us with outright support for Al Qaeda should we choose to allow the Shiites to execute what they believe is their popular mandate.

As tragic as things are now, the situation will not get any better as a result of our continued presence. Nor will it get significantly worse than is inevitably the case anyway should we leave. Leaving earlier, however, does give us many more options than waiting and seeing.

I'm not sure that they would. I'm just saying that our options in terms of parties we can talk to and with which we can find commonality expands once we remove ourselves from the situation and allow it to settle at a point of political equilibrium. That point is pretty predictable (ie: the Shiites taking control and the Sunnis either fleeing or accepting Shiite rule). How we leave and who we blow up on the way out will, in a big way, determine what relationships we can salvage in the aftermath.

Bush, unfortunately, appears to be setting the stage for an Iranian confrontation. This is much like flushing cement down the toilets on his way out of the White House.

Thanks guys.

Personally, I couldn't much care about Palestine or Israel. I would be very happy with our divorcing ourselves of the entire dynamic by cutting off funding of Israel and the renouncing of any security assurances. Then, if they want to act against the Palestinians, it's on their own nickle.

That whole region is filled with literally hundreds of extinct cultures. No one will miss a couple more should they decide to act like idiots.

The form of government is not very important. An enlightened despotism can be a perfectly good form of government. What really MATTERS are freedom, human rights, honesty in government, good property protections, and strongly enforced contracts. If you have those things, your society will generally be prosperous, given enough raw materials to work with. There are many failed democracies in the world; majority rule doesn't mean anything if the integrity and protection of rights aren't there. Democracies can be completely horrible.

Note also that success is possible WITHOUT these things, but in general they're good for economic growth and general prosperity.

Note also that the United States is not a democracy. We get hung up on that word when we just shouldn't... it's the window dressing on top of what really matters, rights and rule of law.