Useful site. Thank you.
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2339 generic meltabs viagra

Useful site. Thank you.
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2339 generic meltabs viagra

Gee, when you turn the lights on, the coakroaches all disappear!

Jews and Jewish culture flourished in the Caliphate and Moorish Spain and France. And Tunisia's Jews still have a stable community in Djerba, Tunisia, the oldest in North Africa. None of that matters when it comes to the conflict over Palestine, just as, in considering the conflict between Hezbollah and Hamas, the years of solidarity and comradeship of Hamas-Hezbollah unity against Israel now mean nothing when Israel decided to secretly fuel the most extreme elements in Hezbollah while publicly teasing and coaxing the moderate Hamas against the Israeli created extremist Hezbollah. When the moderates (Abbas) were hard pressed by the extremists, they found a friendly Israel ready to support them against the extremists. Brilliant Israeli tactics! But the cat's now out of the bag. All that remains is the stupid American strategy to fund the Israeli tactics.

Hate and misinformation are rampant on this post. Some of you just want to paint all Arabs as bad and dangerous, is this to justify your inhumane treatment tortures and land grabs? Just for example let's take :"Chris:What exactly constitutes a moderate Arab country? The royal dictatorships in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco? Egypt? This "moderate Arab countries" term keep beign thrown about without any concern whatsoever for the citizens of those countries.
September 12, 2007 11:41 PM |( Reporting Offensive Comments )---------------------------------

Well Chris ought to know the following about Morocco and its 'royal dictatorship"
On May 16, 2003, a series of suicide bombers attacked four Jewish targets in Casablanca. No Jews were hurt in the attack because it occurred on Shabbat when the buildings were empty of Jews. Twenty-nine Muslims were killed. Though the bombings affected the Jewish sense of security, they were viewed by most Moroccans as assaults on the country's social and political order, and a test of the young king's power, rather than an act of anti-Semitism. King Mohammed VI visited the site of one of the attacks the day it occurred and urged the Jewish community to rebuild. The government subsequently organized a large rally in the streets of Casablanca to demonstrate support for the Jewish community and the king reasserted his family's traditional protection for the country's Jews. When the young king's father died in 1999 the jews there joined in mourning him.Although it was its opening day, no music played in the summer camp for Jewish children in Morocco and weddings planned by Jewish couples were postponed. The King has been recognized for allowing Jewish life to thrive in this Muslim country, watching as generations of children attended Jewish schools and elder citizens received meals and services to meet their religious needs.Throughout his reign, Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries, working together with the official community organization, Communaute Israelite, and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, selflessly presided over much of the spiritual welfare of the Jewish citizens. King Hassan II, who ruled Morocco for 38 years, acted as a go-between in Egyptian-Israeli efforts to make peace and prolonged the life of his 300-year-old dynasty in an era when monarchies in Libya, Egypt, Iraq and Iran fell to socialist revolutions or the force of militant Islam. Hassan was adept at managing Arab-Israeli relations, and he liked to say he viewed Morocco's Jewish population, which numbers around 8,000, as a bridge between Israelis and Arabs. During World War II his father, Mohammed V, had defied the Axis and protected his country's Jews. Morocco was the first country to recognize the United States did you all know that. Or are you all thinking what the other side would like you to think!

Alex :
"There is only one way to solve most of the problems we are facing...

Kick out the traitors (Israeli Lobbies). These people have been pushing us to wars to cover Israel's crimes against humanity."

This will be an impossible task.
The Americans, as tragic as it is, have lost their country to them for good. the history will record this as a shame in face of humanity, for so much American resources being used by these people while American values being abused and undermined.

The Russo-East European Jews running Israel aren't nuts, and neither are their Arab adversaries. Suicide is not an option for either side. So we non-Jews and non-Arabs ought to let them settle their differences alone, without our outside subsidies, arms, or any interference from the West or the East. Iran isn't as great a threat to Middle East peace as Israel's violent military occupations of parts of Palestine, a lesson Israel seems to be learning the hard way. The USA hasn't a clue yet in learning the same lesson from its brutal military occupation of Iraq. Neither crisis is an American fight. Oh, for a Teddy Roosevelt! Let's come home and let the Jews and Arabs settle their differences among themselves.

The laws that Americans live by and the laws that Israelis and Arabs live by are quite opposed. The contradiction is changing the political attitude of Americans to both the Israelis, who insist on religious-ethnic discrimination enabling Israel to define itself as Jewish, and it is also changing our attitude to most of the Arab states that insist on female subordination and a theology embracing and justifying terrorism. A pox on both their houses unless republican-democratic values of equality and individual responsibility under law prevail soon.

The laws that Americans live by and the laws that Israelis and Arabs live by are quite opposed. The contradiction is changing the political attitude of Americans to both the Israelis, who insist on religious-ethnic discrimination enabling Israel to define itself as Jewish, and it is also changing our attitude to most of the Arab states that insist on female subordination and a theology embracing and justifying terrorism. A pox on both their houses unless republican-democratic values of equality and individual responsibility under law prevails soon.

ouch,, loud and clear.

ADIL,

YOU MISUNDERSTOOD ME. READ ME AGAIN. I AM A GREAT BELIEVER THAT IT WILL BE BETTER WHEN THE US CAN NOT DOMINATE OUTCOMES IN THE REGION.

WHERE YOU AND I DO NOT AGREE IS THAT I SEE SAUDI LEADERSHIP TAKING A POSITIVE STANCE(S) (INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY) AND MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE REGION. THEY NEED TO FIND ACCOMODATION WITH IRAN NOW, NOT WITH BUSH ADMINISTRATION. THEY SHOULD IGNORE THIS RIDCIULOUS NOV. "SUMMIT" AND FOCUS ON ABASS/HAMAS CONFLICT AND CONSIDER ASSISTING/CREATING A THIRD PARTY WAY FOR PALESTINIANS

Lisa,
the middle east is for no one to dominate, and the reason for all these problems is the fact that USA believes it can domniate the ME, i am for 2 or 3 global powers for power balance. if and when that happens we get wars and countries being invaded under false pretexts. very disappionted in you Lisa

There is a lot of nonsense, ignorance and unfortunately some hate here...but here is what is going to happen IF Cheney and friends do not provoke Iran to do something crazy (which is what this whole Israeli/Syrian incident is really about) or just decide to go out in 08 with a blast with air strikes on Iran.

Iran and Saudi Arabia will come to some accommodation in the region. A Free Trade Agreement will broached by Iran last week will paved the way. Rafsanjani will be in power in Iran sooner not later ...eventually, more pragmatic leaders in Israel probably led by a new class of realistic Russian politicians will rule the day, communicate to their neighbors that they understand they are part of the Middle East, and want to participate and even have something to offer to maintain a strategic balance with Iran, as they still have the best trained army, economic growth, etc., these same Russian Israeli politicians will also argue for a more neutral Israel, and court Russia...In the end we will be competing there with Russia, China, Germany France Britain for trade, energy etc...The region is slipping away from our domination. It will be better for everyone, including the US, when we have to compete.

"In a meeting between Saddam and U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, 1990, Saddam asked, “We will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. What is the United States' opinion on this?”

Glaspie replied: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”

On July 31, the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the “United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq.”

On August 2, 1990, Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait and started the Gulf War. It was an American set-up.

As a result of the Gulf War, the period of sanctions that followed, and the current war which was started based on false pretenses, hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and those who have been maimed and rendered homeless are beyond counting. Who is to blame, and who are the criminals?" full text:http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=55999

Mr. Kuttab, the Iraqi's had considerable time to decide their own fate since the day that Saddam took office. No dictator can stay in power without either the complicity of his population or at least the population sticking its' collective head in the sand. After Saddams long-term violations of international law, the US led a large coalition to oust him from Kuwait. Saddamn continued to violate the UN-brokered cease fire agreement and was ultimately removed from office for it. The US has had the lion's share of responsibility in dealing with this problem and the consequences of becoming involved. It has every right in that situation to dictate what the final outcome should be, with input from the Iraqi "government". No one, especially from a country that actively opposes US involvement in Iraq, should have one word of input. Furthermore, Mr. Kuttab, your points on Iran and Syria are laughable, at best. Syria and Iran are the enablers of this conflict. Iran has long had imperialist designs on the Middle East and now they see their opportunity to sway the conflict and gain hegemony over Iraq.

The Middle East has a rich history like China. Our modern numeric system is invented there. I strongly advocate that Arabs speak out loudly for themselves which they are not doing now The Western media is saturated with reports of Muslim Extremists' actions and voices. It is disappointing that Moderate's voices are not as loud. Muslims must understand that America is not out to conquer them. Look at Korea and Japan, they have benefited from America's military presence. Maybe it is historical baggage for you but I as a Chinese do not have any problem with America's superiorty now because I do not have an inferiority complex. Empires rise and fall, dynasties come and go. Allah Al Akbar-GodIsGreat!

Ben says:

Does anyone here want to win the war on terror? It's a simple yes or no question.

Rick says:

No Ben; the war is not winnable as long as we are occupying Holy land in the Mid East. The doctrine of overwhelming military force is dead; it died with a bang in Iraq. It cannot defeat the insurgent who swims in the sea of the people. This is a painful lesson twice learned in Vietnam and Iraq.

Yes, the US forgot that the Arabs have been slaughtering each other and other people long before the US existed. The Sunni/Shiite wars began shortly after Mohammed's death and this is the third major jihad period in history, not the first.

I think it's time for the US to pull out and let Kuttab and the rest of the Muslims faking "moderation" deal with the issue.

Does anyone here want to win the war on terror? It's a simple yes or no question. Now you might ask what does Iraq have to do with the war on terror? Well, it doesn't have much to do with it except for one important factor and that is its location. It is strategically placed between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iraq is but one battle in the more important role on terror. The U.S. will keep a majority of its troops in the region until permanent bases are built. "Why would they want to do this you might ask? Isn't Bin laden is in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We should have most of forces there fighting the Taliban." Well we do have about 20,000 troops in that area, looking for a couple hundred individuals, like him. But we forget the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and that country has a plethora of Islamic fundamentalist who need to be watched. We had a presence in Saudi Arabia with military bases present in the country since 1990, we left that country in 2003. The United States needed a presence close to the region for several important reasons:

1. our interest-oil, economy, ect.
2. when permanent bases are built in Iraq we can now act in the region to protect those interest; and if certain fundamentalist pop up on our radar and try to make some noise we can send in special forces to take care of the situation (you'll never hear about because it will be TOP Secret-and all the credit will be given to national forces).
3. it's also very close to Iran and the U.S. probably knew about their intentions to build a nuclear device long before you and I did. The U.S. may not be able to stop Iran from developing the bomb but they are going to make sure that no one, with distorted views like Bin laden, get their hands on that technology and they aren't going to trust the Iranians to prevent that from happening.

All this is just theorized, I don't pretend to have all the answers like some of you. And I hate to break it to some of you but the U.S. is in the business of doing what is in their best interest not anyone elses, the same goes for other countries in this world. One interest, that should include all of us, should be to not let a tragedy like 9/11 to ever happen again.

To those of you who don't seem to know what religious extremism/terrorism is about; here is an example from another thread that may help. It is basically a response to the world's only super power and terrorist nation's land/oil grab in the Middle East, beginning with Palestine and Iraq:

Here is the link from the Yossi Melman Post Global thread that the following paste was taken from, if you want the context. Have you been following this thread? It's a barrel of fun.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglobal/yossi_melman/2007/09/cut_out_the_hypocrisy_on_terro/all_comments.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

RICK:

Zuni,

Don't worry; there will be no gas chambers in the Sinai. We will partition Texas and you can have half. Crawford can be your new capital. There will be plenty of room for the current 5,140,000 Jewish population of Israel as of the April 24, 2007 census.

ZUNI:
Could't deal with the issue and questions huh Rickster ? Actually, Rickster The Jews will Have Israel as long as the Lord G-D will permit. Israel will continue long after you and your mama lay a moldering in your pine boxes somewhere that cannot be described herein. Get my drift Rickster ? Happy New year to your mama.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 11:35 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zuni,

Thanks for allowing us a glimpse into your dark heart. It is amazing what one can learn on this site and quite gratifying.

Don’t worry so much, you will love Texas. We will partition it so that your half is contiguous, while the other half is divided into separated quarters.

You will have the prime real estate including the Dallas-Fort Worth and Crawford areas.

You will have control of the fresh water supply.

You can keep your Army, Navy, Air Force and nuclear weapons. We will back you up with the full power of the world’s last remaining super power.

We will immediately stop all federal aid to the native population, while continuing your $3 B annual aid.

Feel free to launch all the settlements that you wish in the native half’s real estate.

Assassinate the opposition leadership to create chaos on the other side.

See, it will just be a grand old party.

I’m sure that you will get along famously with our Dear Leader and World Class Hypocrite in the White House.

This (above) is a dialogue of the deaf, as far as I can read the responses...

What can be done to undo GWB infamous invasion of Iraq?

My considered judgement is GWB must be forced to get out of Iraq and rapidly, with his tail tied behind his legs. He's devastated US global image and made it into a "paper-tiger"!

Arabs will NOT want to undo GWB mess (for him). They're a frivolus mass of un-enlightened people!
Those that are have been put to the gallows or migrated (perhaps like the one who wrote this original piece!).

The UN may've mitigated the conflict better with Sadam, if it was not for GWB and his neocons adamant and truculent death wish to occupy and colonize the "citadel" of Arab civilization - and its oil!

What for? Why?

I've concluded the "oil traders" had nothing else on their mind but to get the keys to Iraqi oil fields...Their end game was forceful occupation and takeover of Iraqi oil - nothing else.

In the process, provide strategic security for the Jewish state.

Now, one can't unravel the mess GWB created without any wisdom to understand the abject consequences of occupying an Arab land!

[A sheriff from West Texas hasn't got mentality for intellectual pursuit of what Arabs would think of such an infidel!].

Still, the UN with active political support of EU and Russia and China, may be able to find ways and means to rescue Iraq from being dismembered by ethnic cleansing (eg. Bosnia!).

I've no confidence in any other alternative, at this late and dismal stage of US invasion...
The mass of dislocated Iraqi's must find reason to return home under UN flag - while its peace keeping forces maintain the legitimacy of the sovereign land of Babylon!

I remember the old cowboy movies where the godless Indians were savage terrorists to be gotten rid of while the innocent settlers took their land, raped their women, shot them with their riffles while they tried to fight back with their bows and arrows..... .....been there, heard it all before, poor Arabs are today's Indians. YOU MUST BE SO PROUD of yourselves all you Arab haters

Does anyone here want to win the war on terror? It's a simple yes or no question. Now you might ask what does Iraq have to do with the war on terror? Well, it doesn't have much to do with it except for one important factor and that is its location. It is strategically placed between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iraq is but one battle in the more important role on terror. The U.S. will keep a majority of its troops in the region until permanent bases are built. "Why would they want to do this you might ask? Isn't Bin laden is in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We should have most of forces there fighting the Taliban." Well we do have about 20,000 troops in that area, looking for a couple hundred individuals, like him. But we forget the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and that country has a plethora of Islamic fundamentalist who need to be watched. We had a presence in Saudi Arabia with military bases present in the country since 1990, we left that country in 2003. The United States needed a presence close to the region for several important reasons:

1. our interest-oil, economy, ect.
2. when permanent bases are built in Iraq we can now act in the region to protect those interest; and if certain fundamentalist pop up on our radar and try to make some noise we can send in special forces to take care of the situation (you'll never hear about because it will be TOP Secret-and all the credit will be given to national forces).
3. it's also very close to Iran and the U.S. probably knew about their intentions to build a nuclear device long before you and I did. The U.S. may not be able to stop Iran from developing the bomb but they are going to make sure that no one, with distorted views like Bin laden, get their hands on that technology and they aren't going to trust the Iranians to prevent that from happening.

All this is just theorized, I don't pretend to have all the answers like some of you. And I hate to break it to some of you but the U.S. is in the business of doing what is in their best interest not anyone elses, the same goes for other countries in this world. One interest, that should include all of us, should be to not let a tragedy like 9/11 to ever happen again.

Does anyone here want to win the war on terror? It's a simple yes or no question. Now you might ask what does Iraq have to do with the war on terror? Well, it doesn't have much to do with it except for one important factor and that is its location. It is strategically placed between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Iraq is but one battle in the more important role on terror. The U.S. will keep a majority of its troops in the region until permanent bases are built. "Why would they want to do this you might ask? Isn't Bin laden is in Afghanistan or Pakistan. We should have most of forces there fighting the Taliban." Well we do have about 20,000 troops in that area, looking for a couple hundred individuals, like him. But we forget the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and that country has a plethora of Islamic fundamentalist who need to be watched. We had a presence in Saudi Arabia with military bases present in the country since 1990, we left that country in 2003. The United States needed a presence close to the region for several important reasons:

1. our interest-oil, economy, ect.
2. when permanent bases are built in Iraq we can now act in the region to protect those interest; and if certain fundamentalist pop up on our radar and try to make some noise we can send in special forces to take care of the situation (you'll never hear about because it will be TOP Secret-and all the credit will be given to national forces).
3. it's also very close to Iran and the U.S. probably knew about their intentions to build a nuclear device long before you and I did. The U.S. may not be able to stop Iran from developing the bomb but they are going to make sure that no one, with distorted views like Bin laden, get their hands on that technology and they aren't going to trust the Iranians to prevent that from happening.

All this is just theorized, I don't pretend to have all the answers like some of you. And I hate to break it to some of you but the U.S. is in the business of doing what is in their best interest not anyone elses, the same goes for other countries in this world. One interest, that should include all of us, should be to not let a tragedy like 9/11 to ever happen again.

February 2007 - oil law proposed and still languishing in the Iraqi Paliament.

The Kurds have signed a contract with Dana Gas of the United Arab Emirates. They have also decided to sign oil contracts and the latest is with Hunt Oil of Dallas, Texas.

The Sunnis say that these contracts are illegal, but the Kurds insist they fllow the proposed law of Feb. 2007 and are anxious to have the oil and gas fields in operation.

Noticeable is the lack of reporting of these contracts except for one in the NY Times of 9-13-07. Perhaps I am being naive, but it seems that if the Kurds and other groups in Iraq have the gumption and the go-ahead to get their economy on track by signing and implementing contracts, then that is a big step forward.And the contracts with Hunt Oil of TX should please the administration of our country, too. After all, isn't that what this is all about?

"how very sensitive of you. sitting at your desk and telling people to drop the right of return to their homes that they ahve been kicked out from."

What about the ones who want to "return" to places they've never been? Not every adult in these refugee camps is there because troops kicked him or her out of home. A lot are there because their parents chose (or at least their fathers chose) to have unprotected sex in refugee camps (instead of abstaining the way they tell their broke unmarried daughters to, or at least having oral sex).

"The Arabic culture is ancient and their language is GORGEOUS; however, their middle name is revenge."

"The Arabic culture" is actually a whole bunch of overlapping cultures and subcultures, which don't always agree with each other!

"How can you continue to kill or plan to kill Americans,British,spanard,germans,christains,Jews etc; and expect us to sympathise with your Arab causes, illogical and irrational, typical of the Arab mind!!!"

You forgot that in many cases "the Arab mind" *is* Christian.

All you folks who can come up with nothing but bashing the US are dreaming if you think the people of the Middle East have any notion of constructive effort toward a better society. We have watched these fanatics killing innocents in Iraq for years now. For what? To make the US look bad. They gain nothing and don't even pretend to have a reasonable political objective for their actions. See if you can find the true evil in this.

You ask "What of the Arabs?".....Into that I read........"What of the Muslim PEOPLE"....How about for starters, EDUCATION.....EQUAL RIGHTS .....FEEDING YOUR PEOPLE...MEDICAL CARE....In other words....DO IT YOURSELVES....Make no mistake......I am not a supporter of Bush or the war in Iraq...when we got rid of Saddam.......we should have left then! But, try as I may.......I cannot reconcile that "a religion of peace" can allow random and senseless killing of innocents....If, there is......as you try to say.....people in the Mid East that want PEACE.....Well.....it's in YOUR hands.....

The Sunni and Shia Muslims will kill each other and also kill Kurds and non-Muslims in Iraq after we leave.

It does not matter if leave today or after 50 years. We cannot civilize a people who do not wish to be civilized.

We can however save the Kurds and the Christians. By concentrating our forces in Kurdistan, carving out a separate state for the Iraqi Christians and by keeping enough forces along the border with Iran to deter it from coming into Iraq.

WE cannot be blamed for the massacres that Shias and Sunnis indulge in.All Saddam did was to kip the lid on. The lid would have eventually blown off if Saddam had been left in power.

How can Joe Yohka be so wrong about so much. It is the Israelis, not the Palestinians, who receive more aid per capita (breaking down to around $30,000 per person a year) from the US than any other country in the world. And I wonder what they spend it on?

Moreover, maybe the reason Palestinians live in abject poverty is that they live in a veritable prison guarded by the Israelis.

I am for a two-state solution but certain truths have to be recognized.

To Rat-THE - reel your hatred in a little.

I certainly don't recall the rulers of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and the UAE asking the USA to stay out of their business in 1991. or in 1980-1988 for that matter.

with regards to "solving the israeli-palestinian problem", i.e. "throwing the jews into the sea of gaza", how is that going to convince sunnis and shiites from killing each other in iraq and the rest of the middle east - as they have been doing, uninterrupted, since the murder of Ali in the 7th century ???

These questions are properly those for higher level officials. While the commander of foreign forces in Iraq and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq may have some knowledge of these policies they did not formulate these policies and they are in no position to alter them or explain them. I suggest that proper people to ask would be the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser and the President. Shouldn't that be pretty obvious?

Sirs,

Allow me to respond to some of the key pro-arab, anti-american views expressed above.
The claim that America has no long-term policy and mission in Iraq/Middle-east,as asserted by your penalists,suffers not only from Arab ignorance of American politics and democracy;but only serves as a cheap propaganda for the Arabs and their interests!!.
America's stated mission and long-term policy in Iraq and Middle-east is to transform these rogue-states, ancient monarchies and terorist-sponsoring states into democracies.The war on terror is but a means to the above-stated mission, and to confuse or deny the existence of a policy because of the Palestinian problem is nothing new but the well-worn Arab propaganda!!.
Well, after 9/11, even the average American know the role of the so-called Arab Moderates.Was it not Arab youth from Saudi-Arabia and Egypt who committed the greatest evil of the century against America??.Was it not only yesterday that we saw again celebrations in Moderate Arab states rejoicing and glorifying as matyrs these terorist??.How can one be both the victim and perpetrator of evil??.
Arabs/Islamic jihadists are killing Arabs/moslems in Algeria,somalia,Sudan, etc, etc.Why don't we link it to the Palestinian issue???.
"Moderate Arab states" like Saudi-Arabia,Egypt,etc are the very states sponsoring and giving moral and financial aid and support to the terrorists and terrorist organisations.These are well-documented!!.
The issue is not that the world does not know about these "two-faces" the Moderate Arab states and their propagandists wear, but rather one of financial power and bribery!!!.
How can you continue to kill or plan to kill Americans,British,spanard,germans,christains,Jews etc; and expect us to sympathise with your Arab causes, illogical and irrational, typical of the Arab mind!!!

Sirs,

Allow me to respond to some of the key pro-arab, anti-american views expressed above.
The claim that America has no long-term policy and mission in Iraq/Middle-east,as asserted by your penalists,suffers not only from Arab ignorance of American politics and democracy;but only serves as a cheap propaganda for the Arabs and their interests!!.
America's stated mission and long-term policy in Iraq and Middle-east is to transform these rogue-states, ancient monarchies and terorist-sponsoring states into democracies.The war on terror is but a means to the above-stated mission, and to confuse or deny the existence of a policy because of the Palestinian problem is nothing new but the well-worn Arab propaganda!!.
Well, after 9/11, even the average American know the role of the so-called Arab Moderates.Was it not Arab youth from Saudi-Arabia and Egypt who committed the greatest evil of the century against America??.Was it not only yesterday that we saw again celebrations in Moderate Arab states rejoicing and glorifying as matyrs these terorist??.How can one be both the victim and perpetrator of evil??.
Arabs/Islamic jihadists are killing Arabs/moslems in Algeria,somalia,Sudan, etc, etc.Why don't we link it to the Palestinian issue???.
"Moderate Arab states" like Saudi-Arabia,Egypt,etc are the very states sponsoring and giving moral and financial aid and support to the terrorists and terrorist organisations.These are well-documented!!.
The issue is not that the world does not know about these "two-faces" the Moderate Arab states and their propagandists wear, but rather one of financial power and bribery!!!.
How can you continue to kill or plan to kill Americans,British,spanard,germans,christains,Jews etc; and expect us to sympathise with your Arab causes, illogical and irrational, typical of the Arab mind!!!

Imagine what the Near East would be like if Bush had spent as much money, manpower and thought on the Israel-Palestine problem. Perhaps then democracy would have a chance in the region. INstead he just poured oil on the fire!

Let the United Nations solve the problems of the Mideast. Let Israel join the nuclear-non-proleferation treaty. Let the neocons, beginning with Irving Kristol and his PNAC acolytes shove off to Israel. Let the loonies in the American Enerprise Institute, and other think tanks ship off with Kristol and the others. Leave my country alone! The U.S. deserves to return to its status as a country of international laws and respect. Goodbye Kristol, Kagan, Cheney, et al. Leave poor George W. Bush to try and think for himself. Maybe his father can help him.

But leave my country alone!!!

just from the last few comments; it shows how many sick people out there, and that is why will never be peace in this world.

"Somehow this madness must cease. We must stop now. I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor of [Iraq]. I speak for those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America who are paying the double price of smashed hopes at home, and death and corruption in [Iraq]. I speak as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we have taken. I speak as one who loves America, to the leaders of our own nation: The great initiative in this war is ours; the initiative to stop it must be ours." MLK, 1967 [Yes, I substituted "Iraq" for the original "Vietnam" Read the entire speech at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm
Substitute "terrorism" for "Communism" and "Iraq" for "Vietnam" and it could have been said today.

To Aaron- you talk about 19th century. We are now in 21st. 55 Islamic nations and they want more.

Deborah: There is a Muslim lady in CA (under death threat, of course, by peace loving Muslims) who said that Jews are not blowing up Germans (for Nazi atrocities). These daily incidents of blowing up of innocents all over the world is very unique in Islam. An exception? Not at all. It is the norm in Islam.

What exactly constitutes a moderate Arab country? The royal dictatorships in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Morocco? Egypt? This "moderate Arab countries" term keep beign thrown about without any concern whatsoever for the citizens of those countries.

Prediction for the future (time unknown) sometime in the next 'Few Decades' (not centuries). First there will be an American military withdrawal from not only Iraq but the entire ME and the former Soviet Republics as well. Already American prestige and influence is slipping daily and in not many years will become irrelevant.

There will soon be (in not many months) political upheaval in Pakistan. How that will evolve is for any wrong headed tactical Neo Con to figure out.

Afghanistan might or might not tumble back into the realm of the ultra conservative Pashtuns again with their Taliban political connections.

Perhaps, Iran will revert back into it's usual peaceful normalcy if it doesn't feel threatened.
Maybe not!--I am leaning towards the NOT side.

Followed not long after (not too many years after) by internal and violent troubles in Egypt. With Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Chad; in fact the entire South Sahara down to The Horn will gather in loose alliances. --Note I did not predict any future political change for Saudi Arabia, but definitely there will be major alterations there as well.

After all that happens (as it certainly will) the central CORE of the entire problem, as it has always been-- which is Palestine (with it's many supporters and Muslim friends)will automatically resolve itself into a bloody vengeful bloodbath of another historical nightmare. While the world will stand by helplessly wringing it's hands.

Justice, Respect and Fairness now, might alter that nightmare that is certainly coming tomorrow.

Wiser than me still have time to fend off all that from coming about--BUT THEY WON'T.--For they are too stubborn and too proud.--Remember:

"Pride cometh before the fall"

As much as I appreciate other cultures, especially the culture, language, music and people of the Arab lands, let's not deny people their psychology. Enough psychology is put upon the heads of the Jewish People by others, anyway. I didn't vote for Bush or any Republican president, ever. And I was against this war in Iraq, knowing what a bucket of worms it would be. We don't see African-Americans or Vietnamese, etc. calling for violent revenge upon our grandchildren.

Mr. Kuttab-If you hate this Country so much-Get out!

Ohhhhh, wait! That's right you sniveling backstabbing snit! You like living in a country that has PEACEFUL relations among all it's existing Religions! How Cozy!

Bet you suck up American foreign aid back in the imaginary country of Palestine-inhabited by Syrians and Jordanians!

Pal, ever occur to you that what this great and noble ountry did was stop Saddamn from paying any more of your sorry "Palestinian" murderers from wearing Iraqi Made Explosive Vests, and then paying Blood Money to the surviving trash!

Oh, and FYI-we are trying to give Iraqi's the same freedoms you are sucking up here-there!

Don't let the door hit your fat A$$ on the way OUT!

Thank you, Professor Daoud. Why don't you give up you easy job at the Hallowed Hall pourly thrash into peoples minds and go back home and help solve the problem. Or, is it that you are a Christian (Daoud--David) and are afraid to go home.

What role should the Arab states play? Boy, that is easy. None. The need to get there own houses in order before casting stones in glass houses.

The Palestinians are at war with themselves. After receiving more aid per capita than any people in the history of the world, they live in dire poverty while blaming everyone around them and asking for more. Tis sad, but look to thyself for salvation.

Perhaps more money spent on factories and less on guns? Perhaps teaching your children economics and not hatred?

Everyone should watch the documentary The Making of a Martyr. It has fascinating footage documenting the apparent brainwashing of Palestinian youth to the glory of martydom; truly a sad and horrific human rights violation of their young lives.

Thanks, Mr. Kuttab, for weighing in. What we Americans want are more Arab voices with the gravitas of your experience and fewer Bushies repeating their scripted lines.

The biggest threat to the Middle East is clearly Iran followed far behind by Al Queda. I truly believe all solutions to peace start with dismembering the Iranian leadership. Without Iran pumping money into Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza problems would miraculously go away. It is said to keep hearing the usual impotent Arab arguments over and over blaming Israel and the US for all their problems.

The Arab world does have the ability to have a say. And it does. Unfortunately, it tends to miss its best chances to be effective in a positive sense. Many of its leaders are hardly worth listening to. Which still doesn't help either ourselves or the people of the region. While the US got itself into this fiasco in Iraq, one of my favorite comments has been that all the nations in the area want a peaceful Iraq. Seems like half a sentence. The complete sentence is that each nation in the region wants a peaceful Iraq ... that looks the way they want it too look. And that is the essence of the issue. The sum of the parts can be greater, but never is.

There is only one way to solve most of the problems we are facing...

Kick out the traitors (Israeli Lobbies). These people have been pushing us to wars to cover Israel's crimes against humanity.

what really gets me pissed off, is how politely everyone is talking about Iraq. We need to stop dancing around, AND DO SOMETHING! This is war, and no one is acting like it is, even tho it is a very, very stupid one.
Our leaders, in my opinion, just havnt been performing.
VOTE EDWARDS '08!

Again, the Saudi's and the Gulf states should NOT go to Bush's Nov Summit....and without them, there is no reason for Jordan and Egypt to go too. It would be a big strategic mistake....the whole thing should be canceled. It will come back to bite them if they go. It will make them look weak and needy ...They need to think who such a conference benefits politically both in the region and in the US....it's not them....and this is no time for SA or the Gulf states to look weak.

Robert, not sure what happened with GPB, yesterday I hit it and ended up reading (and posting!) about religion ...at the Faith site! I think PG sometime has a mind of its own!

What role does Iran play now that the Sadrists have declared a cease-fire?

1. Sadrists aren't the real beneficiaries of Iranian support; that title would go the Badr brigades.

2. Tehran continues to supply money, material, and training in Iraq.

3. Tehran continues to threaten armed intervention in the absence of a US role -- almost as if they want the US there.

That having been said, could the Jews who are posting on this site please lay off the hating? Speaking as a member of the group, it's not really helpful. I'm looking at you, Debbie.

And to Hank and Gary, um, really? You don't think that perhaps maybe, just maybe, the US interventions and support for tyrannical governments in the Middle East maybe, just maybe, have something to do with why the average Arab is maybe a little irritated with our country? In case you can't remember, those would be direct interventions in Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq; troops placed in, let's see, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Turkmenistan, Turkey; and, right, substantial, sometimes multi-billion dollar, support for the authoritarians in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, several of the ex-Soviet states... etc.

Don't read that as praise for those governments, by the way. They're propagandistic authoritarians (at best), with only a few exceptions (maybe), and mostly are calling for my American Jewish head on a plate. Don't really care for them.

But think of it this way:

If you had a 20 countries, but couldn't vote in any of them, not really, how would you feel? And then when some guy came around and told you that you were in the wrong because your governments, who had that guy's support, were bad, and that you were to blame, how would you feel then? Really?

L'Shanah Tovah.

Let's see. 14 million Jews in the world and they really are a threat to the Arabs! The Saudis could have built 10 Palestinian states by now, with decent homes. (By the way, they could have also brought food and water across the bay to Darfur.) I was very close to 3 bombs in Jerusalem in 1968, before there were settlements. Not only were Jews murdered, but innocent Palestinians as well. Just like charity beginning at home, terror begins at home, also. Those Arabs not cooperating with Hamas, Arafat and their ilk are blown away. By the way, when Jimmy Carter returns his land to Native Americans, he can then speak of Israeli greed. The Arabic culture is ancient and their language is GORGEOUS; however, their middle name is revenge.

Mr. Kuttab:

You're far too kind in your characterization of the general and the envoy. Petraeus didn't FORGET about the Arab states. He and Crocker are simply reflecting how little this administration and its panting surrogates have ever taken anything Arab into account when scheming to remake the world into a secularist democracy (read oil spigot). I promise you, right now, today, 9/12/07, that George Bush (without a cue card) can not tell you the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite Muslim. Nor can any of the enlightened ones around him.

This debacle called Iraq has never been about what's best for the Muslim world; it has been and remains exclusively about this administration's cockamamie hallucination about democracy and what Bush calls freedom. He doesn't even understand that many devout Muslims aren't interested in the "freedom to choose" that he keeps talking about. Most pursuing what they see as the unambiguous clarity of the Koran seem to be seeking freedom FROM choice.

And please don't look for anything equitable from Washington that reflects any sensitivity about the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank or the squalid refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon. This government and those before it stretching back five decades don't do Palestinians. We do Israel, all the way, all the time.

America today only cautiously says anything remotely supportive of the larger Arab world when it comes to the Middle East conflict. The last politician in Washington who spoke clearly about anything Arab was Illinois Senator Chuck Percy 23 years ago. I seem to remember he just wanted to give an advanced military radar plane to the Saudis. He got "unelected" so fast it terrified everyone else on Capitol Hill, and does so to this day.

Gosh, so many Arabs, so little education, literacy, common sense, cool-headedness, 21st Century outlook (not to mention 20th Century), tolerance for women's rights. Arab and Turkish Moslems murdered and ethnically cleansed Jews in Palestine 50 years before the Israeli state was finally created. Bombs went off inside Israel before the '67 War and before settlements after the '67 War. Get your heads out of the sand.

To Hank Whatever:

The origin is in Hebrew.

"Im ein ani li, mi li; uchshe'ani le'atzmi, ma ani; ve'im lo achshav, eymatay?" -- Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 1, Episode 14

Translation: "If I am not to myself, who will be? And when I am [only] to myself, who am I? And if not now, when?"

To Hank Whatever:

The origin is Hebrew!

"Im ein ani li, mi li; uchshe'ani le'atzmi, ma ani; ve'im lo achshav, eymatay?" -- Ethics of the Fathers, Chapter 1, Episode 14

Translation: "If I am not to myself, who will be? And when I am [only] to myself, who am I? And if not now, when?"

If the real truth needs to be stated, the Arabs along with Iraq, the Iraqi people, the US troops and all else is expendable. What matters ,as former Secretary State James Baker the third stated" for our interests in the Persian Gulf, we would go to war" The only interests the US has in the Persian Gulf us Oil and profits from it.

If the Arabs want to help, there is plenty for them to do. Or if they just want to snipe, as this bozo does, then I guess they can do that too.
Although, in sniping as in most things the Arab nations have proven themselves to be the most impotent people on the earth.

I'm interested in Suraj's comment. Regardless of where he is writing from (India or its diaspora one suspects) this seems pretty representative of American ignorance about the region. For the record, Saudi Arabia is "intolerant" because Ibn Saud -- whose family allied with the Wahhabi sect during the nineteenth century in much the same way that Bush had allied with Mr. Dobson -- was sponsored by the British during World War I in his contest with the more powerful Rashid family, who were Ottoman allies. After the war, a river of British weapons allowed him to conquer the religiously moderate Rashidis.

Without British ambitions for the Gulf -- in which control over petroleum already then played a prominent role -- the forces of intolerance would be bottled up in a little emirate, not unlike Qatar. Jihadism is not about Islam. It's about empire: live ones, dead ones, and ones only fantasized. Bin Laden's real model is not the Caliphate of Omar (let alone Muhhamad's rule at Mecca). It's the Raj.

The author says in one short sentence that the solution to Iraq lies with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Of course the solution is very difficult, complex, and mostly out of American hands. A sensible American "solution" would involve the slaughter of many terrorists, which would involve collateral damage, which is the kind of thing that makes Arabs hate America.

So we're all better off without a Palestinian solution as far as Iraq goes.

To all the Arabs,
You allow religion to be the be-all and end-all in your lives. That is the main reason, except for the oil rich middle east, none of the countries have prospered. The so-called "moderate" states are totally propped up by the US. Their dictators pocket all the money, leaving little for their people.

Why not Arab countries unite, ask US to leave Iraq and provide safety and security to Iraqis?

For a journalist with Daoud Kuttab's experience, he is far too polite in questioning America's Role in the Middle East...

Kuttab must know better; for many years he was the Editor in Chief of the Palestinian only English Language Weekly that was then published in Arab Jerusalem. "Al Fajr" - THE DAWN had a small circulation but was widely read and respected among the foreign press corps in Israel and Palestine. Israeli "Palestinian Affairs" specialists were always in contact with Daoud, as were American diplomats. -- That is why I can sense the pain of the deceptions that our American Palestinian friend suffered seeing His Country Turning Against His People.

Daoud Kuttab always tried the middle road. He was never "anti-American", nor "anti-Israeli", and yet he was an ardent spokesman for the rights of his Palestinian people. But America turned its back on him and the cause of peace for which he is an outspoken spokesman.

I had a fraternity brother who was spared death the night of Beruit Airport bombing incident because he pulled patrol duty that night. I suggest this now honored soldier has been blessed and cursed as well.

I have another new friend who was in the lobby of a world trade center as it collapsed. She realises that some kind of divinity spared her while losing family and friends. I know that she feels blessed and cursed at times too.

Those of us suffering from the ills of mankind are blessed at cursed at the same time as we feel a connection to a strange and bizarre synconicity in the early age of the 21st century.

Freedom or free will must respect the independence of other people in communities small and large. Once again I will state that Thomas Jefferson wrote into the constitution the right to pursue happiness as a counter measure to oppression.

I have judged others in United States government as being control freaks with boundry issues. I cannot change one hair on their heads. To me the western culture or christian word hypocricy applies very well.

You see, more than anything else I am a student of life as many others learn through life's good and bad episodes. I have been a fool repeating mistakes and sometimes I have been able to correct my behaviors with help of others both professionals and fellow travellers of a road less walked. In final anaylis I think the term applies to both Americans and Iraqis, don't tread on us.

I would like to verify the orgin of these words and the speakers who echoed their wisdom:

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me ?
If I am for myself only, then what am I ?
And if not now, when ?"

(Spelling and grammar check optional not neccessarily microsoft word, english edition.)

I am further from being a fan of Bush and the neocons than you, Daoud Kuttab. But I do find the tone of your rhetoric insufferable. If you Arabs had been better at keeping your own homes in order Bush mania would never have happened. But you and your natural enemy and partner in crime Israel have been so willing to take the almighty dollar and support corruption with it that you all deserve the mess you're in. And now you look to us for your answers, as though you were never potty trained. Go get a brain Mr. Arab, reach for the toilet paper and figure it out for yourself.

"And as for us – the rest of the Arab world, and indeed the rest of the world – what role will we play?"

This question is for the Arabs to answer.

I can only suggest: Get the people out of the camps and let them work. Join in trade with Israel. Make the Middle East a garden. Live.

Amendment to the above -- should read "I'm not a supporter of the war" - not "was" and I guess WaPo liked my post so much, it posted 3 copies. Perhaps some administration person will delete the duplication.

"And as for us – the rest of the Arab world, and indeed the rest of the world – what role will we play?"

This question is for the Arabs to answer.

I can only suggest: Get the people out of the camps and let them work. Join in trade with Israel. Make the Middle East a garden. Live.

Dear Mr. Kuttab

Your comment caused me to smile - almost laugh out aloud.

Probably the biggest mistake is to think that Palestinians are relevant to the Iraq situation. I note that you try to couch it in "Arab" terms too, but really, the Palestinians are relevant only as a thorn in the side of Israel, not because they determine US policy vis-a-vis Iraq or any of the other major Middle Eastern players.

The Congressmen and Senators were not too polite - most of them seemed detached from reality and taken aback by the sheer audacity of having a General who does not know what the mission is asking for more time to complete the mission. Heck they couldn't even say what reconciliation means while they purport to pave the way for reconciliation.

You ask: "What real, long-term plans does the U.S. have for our part of the world? Do any of the people of the region, not to mention the Iraqis themselves, have any say in our own future?" None and no.

"Except for several token referrals to military units from the country of Georgia, Petraeus and Crocker had little to say about what role the moderate Arab states – or for that matter the rest of the international community – can play."

None - they are irrelevant unless there is a Sunni-Shiite conflagration involving Iran.

"Maybe that’s because little effort was made before the invasion of Iraq, or in the time since, to ask what others have to say about illegal U.S. action in the Middle East."

Now, wait just a minute. Have you forgotten that UN resolutions "authorized" the use of force? There is a fair debate on whether the invasion was based on falsified intelligence - or cherry picking of intelligence - but "ILLEGAL?" Says who? I bet you are not qualified in International law. Of course, you have an agenda, but remember, you are irrelevant. BTW, I'm not a supporter of the was or the decision to invade Iraq, but that doesn't entitle me to use words like "illegal" especially if ignorant of the legal standards applicable.

What has Sadr's militia got to do with whether Iran poses a threat? Did you miss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement about filling the power vacuum?

"The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission had also recommended that one way of dealing with the region’s poisonous anti-Americanism would be to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. "

And this is poppcock! Do you SERIOUSLY think that the Sunnis and Shias are suddenly going to stand up one day and say "Hey Ali, Hey Yusef, guess what? the Israelis and Palestinians have kissed and made up, let's do the same?" Delusional nonsense.

"General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did speak in vague terms about a role for the larger Middle Eastern region, but their comments were only meant to support the Bush Administration’s anti-Iranian and anti-Syrian rhetoric."

Well, actually to support the Administration's policy of continuing the occupation of Iraq. Syria is marginal compared to the perceived threat of Iran.

"Petraeus and Crocker failed to present a clear U.S. strategy for accomplishing the goals America has set. Maybe that’s because the goals have never been clear. But with the exception of one Democratic congressman, no one stood up to ask the tough questions. Did the rest restrain themselves because they belong to the Armed Services Committee? True, the problem is not with the military itself but with the civilian politicians who sent them to Iraq. But American anger with the Iraq war was certainly not reflected yesterday."

Agreed. But from the point of view of a Palestinian, so what?

"What was reflected was what most people in the Middle East and in America already know. There is no military solution, nor is there any militarily empowered political solution. It’s clear that substantial US military presence in Iraq will not last long. The general and the ambassador were just buying time."

Well, actually, the military presence may last for a VERY long time -- perhaps on the periphery, but if you think the US is going to abandon the region to Iran and China, fuggedaboudit.

"My questions are still unanswered. What is the exit strategy from Iraq?"

None.

"And as for us – the rest of the Arab world, and indeed the rest of the world – what role will we play?"

I guess you missed this one. The answer is NONE. You are irrelevant - especially the Palestinians. Control of Iraq and indirectly of Iran is an American policy issue -- no one in charge of those decisions gives a damn about the Arab viewpoint. Given the price of oil, some of that may change.

However, don't expect anyone to think the Palestinians have any worthwhile input on this issue. Being a Palestinian gets you the chance to go to Princeton and moan about Israel and US policy, but there is no meaningful Palestinian state or government and until there is one the other cannot happen.

Dear Mr. Kuttab

Your comment caused me to smile - almost laugh out aloud.

Probably the biggest mistake is to think that Palestinians are relevant to the Iraq situation. I note that you try to couch it in "Arab" terms too, but really, the Palestinians are relevant only as a thorn in the side of Israel, not because they determine US policy vis-a-vis Iraq or any of the other major Middle Eastern players.

The Congressmen and Senators were not too polite - most of them seemed detached from reality and taken aback by the sheer audacity of having a General who does not know what the mission is asking for more time to complete the mission. Heck they couldn't even say what reconciliation means while they purport to pave the way for reconciliation.

You ask: "What real, long-term plans does the U.S. have for our part of the world? Do any of the people of the region, not to mention the Iraqis themselves, have any say in our own future?" None and no.

"Except for several token referrals to military units from the country of Georgia, Petraeus and Crocker had little to say about what role the moderate Arab states – or for that matter the rest of the international community – can play."

None - they are irrelevant unless there is a Sunni-Shiite conflagration involving Iran.

"Maybe that’s because little effort was made before the invasion of Iraq, or in the time since, to ask what others have to say about illegal U.S. action in the Middle East."

Now, wait just a minute. Have you forgotten that UN resolutions "authorized" the use of force? There is a fair debate on whether the invasion was based on falsified intelligence - or cherry picking of intelligence - but "ILLEGAL?" Says who? I bet you are not qualified in International law. Of course, you have an agenda, but remember, you are irrelevant. BTW, I'm not a supporter of the was or the decision to invade Iraq, but that doesn't entitle me to use words like "illegal" especially if ignorant of the legal standards applicable.

What has Sadr's militia got to do with whether Iran poses a threat? Did you miss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement about filling the power vacuum?

"The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission had also recommended that one way of dealing with the region’s poisonous anti-Americanism would be to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. "

And this is poppcock! Do you SERIOUSLY think that the Sunnis and Shias are suddenly going to stand up one day and say "Hey Ali, Hey Yusef, guess what? the Israelis and Palestinians have kissed and made up, let's do the same?" Delusional nonsense.

"General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did speak in vague terms about a role for the larger Middle Eastern region, but their comments were only meant to support the Bush Administration’s anti-Iranian and anti-Syrian rhetoric."

Well, actually to support the Administration's policy of continuing the occupation of Iraq. Syria is marginal compared to the perceived threat of Iran.

"Petraeus and Crocker failed to present a clear U.S. strategy for accomplishing the goals America has set. Maybe that’s because the goals have never been clear. But with the exception of one Democratic congressman, no one stood up to ask the tough questions. Did the rest restrain themselves because they belong to the Armed Services Committee? True, the problem is not with the military itself but with the civilian politicians who sent them to Iraq. But American anger with the Iraq war was certainly not reflected yesterday."

Agreed. But from the point of view of a Palestinian, so what?

"What was reflected was what most people in the Middle East and in America already know. There is no military solution, nor is there any militarily empowered political solution. It’s clear that substantial US military presence in Iraq will not last long. The general and the ambassador were just buying time."

Well, actually, the military presence may last for a VERY long time -- perhaps on the periphery, but if you think the US is going to abandon the region to Iran and China, fuggedaboudit.

"My questions are still unanswered. What is the exit strategy from Iraq?"

None.

"And as for us – the rest of the Arab world, and indeed the rest of the world – what role will we play?"

I guess you missed this one. The answer is NONE. You are irrelevant - especially the Palestinians. Control of Iraq and indirectly of Iran is an American policy issue -- no one in charge of those decisions gives a damn about the Arab viewpoint. Given the price of oil, some of that may change.

However, don't expect anyone to think the Palestinians have any worthwhile input on this issue. Being a Palestinian gets you the chance to go to Princeton and moan about Israel and US policy, but there is no meaningful Palestinian state or government and until there is one the other cannot happen.

Dear Mr. Kuttab

Your comment caused me to smile - almost laugh out aloud.

Probably the biggest mistake is to think that Palestinians are relevant to the Iraq situation. I note that you try to couch it in "Arab" terms too, but really, the Palestinians are relevant only as a thorn in the side of Israel, not because they determine US policy vis-a-vis Iraq or any of the other major Middle Eastern players.

The Congressmen and Senators were not too polite - most of them seemed detached from reality and taken aback by the sheer audacity of having a General who does not know what the mission is asking for more time to complete the mission. Heck they couldn't even say what reconciliation means while they purport to pave the way for reconciliation.

You ask: "What real, long-term plans does the U.S. have for our part of the world? Do any of the people of the region, not to mention the Iraqis themselves, have any say in our own future?" None and no.

"Except for several token referrals to military units from the country of Georgia, Petraeus and Crocker had little to say about what role the moderate Arab states – or for that matter the rest of the international community – can play."

None - they are irrelevant unless there is a Sunni-Shiite conflagration involving Iran.

"Maybe that’s because little effort was made before the invasion of Iraq, or in the time since, to ask what others have to say about illegal U.S. action in the Middle East."

Now, wait just a minute. Have you forgotten that UN resolutions "authorized" the use of force? There is a fair debate on whether the invasion was based on falsified intelligence - or cherry picking of intelligence - but "ILLEGAL?" Says who? I bet you are not qualified in International law. Of course, you have an agenda, but remember, you are irrelevant. BTW, I'm not a supporter of the was or the decision to invade Iraq, but that doesn't entitle me to use words like "illegal" especially if ignorant of the legal standards applicable.

What has Sadr's militia got to do with whether Iran poses a threat? Did you miss Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement about filling the power vacuum?

"The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission had also recommended that one way of dealing with the region’s poisonous anti-Americanism would be to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. "

And this is poppcock! Do you SERIOUSLY think that the Sunnis and Shias are suddenly going to stand up one day and say "Hey Ali, Hey Yusef, guess what? the Israelis and Palestinians have kissed and made up, let's do the same?" Delusional nonsense.

"General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker did speak in vague terms about a role for the larger Middle Eastern region, but their comments were only meant to support the Bush Administration’s anti-Iranian and anti-Syrian rhetoric."

Well, actually to support the Administration's policy of continuing the occupation of Iraq. Syria is marginal compared to the perceived threat of Iran.

"Petraeus and Crocker failed to present a clear U.S. strategy for accomplishing the goals America has set. Maybe that’s because the goals have never been clear. But with the exception of one Democratic congressman, no one stood up to ask the tough questions. Did the rest restrain themselves because they belong to the Armed Services Committee? True, the problem is not with the military itself but with the civilian politicians who sent them to Iraq. But American anger with the Iraq war was certainly not reflected yesterday."

Agreed. But from the point of view of a Palestinian, so what?

"What was reflected was what most people in the Middle East and in America already know. There is no military solution, nor is there any militarily empowered political solution. It’s clear that substantial US military presence in Iraq will not last long. The general and the ambassador were just buying time."

Well, actually, the military presence may last for a VERY long time -- perhaps on the periphery, but if you think the US is going to abandon the region to Iran and China, fuggedaboudit.

"My questions are still unanswered. What is the exit strategy from Iraq?"

None.

"And as for us – the rest of the Arab world, and indeed the rest of the world – what role will we play?"

I guess you missed this one. The answer is NONE. You are irrelevant - especially the Palestinians. Control of Iraq and indirectly of Iran is an American policy issue -- no one in charge of those decisions gives a damn about the Arab viewpoint. Given the price of oil, some of that may change.

However, don't expect anyone to think the Palestinians have any worthwhile input on this issue. Being a Palestinian gets you the chance to go to Princeton and moan about Israel and US policy, but there is no meaningful Palestinian state or government and until there is one the other cannot happen.

It is not up to a U.S. General to determine what Arabs are going to do to support peace in the Middle-East. What a stupid question. Ask Arab political and religious leaders what they are going to so, don't ask Gen. Patraeus.

Our exit strategy is the same as it is for Germany, Japan, Korea and the Philippines. We will leave when we are asked to leave or when it is in our national security interests to leave.

I like Lisa's idea of Saudis involvement - can they broker a solution to the archeological / construction crisis on the Mount?? I think we're already looking at a defacto Transjordan confederation, minus Gaza currently of course. An effective Egypt is probably the key in Gaza but that's not likely to occur except again if Arabs work together......LISA, do you know what's up with GPB??

As the Israel Lobby would say, the hell with you Arabs.

Rick and Adil, like any political solution ...no one gets everthing they want...there still could be a 2 state solution...but that window of opportunity is getting smaller, the longer time goes by...Hezbollah is more concerned about having power in Beirut not Jerusalem...The US is not viewed as an objective honest broker, it needs to step back. The Arabs States did not join Hezbollah summer of 06 in Hezbollah/Lebanon conflict, The Israelis saw defeat... in a post Saddam Middle East, Iran has become a superpower...everyone knows this is a different ME....look at just what happened this week, Israel just violated Syrian airspace, no Arab State verbally attacked Israel because they are not happy about much of Syria's behavior in Lebanon, Iraq or its relationship with Iran... This is EXACTLY the time for Israel and the pro-western Arab states to find some things to agree on that would help stablize the region...and contain Iran, but a viable Palestinian state is at the heart of it.

Rick and Adil, like any political solution ...no one gets everthing they want...there still could be a 2 state solution...but that window of opportunity is getting smaller, the longer time goes by...Hezbollah is more concerned about having power in Beirut not Jerusalem...The US is not viewed as an objective honest broker, it needs to step back. The Arabs States did not join Hezbollah summer of 06 in Hezbollah/Lebanon conflict, The Israelis saw defeat... in a post Saddam Middle East, Iran has become a superpower...everyone knows this is a different ME....look at just what happened this week, Israel just violated Syrian airspace, no Arab State verbally attacked Israel because they are not happy about much of Syria's behavior in Lebanon, Iraq or its relationship with Iran... This is EXACTLY the time for Israel and the pro-western Arab states to find some things to agree on that would help stablize the region...and contain Iran, but a viable Palestinian is at the heart of it.

And Shirley, when we are attacked, we'll have no military to protect us because they will still be in Iraq and Afganistan. Then what will the "Decider" do?

I'd like to draw attention to J. Demolay's post above:

Petraus and C. were not testifying about U.S. Foreign Policy - only about military operations inside Iraq.

As for the rest of this debate - one should remember that the best response to an outsider's agression or manipulation is strength and independence at home... mostly this starts with a democratic system which authentically includes the voice of the people who thereby become stake-holders in the state. As long as people feel they have no control over their present world, they will look to the 'next' world - regardless of what their religious version of it is.

For the question of the Arab states - why pretend that any of the regimes are hapless victims of American or British lust for oil? They have profited mightily from this exploitation, and criminally betrayed their own people.

What would they contribute toward a humanitarian solution? Probably not much other than trying to strengthen their own morally corrupt regimes by garnering more power over the only instrument they have: oil money.

Avicenna said:
most people "kicked out" of their homes are no longer alive. Their corpses and skeletons can be buried in the Jewish state, I suppose. But their descendants can only yammer on about the corpse of a claim to a "right of return" - to homes in which they have never set foot - as a lynchpin to resolving Middle East conflicts, for so many years.

thank you for your admission

Lisa
i am in no way advocating war or the staus-quo, and i am not accepting self defeat. to clarify let say. it is a part of the isreali consitution that you are welcomed to come to isreal and be granted citizenship automatically just for being a jew, or from a jewish parents. people that have never set foot nor their parents in the middle east..such people from ex soviet union. now. we have thousdands even close to 4 million palistenians acroos the middle east who are a burden on the host country with much more history to the land of what is now isreal being denied the right to return to their parents homes. whether they are chrisitans or muslims. if you cant host them back which isreal cant. compensate them!!!!! but do not say they are out of luck. if that phrase could work it would have worked 49 years ago!

Mr. Kuttab,
As Arab governments begin to represent their people, instead of murderous thugs, we will see more & more Arabs "having their say about their future".

The Iraqi people have now been given a pretty large say, thanks to the sacrifice of US & coalition soldiers. They have voted in elections & formed their own government. Now even the Sunni insurgents support the US & coalition in hunting down Al-Queda.

With the US, France & others' help, the Lebanese are trying to have a say. They are standing up to the Syrian assassin & the terrorist Hamas, armed by the Syrian dictator & the brutal theocracy of Iran.

Libyans are closer to having their say, thanks again to the hard work of US & the West. Their government has put away their WMD's & are on the road to normalization w/ the West. Turkey, has its say. It has been a strong ally of the US over the years, & wishes to join the EU.

In Iran where the US is popular w/ the young, the overthrow of the evil regime is just a matter of time. Their say will be closer alliance w the US.

Sadly, those anti-American Arabs,who cheered 911, who never criticized Sadaam, never spoke up against jihadi terrorists, nor consider a compromise w/ Israel, will be left in squalor with only the voice of losers like Arafat or Hamas. (See Gaza)

What about you?

Um, last time I checked people in Arab countries didn't pay US taxes, so ... don't care.

Bring the troops home and stop whining about the fact you have to solve your OWN problems.

It seems pretty obvious to me that Syria, Jordan and the Saudis would be afraid that they couldn't control their own troops if they went into Anbar. They would either desert to return home, join Al Qaeda in Iraq, or, worse yet from the perspective of these governments, join Al Qaeda and then return home. As for Israel, I think they are going to have to learn the hard way what their intransigence at the negotiation table in the 1990s has earned them. We are not obligated to keep protecting Israel unless they are willing to make some hard choices about water rights and the return of territory. Why should we? When the UN partitioned Palestine in 1947, it was not so that Israel's share of the territory could be used as a stepping-stone to seize all of historical Palestine. That's a war of choice, not necessity. If you accept that it was necessary to provide a refuge for the survivors of the Holocaust, it does not follow that it is necessary to support the entire Zionist agenda that began well before the Holocaust. That's what the Arabs tried to warn the UN about in 1947; that if you partition Palestine, the Zionist elements in Israel would try to take over the whole country. Well, look at what has happened since. Israel is there and most of the world accepts that as long as they return the bulk of the West Bank and Golan territory and agree to share Jerusalem.

Suraj,

You're awesome. A wonderful and - for this conversational thread - exceptionally commonsensical comment.

Thank you.

Mr. Kuttab; simple answer to your question, "what about us" to decide the fate of Iraq in relation to continued US occupation and desctruction of Iraq. The answer is when Arabs will produce either leaders like Mahatma Gandhi (India, who defeated the mighty British empire without firing a single shot , and ended that period of western occupation of India) or Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam who fought and won against both French and US oocupation of Vietnam/S. Vietnam respectively by waging an incredibly effective and robust guerrilla warfare), then the western powers will listen to Arabs and negotiate end of oocupation in Iraq and Palestine. If the Arabs can only produce suicide bombers on one extreme, and ass-kissers like King of Jordan to Mubarak of Egypt, on the other, they will be treated with contempt and aggression by the wetsern powers. Neither Gandhi or Ho Chi Minh had even the advantage of the power of oil, which can be used along with a pouplar movement of Arabs across mideast to end western domination and aggression within a deacde if guided by a visionary and courageous Arab leader.

What role can you play? Speak out against daily incidents of terror and terror plots by Muslims. If Muslims were not intent on killing each other in Iraq, USA would have been long gone from there.

And how come Muslims have 55 nations based on their religion? Isn't that shameful?

How come your prophet's birthplace (Saudi Arabia) is the most intolerant nation on earth?

"Maybe that’s because little effort was made before the invasion of Iraq, or in the time since, to ask what others have to say about illegal U.S. action in the Middle East."

well, gee, I wonder why.

Lisa,

The only possible two-state solution is a return to the original 1947 UN partition borders. It is unlikely that Israel will accept this, and it also is probably unacceptable to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Failing that, the one-state solution will be the default result, and there won't be any Jews in it.

The whole world will never see peace as long as the crime of the 20th century is not handled adequately.The legitimate state of Palestine was removed from the world map to be replaced by the illegitimate state of Israel with new immigrants from all over the world.Palestinians,being moslems or christians,were kicked out into refugee camps to be replaced by jews from Europe,Russia,Ethiopi,Poland etc.
Repercussions of this heinous crime are behind all turmoil and bloodshed in the Middle East including Iraq,Lebanon,Palestinian occupied territories,Syria,Iran etc.
The unlimited support of US to Israel has been encouraging the latter to reject all UN resolutions on the Palestinian Issue including Resolution 194 which calls for the return of all Palestinian refugees home.It is time for the US admin to wake up to the real cause of all problems in the area and to resolve this chronic issue in a fair way to all concerned parties immediately.The return of all refugees to their homes and belongings is the main key to to this chronic issue and anybody imagining a solution without respecting the right of return is only dreaming.

'the failure Mecca brokered agreement between Hamas/Fatah should have seen more applause and more support from the West and other Arab states,"

woops meant the failure was NOT the SA King's fault, the deal should have received more support...in any event, I just want to see in my remaining lifetime, to attend Christmas Eve Mass in Bethlehem without seeing Israeli soldiers stationed around or have to worry about roving gangs of Palestinian thugs preying on anyone...
But Bush calling an International Middle East Summit is not going to make that happen...responsible Arab, Israeli, Turkey and Iranian leadership working in their own best interest and together could!

Is there any reason why US has the right to invade Iraq, or Iran, or anywhere else? Any reason why one country has the right to occupy another?

Is there any reason why Israel should have the right to nuclear weapons and Iran should not?

Is there any reason why the Shias and the Sunnis cannot make peace with each other? Why the Turks and the Kurds cannot solve their mutual problems?

Is there any reason why money should be allowed to destroy the world?

Is there any reason why children should be allowed to die of malnutrition and disease and young people should have their arms and legs shot off? Their brains fried?

Adil ...I assume you reject a 2 state solution to ending the Palestinian/Israel conflict and see only a one state solution as viable, a position which btw, won't move Palestine statehold forward...so if the refugee problem is a burning issue with you - you should consider that (nor do I need any lectures from you, I worked for many years in Palestinian refugee camps and with uprooted Christian Palestinains here in the US) but let's look around the region, Lebanon, Gaza West Bank, Iraq...it's only Arab blood being shed...that's acceptable to you? what do you see as the remedy? The continuing as we are can only lead to more chaos so that more extremists can take hold of Arab youth?...more interference from the West? or Iran stomping around running the region? Possibly a regional war?

I think the Saudi King is proving to be very wise, the failure Mecca brokered agreement between Hamas/Fatah should have seen more applause and more support from the West and other Arab states, and the Emir of Qatar is proving to be force not just in the region but globally...I think a positive one.

Somebody, George Herbert Walker or Barbara Bush or Laura Bush should tell Dubya to act like a man not a mouse. Bush must be his own spokeman for why Iraq is a mess, a debacle, and admit he made a grievous catastrophic mistake. Bush made Iran more powerful than it ever was because Saddam effectively put Iran in check for years. Now Bush/Cheney and the pro-war cabal are whining that Iran is influencing Iraq. DUH! Either it was intentional or the cabal is stupid. Gen. Petraeus is a soldier not some policy wonk. Bush is using him as a mouthpiece. Bush should be ashamed and if he has any honor, he should resign.

Adil, most people "kicked out" of their homes are no longer alive. Their corpses and skeletons can be buried in the Jewish state, I suppose. But their descendants can only yammer on about the corpse of a claim to a "right of return" - to homes in which they have never set foot - as a lynchpin to resolving Middle East conflicts, for so many years. The Arab countries will have to do more - regardless of whether or not their perceived impotence or corruption becomes a kind of martyrdom in and of itself for people such as you. It is possible to overcome such a self-destructive mindset. See Jordan - an Arab country whose peace with Israel came neither at the expense of its own interests, Israel's, or those of the Palestinians who make up its majority population - for details.

Mr. Kuttab:

I appreciate your views. We as Americans seem to take it for granted that we have a right to determine world or Middle Eastern politics, and our interference (military or political) is not open to question or discussion. Imagine a world in which Middle Eastern leaders (and citizens) all talked about what they should do next about Nebraska (my home state), or why Canada is a threat to their troops stationed in Chicago. I'm not sure we're capable of that type of empathy.

Listen to Lisa.
It is not the best thing, but it would be something. The Us screwed a lot of this up, but the region wants to control the region, then listen to Lisa.

The arab world has been adversarial for the most part since before the invasion began. Their and your view that the war was "illegal" is not aligned with US policy makers. It was US policy makers that authorized force in the first place when when the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq." There has been no support from the Arab world for security of, and little help has been provided to rebuild Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Furthermore, the countries mentioned that we should consult with, Syria and Iran have done nothing to shore up their borders to prevent foreign fighters from entering Iraq, and Iran is effectively at war with the US in Iraq by proxy. Redardless of the reasons that the US is in Iraq right now, it is in the best interests of the countries of the Middle East to see that Iraq becomes a peaceful nation, but they have done nothing towards that end. No why on earth would you expect US policy makers to approach those who have gone from thumbing their noses at them to undermining their efforts. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Try behaving in a cooperative fashion, then you'll see results.

i somewhat prefer the araba states do not get involved.. what states? they have not been voted for, they are weak regims empowered by the US to protect and serve it's intereset. which is a miscalculation, remember you CAN break the regime but you CAN NOT break the people. and that's why Iraq is such a blunder. i just hope if there is any good thing that come out of this adventure is the fall out of the rest of Arab regimes.

Why allow Bush to convene an International Middle east summit...I hope no one goes! The the King of Saudi Arabia should calls one or the Emir of Qatar...invite the Quartet, Israel Turkey Iran, other Arab states ...LEAD! The US is not leading, can't lead the region now...what's the US going to do threaten SA with not selling arms package? that is just a bluff...so threaten to buy it elsewhere!... there is some urgency here for the Arab states to assert themselves...the US clearly does not know what to do...

This is a ridiculous compaint. Petraeus and Crocker cannot and do not set US policy in the Middle East. As for making commments "meant to support the Bush Administration’s anti-Iranian and anti-Syrian rhetoric", Lieberman tried to get Petraeus to ask for the authority to use force against Iran, and Petraeus backed away from him like he was radioactive.

Your questions are not unanswered, they are misdirected. If you want to know about a strategy beyond Iraq's borders, ask Cheney or Rice. Do you really thing Petraeus and Crocker have any more luck with them than you?

Of course we need Arab states to step up to the plate and the U.S. has failed miserably in showing the leadership necessary to make this happen. Instead, the US chose a military "solution" which shows aggression and anything but the will to talk. While I do not support Iran and their ossified government,you cannot blame them for their posturing given the fact that the most powerful military in human history is parked in their back yard.

Iraq was a "stable" country before we made it unstable. Saddam was no threat to us. The neo-cinic spin makes it seem that way though. How many reason are there now for invading that country, I lost track after the 10th one. I would like to see the president put in place for his terrible blunder, and watch him squeal on TV. It's going to be funny watching him try to "sell" more time so he can just leave the whole mess to the next person. Imagine, bring the troops home, no more involvement in the middle east, and now he'd have to explain how he's going to pay for this fiasco. oops, he's have to cut spending drastically, most likely civil services, and raise taxes. Our infrastructure is falling apart, yet he's spent everything over there. Maybe his friends would face war profiteering charges and we'd get some of it back. Don't hold your breath on it though. If you read the famous "Berkowitz pre-emptive strike" memo bush got in late 2000 or early 2001, you'd read that it say that,"you would need a didaster similar to Pearl Harbor" to get your war, the conspiracy theorists aren't that wacky. Any other President would've gone full force after bin laden with the whole world behind us. Now we're disliked by most of the world and it's going to take a lot time to reconcile wth them. If Congress doesn't step up and stop thsis now, I don't see anyone getting re-elected, except the neo-conists maybe, by their own.

Petraeus "forgot about the Arabs?" That's no surprise, because, in the end, it really IS about controlling the oil.

Lisa
how very sensitive of you. sitting at your desk and telling people to drop the right of return to their homes that they ahve been kicked out from. so you want peace at the expense of others , mostly weak ..less fortunate people, let me just tell you the bad news...not going to happen.

America has is and always will be an arrogant imperialistic country. We don't give a darn about anybody but ourselves and israel and the rest of the world be damned. As we look to the EU and the attempt by chavez to unit latin america ina n EU type government,we are going to be left standing alone and thereby in more danger of being attacked than ever before

"if you could have one concession from neo-cons, not the whole shebang world view and policy, but one thing, what would it be??"

Be HONEST...which they are not as an indeological movement...

Let's bring the soldiers back home. We lost the war, we have to accept it and move on.

How much money the US goverment invested already in the Iraq war? Billions. How much money are we going to spent in this foolish war? How may lives are we going to lost?

Thank you, Lisa!!! "Unless the Arab countries step up to to the plate" Real regional responsibility can lead to stability and an end to "victimology" can lead to authentic internal confrontation to Arab problems and real development of political and economic and even cultural (universities, publishing, films, free press)infrastructure) May you have more bad moods. Thanks again, so I'll offer you - if you could have one concession from neo-cons, not the whole shebang world view and policy, but one thing, what would it be??

"the rest of the Arab world, and indeed the rest of the world – what role will we play?"

These hearings have put me in a bad mood. Quit whinning!...it's bad enough the U.S. is behaving in such a limited and irresponsible way.. it won't be an outcome that Arab countries or me for that matter find acceptable unless the Arab countries step up to to the plate and take responsiblity for the entire region....which includes:recognize the State of Israel, drop the return refugee demand for a return of most of the land pre 1967 War, make serious movement toward settling Lebanon and Palestinian internal conflicts, work has a region to impede Al Qaeda franchises, perhaps Saudi Arabia should take on the protective role of administering the Muslim Holy sites in East Jerusalem??? and let the many Arab Christians that have needed to flee for their lives back to live and thrive and compensate them for their loss in property...and cut some deal with Iran in regard to stabilizing Iraq...a stable Iraq is as important for Arab countries in the region as it is for the U.S and even Iran...

A message to the Religious Extremist and World Class Hypocrite in the White House:

Yes, yesterday was 9/11, a vivid reminder that we are at war with radical Islam.

And if we were not illegally and immorally occupying Palestine and Iraq, slaughtering millions of innocents (mostly women and children), and driving millions of families into refugee camps; then we would have the moral high ground in this battle; not Osama bin Laden.

wht should the US consult any Arab country.. or any member of the international community for that matter, their concerns and suggestions were brushed aside then and will be brushed aside now. i for one do not foresee any good solution to disaster, either a long term stay in Iraq or quick withrawal followed by regional choas.

Sadly, there is no policy regarding Iraq, the Palestinian condition, nor the Middle East as a whole. Our whole political class is stumbling along, hoping that our 'power' will let us skip over the problems. Once in a while, there is someone who is brave/honest (I am not sure which) to express the idea that there are limits to our power. But that is a fleeting moment, and only the voice of one shouting in the wilderness.

Thank you for your correct observation. As Rumsfeld uttered: America is not in the business of nation building. This is all an aimless exercise and even General Pet has not come up with any political solutions as a suggestion to his bosses.

As for regional governments, well.....the original plan of bringing democracy to the region has not worked out!

Many agree that there was about 1000 things that could go wrong with Iraq, and only a handful of solutions that might work. What we didn't know is that America is trying to run thru the first 1000 things before it gets it right.....perhaps in my lifetime!

"The U.S. Congress was far too polite in questioning General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker during their long-awaited Iraq report."

Agree. Hagel got to it this morning...that is the clip that should get be played over and over to the American people. His questions are the questions that need answered. His concerns are the concerns that need to be addressed.