More than 1,500 brave Americans have lost their lives in Iraq. Roughly ninety percent of these deaths have occurred since George W. Bush gave his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech. Declaring that major combat operations have ceased doesn't make it so, particularly when the enemy doesn't cooperate.

This grim milestone, reached Thursday, comes on the heels of some good news. The enemy killed just fifty-eight Americans in February, the lowest death toll in six months. While the American casualty count decreased, terrorists inside Iraq may have actually increased the number of Iraqis they killed, as the horrific car-bombing in Hillah anecdotally suggests. By shifting emphasis from killing U.S. servicemen to killing the locals, the terrorists have abandoned any pretense of "liberating" Iraq from the Americans. The insurgents and terrorists want power, and whether it's Americans ruling Iraq or Iraqis ruling Iraq the governing power should expect more blood.

Yes, the Iraqi insurgents have learned that, should they try to engage the US in a pyrhhian war, they will ultimately fail. They are increasingly shifting towards murdering innocent Iraqis in an attempt to intimidate them into going back to dictatorship. It is clearly a desperate tactic doomed to failure.

Are you suggesting we provoked a civil war? Impossible, we gave them freedom and democracy!

No. Im suggesting there is a small, desperate part of the Iraqi population, made up mostly of former Republican Guard members, that are desperately attacking innocent Iraqis in an attempt to return their Baathist government to power. As an effective military insurgency, they are a total joke. Their chances of success are slim to none.

I couldn't agree with Ben-T anymore on this subject. The insurgents are basically trying to illegitamize the new Iraq by attacking innocent Iraq's who are struggling to make way in a new democracy. This is a sign of desperation on the part of the insurgents who know they're losing this battle to freedom. Freedom will trump those who are against it. Ultimately, tyranny will not prevail as the winds of change have blown in the Middle East in the recent weeks signaling a new direction toward freedom and democracy.

We must not lose sight of the fact that we (being America) have a solemn duty to make sure that Iraq gets two feet on the ground and begins to grow as new democracy within the Middle East. Once this is accomplished we should pull out as many troops as needed. Those who have died in fighting the cause of freedom are in my prayers as they rest in peace. They have giving their lives to a cause that was essentially flawed considering the premise in the first place to invade Iraq although in the great scheme of things the cause of freedom and the end of tyranny is a far more simplistic and greater cause worth fighting for.

I agree with Ben-T!! In the short run, the insurgents' attack on the Iraqi people will not be successful.

But... in the long run, no internal Iraqi government could possible suffer these attacks without collasping. To avoid collapse, they would have to stop such attacks. And no Iraqi government could stop these attacks without becoming tyrannical. So in the long run, the insurgents have a good shot of being successful.

The fact that they are "desperate" doesn't mean that they don't have a way of winning in the long run (however ignoble). As the history of Israel shows, when dealing with a major power with greater concern for human life, penny-anny terrorists can get results.

www.911wasalie.com How's this for "freedom" and democracy. Watch the little pentagon clip. It was not a 757 that hit the pentagon. Why don't you people ever speak of these things considering that politics now surround themselves rgarding 911, completely?

There was a great piece in the WSJ last week explaining what’s been going on with regard to our troops training Iraqi soldiers. After reading it, it was clear that if they were to ever be able to stand on their own, they would need a major psychological and cultural overhaul. They seem to have a long way to go.

No wonder they’ve gotten their A’s kicked in battle. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, the terrorist groups have more resolve than the Iraqi Army in training seems to.

Hate to say it, but I can’t see that country going anywhere but backwards. In the meantime, our boys die while we baby sit.

"www.911wasalie.com How's this for "freedom" and democracy. Watch the little pentagon clip. It was not a 757 that hit the pentagon. Why don't you people ever speak of these things considering that politics now surround themselves rgarding 911, completely?"

Ok... Let me put into clearer terms for you... Pessimism will get you nowhere fast. I understand the conspiracy theorists out there who believe this whole 9/11 thing was set-up AND maybe so? Do you really think we will ever know the truth? Probably not in our lifetime...I may sound pessimistic about what really happened? Why? Because it is not realistic that we will ever find out SO in turning our attention to the good of what has been done in Iraq. No one ever said this was gonna be easy. The idea of elections in Iraq is a sign of hope posing as a beacon of freedom for those of us who view this as a sign of optimism.

So should we pullout and say its not worth it? We invaded Iraq and created this problem and now we are forced to deal with it. Maybe we should tell Iran that it is okay to develop nuclear means and tell Syria that they can do what they want with Lebanon and better yet tell Israel that they're on their own... That would be pessimistic, fruitless, and a sign of our will being broken. Never.

The winds of change are prevalent throughout the Middle East although we went their on a misguided notion. We must see it through and perhaps maybe we will witness a new coming of age. It is simple why 911 is used because its embedded into our minds as to what can happen? Maybe the conspiracy is true? However... there is evidence to the contrary of your beliefs and we know we're just as vulnerable as anyone else. 911 shouldn't be used as a political weapon yet it is referred to because tyrrants don't like FREEDOM and we do... We are freedom-loving individuals who believe in it because its what we deserve and what those in the Middle East deserve. I guess maybe we should put Saddam back in power, huh?

So, how long do we stay? Long enough for many of the primitives in that country to come around to our way of thinking so that they are able to handle things on their own?

These are people who have known very little freedom and have been oppressed under one regime or another for centuries. As a result, they have not developed the skills it takes or have the control necessary to oppose terrorism and defend themselves.

For the most part, they are unable to understand how to handle terrorism and aggression where Americans have been brought up fighting those representative ememies since the beginning of our short history.

We are looking at another Viet Nam here. This is a no win for us and we can't wait for the Iraqi people to come around.

To Trutj. You post that 9/11 was a lie in every single thread. Yes we all know you think 9/11 was a lie. As yet you have produced no conclusive evidence whatsoever to support this assertion.

To Brigid,

Your views on how to fight terror seem to be extremely flawedx. There is absolutely no reason that a well trained, well equipped Iraqi National Guard, backed by popular support from the Iraqi people, and strengthened by a friendship with the United States, could not put and end to the Iraqi insurgency. Guerilla armies that find no successes fall apart. The Iraqi Insurgents are accomplishing nothing. They dont have long before they begin to fall apart.

"We are looking at another Viet Nam here. This is a no win for us and we can't wait for the Iraqi people to come around."

I agree with you that Iraqis don't have the skills necessary to grasp this new freedom they have received however I disagree with you on this being a no win situation for us. We lose only IF and I emphasize IF rather strongly here that IF the insurgents win this battle by creating hysteria within the Iraqi government then we may be doomed BUT this not to be. We have elected Iraqi officials who are creating a new constitutional framework that Iraq will follow for many, many years to come.

Also.. It may take some more time in getting the new Iraqi army and police up to the task of carrying out objectives on their own without us shouldering the load yet this doesn't mean its a no win. This only means that it takes more hard work and sacrifice... We will be out of there eventually and will not have the effect on this country like Vietnam. It is a win situation because we have brought democracy to a country once ruled by tyrrany... this alone is a HUGE win for us and them. It is symbolic... and carries weight considering how the winds of change have been increasing throughout the Middle East. I believe we are moving in the right direction as long as we don't get involved in other military conflicts then we shall be fine.

Let freedom reign...

"There is absolutely no reason that a well trained, well equipped Iraqi National Guard, backed by popular support from the Iraqi people, and strengthened by a friendship with the United States, could not put and end to the Iraqi insurgency."

Ben-T is correct here and again I use a part of his posting to validate my belief that building democracy in Iraq is a win for the Iraqis and the United States.

It matters not that the handful of newly elected officials are educated, dedicated and determined to govern the new Iraq democratically. They still need the support of the people and the people may have the best intentions but will likely buckle under the pressure of insurgency.

Hell, their fledgling newly democratized military is already wobbly and they have weapons!

As I mentioned earlier, the average Iraqi on the street is not yet psychologically or culturally ready to take care of himself with regards to handling the insurgency and it will require many more moons of U.S. help until they come up to speed.

So, how much of a commitment do we make? What if they’re not ready for another two years? Could happen.

Meantime, the number rises. Sounds noble to say that that’s ok, but in reality, it isn’t.

"Truth",

Was the holocaust a lie?

How about the Rwandan genocide?

How about France, should we kiss up to them, even though they aided the genocide in Rwanda?

Should we all kiss Kofi Annan's feet and tell him "job well done"?

But America is evil though right?

How about giving a good argument instead of your normal dribble....."drr drr drr...George W. Bush is a dumb Texan and all he cares about is oil...on yeah...did I say he's dumb...drr drr drr."

Ben-T,

"Guerilla armies that find no successes fall apart."

Can you come up with any historical examples that support this claim?

I should have added what "no success" means as well.

Tell that to Ho and Castro.

Around the time of the fall of Greece as the mightiest nation on Earth, Greece possessed fifty colonies in the nation that is now Italy. The was also the time the Romans were rising up, and Rome had now become the most powerful city-state in Italy, determined to take control over the entire region. But, of course, the fifty Greek colonies were in the way.

In what would seem like a foolish move, the Romans attacked the Greek colonies, and in response the Greek king Pyrrhus sent a mighty army to stop them. At each battle the Romans fought fiercely, killing many Greeeks, but at each battle the Greeks were victorious. However, after a time, it became readily apparent that while the Romans were still ready to fight, the Greeks no longer had enough men to throw into the meatgrinder of war. Pyrrhus retracted his army and Rome took over Italy, adopting the Greek culture and eventually beoming the mightiest empire the world had ever known.

This is known as a PYRHIAAN war. It is a conflict where the inferior force wins by convincing it's superior enemy that it is no longer worth it to carry on. The American Revolution was a Pyrhiaan War. The Vietnam war was a phyriaan war. Anytime a guerilla army is fighting, it has little choice but to use these kinds of Pyrhiaan tactics. Another more modern term might be called G4W, or Generation Four Warfare.

It seems clear to me that the Iraqi insurgency, having realized they are not finding successes in taking on the United States in a G4 war, are now instead falling back to their old roots of simple terrorism, hoping that if they kill enough Iraqi civilians, they can scare the Iraqis into accepting tyranny. This seems to me to be once again a foolish plan on the part o f the Insurgency.

Ben-T,

Was that all a quote? Didn't saound like you.

Anyway, you have undermined your original contention by providing examples of just the opposite occurring with your Pyrrhian war example. You stated that Guerrilla armies that find no success fall apart . . . I don't know how you can claim that the Iraqi insurgents are finding no success or even that guerilla armies simply "fall apart." Then you provided historical examples (interesting ones but also pre-modern) which demonstrate the efficacy of guerilla warfare. Where does your optimism and your self-assured proclamations regarding the Iraqi situation then come from?

I don't see the locgical connection.

No that wasn't quoted that was my writing.

How are the Iraqi insurgents FINDING successes? They havent come even close to convincing the US to pull out. The Iraqi elections are proof positive they have been total failures at winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and their attacks on civilians as of late are painting them ever more as murderers and warlords instead of brave nationalistic Iraqi fighters.

So they arent succeeding in convincing the US to pull out.
They arent succeeding in winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

So what are they succeeding in doing? You cant simply fight a losing war forever.

Oh forgot to put this in the first quote.

Guerilla warfare is an effective tactic. The Iraqi Insurgency is NOT an effective guerilla resistance.

I believe that Ben-T's view is rather optimistic and if I may add that I agree the insurgents have struggled throughout the duration and thus have had no luck in derailing this new found freedom. The liberation of Iraq was an injection of freedom that has spread throughout therefore taking grip in leading to the recent democratic elections.

I am not a big fan of Pres. Bush yet I will say that in the long run there is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam being removed from power and captured is far better than him staying in power. It most certainly helps the Middle East as a whole although he hasn't being connected to Al-Qaida and necessarily wasn't an immediate threat as some declared(No WMD's). This though has provided the winds of freedom to blow within the Middle East.

The insurgents effect has been troublesome however alot of good has been accomplished and the optimism is warranted... We shall however stay vigilant in the fact that we hold a responsibility in fostering along a new Iraqi government until they have the need to self-govern.

I dont hold my view for reasons of pure idealism.

A democratic Middle East is the best way to isolate and pressure our biggest enemy. Iran. The Bush Doctrine is the application of the Truman doctrine to Iran, albeit obviously evolved for the modern day and the different war we are fighting.

Examples? Take a look at the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Hamas and Islamic Jihad haven't collapsed, but they've been rendered unable to attack. Their leadership was decimated, they were physically prevented from carrying out attacks, Israel ground down the Palestinian terrorists down to the point today where with their lack of success the Palestinian populace is more willing to work with the pen than the gun.

What if it takes two more years. Need we be reminded what happened on November 2? We have 4 more years at the least, not 2. The chance that the Democrats will retake Congress doesn't exist. Even if they did, they wouldn't have the majorities necessary to override a Presidential veto.

And even if they did again, the Republicans would pay them back in full for their obstructionist tactics by employing them themselves and paralyzing any anti-war initiatives the Dems try to get put into law.

I think it's a stretch to call Iraq a democracy. The time it takes to walk to the polls and vote is less than the time it takes to prepare a picnic. Democracy -- if it's to be durable -- requires a set of institutions and norms and cultural values that Iraq does not yet possess. So far the insurgency looks more like the "incipient civil war," that Brent Scowcroft warned us about.

I don't think our founding fathers wanted Americans to die for democracy in foreign lands when they didn't even believe in democracy themselves. However, the modern "conservative" movement is just making up its ideas as it goes.

I don't think what you think the the founding fathers would have thought is relevant here.

Nor do I think we could possibly know what the founding fathers, who lived in the late eighteenth century, would have to say about modern U.S foreign policy.

You don't have to look immediately back to the founding fathers for every decision you make like they are autocrats or dieties. We are functioning adult human beings here, we are capable of making our own decisions.

I guess this is the new "conservative" approach to policy: ignore the Founding Fathers if their ideas get in the way of Bush worship.

Ignore them? Hardly. However nor are we bound to the puerile, cult-like worship of the founding fathers that marks many Paleocons. The Constitution can be amended. As human beings we are capable of doing things differently then the founding fathers did. Should we respect and revere the founding fathers for what they did? Yes. Should we preserve and uphold the constitution? Yes. That doenst mean that in over two hundred years of history we cannot grow or change as a nation. World events preticipate change, and anybody who always stays the same will be left behind. To suggest that the American people should never grow or evolve past the original way we did things is not only one of the most shockingly impracticle suggestions one could make, it is belittling to the contributions of many great Americans in our history.

I guess that is what you would call conservatism then, ignore the ideas of anyone, no matter how good those ideas are, if they contradict with the exact text originally set down by the founding fathers? Refuse to evolve and you will die off. And paleocons wonder why they find themselves in the minority?

This is a good quote that is the basis of why we shouldn’t be disillusioned about the installation of a democratic style government in Iraq: “Democracy -- if it's to be durable -- requires a set of institutions and norms and cultural values that Iraq does not yet possess.” – EW.

And, it might be some time before they do develop a society and political philosophy that enables them to be capable of handling our interpretation of Democracy.

If all of the insurgents went away for good tomorrow and there was little or no interference, could the Iraqi people adapt enough socially, culturally and politically to maintain a political concept that is completely foreign to them? And, if so, how long would it take?

So, again, how long do we continue to maintain military presence in Iraq? Could be a very long time before the Iraqi people come around and are able to grasp an ideology and stand on their own.

It's not a matter of exact text, since the Constitution doesn't set our foreign policy but rather the limits of the branches of government. The more serious breach at this point is the constant overreach of the various branches: the Supreme Court's extension of its jurisdiction and the Congress' abuse of 'interstate commerce' are two obvious examples.

In this case I think that Eric isn't appealing to the Constitution so much as the ideals of the founding fathers' policy. The world has changed, but the ideals are still important; the moreso since government has proven (as the founding fathers knew) untrustworthy about keeping within its rightful bounds of Constitutional authority in domestic affairs.

"If all of the insurgents went away for good tomorrow and there was little or no interference, could the Iraqi people adapt enough socially, culturally and politically to maintain a political concept that is completely foreign to them? And, if so, how long would it take?

So, again, how long do we continue to maintain military presence in Iraq? Could be a very long time before the Iraqi people come around and are able to grasp an ideology and stand on their own."

We must remain hopeful and optimistic NOT pessimistic and accusing those who are of being Bush worshippers. I am far from a Bush supporter however give the man some credit... He got rid of a tyrrant and delivered a sense of freedom to a country and a region that hasn't felt it for a long time. Sure... a new democracy is going to need a developed set of institutions, norms, and cultural values yet we shall not cave into the views of pessimistic poison. Iraq has a framework to follow and obligation to its people... and now we here that they're moving forward in getting the new Parliament up and running.

Let the winds of freedom continue to blow... let bygones be bygones...

The presence of our military is there until the Iraq is able to control its own destiny. Remember.. We invaded and began this war.. We must complete the finish and NOT cut and run like cowards.

So wanting to get a Congressional declaration of war before we commit troops to Iraq in what could become a generational war is cult-like worship of the Founding Fathers? While we're at it why don't we do away with criticism of President Bush since that falls under the 18th century anachronistic belief in free speech?

oM response to questions asked about Iraqs ability to form their own democracy.

Iraqis are a very different people from America. The Iraqi democracy will find its roots in Islam, not in Judeo-Christianity. That will be in my opinion the main large difference. However the fact that Islam will form the basis for Iraqi democracy does not mean Iraqi will be unable to respect human rights/represent the will of the people, et cetera.

Assuming the insurgency were to disappear, I would say we should keep a military presence in Iraq, gradually lessening it over time, until we were sure Iraqi democracy was a strong system that was going to last. Then it would be time to leave.

Keeping a military presence in Iraq for an indefinite period of time or as long as is takes to maintain stability in that country is a noble undertaking but not a practical one. We should have a definitive withdrawal date and in the meantime work to get the Iraqis up to speed with regard to taking care of themselves.

There has to be a plan. Anything else and it’s an open checkbook for the Iraqi people to continue a dependence on our military and financial support.

Now that our military has secured the threat of Saddam, our work there is predominantly complete. Unless our government decides that they will engage in a sliding policy on Iraq. In which case, many more of our boys will die.

With the original mission in Iraq complete, the best way for us to use our troops would be to stationed them on the Mexican and Canadian Borders and keep the bad guys out.

I think as Iraqi's progress ever closer to being able to self-govern themselves then we should gradually pullout troops yet not entirely all troops.

We must for the security of their government have some presence there. We shouldn't be setting artificial timetables as suggested. This will only provide fodder for the insurgency. The Iraqi's do not want us there in their backyard for the long haul therefore any dependence on our presence is minimal if any. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and misguided. We must finish what we started... a gradual pullout of troops is fine once more stability is present within the sovereign nation of Iraq. We should even consider a set of milestones to be achieved and in return a set of number of troops pulled out as each milestone is reached however this shouldn't be viewed as a timetable rather a set of goals needed to ensure that the Iraqi's can handle their own.

The myth that the United States military is overstretched by Iraq is one of the single greatest lies of this whole undertaking.

The United States routinely rotates troops totalling a number of 300,000 in and out of Iraq, while still comfortably keeping non-combat orientated troops all over the US and the world itself.

Obviously as the Insurgency dies down, the US trains the Iraqi National Guard to take its place (we can already see from the elite, European trained Shiite commando forces that the Iraqis are capable of making strong, disciplined military units.) and Iraq returns to normalcy troops will be continuously leaving the country and the amount of forces will go down. We have created a strong basis for a democratic system in Iraq, we are beginning to see the progression of the Iraqi National Guard from a token force to a real military, and every day our Insurgent enemies grow more desperate.

To suggest a timetable ending for any war, not just this one, is a fool's way of fighting,not a general's.

Who wants Islamic democracy? I believe it was Samuel Huntington in his book The Clash of Civilizations that said, "Aspiring politicians in the Muslim world don't win elections by demonstrating how friendly they are to the West." The "Arab street" is much more radical and fundamentalist than their secular rulers, so the spread of an Islamic democracy would allow this radicalism, this fundamentalism, to bubble to the top. Under the ruling family of Saudi Arabia Osama bin Laden is an exile, however under a democratic Saudi Arabia Osama could be a leading politician. It was anti-democratic Saudi Arabia that let us use their country and it was democratic Turkey that told us to take a hike. America's interests -- security and economic -- will not be promoted by a burgeoning Muslim democracy. During the Cold War the United States intervened in the Arab world -- in Iran in 1953 and Algeria in 1954 -- to suppress democratic tendencies.

The current blather about democracy really isn't even half sincere. It's common for war Presients to cast the conflict in terms of a cosmic struggle -- Liberty vs Tyranny. In this case it's just a grand rationalization for not uncovering any WMD in Iraq.

If democracy does take root in the Arab world, then Americans should start to worry.

Eric has clearly shown us all that he is off his rocker, at lest on this issue.

Somehow Eric, you have managed to convince yourself, that a Middle East absent of corrupt governments that oppress their people, a middle east flourishing with an oil trade that benefits its people through the free market, instead of corrupt government officials, a middle east where the Israeli-Palestinian problem can be solved at the negotiation table instead of the battlefield, and a middle east where the West has forever desposed radical dictators and replaced them with western style democracies that respect human rights and protect a voice for all, will result in a middle east full of angry youths blowing themselves up to kill innocents.

Get over the oversimplified problems of the Middle East portrayed on the mainstream American media. Arabs arent mad because of religion, thats total garbage. Arabs are angry because they are poor and because they have no voice in there own lives.

The Arab people are desperate for a voice. And desperate people will listen to anyone. The Germans were desperate after World War I, so they listened to Hitler. The Russians were desperate in Tsarist Russia, so they allowed themselves to be coaxed by Lenin. Arabns have been desperate throughout their history, so they have been lured in by Islamic Jihadists such as Bin Laden.

Never was there a society where the people were free and the money was free flowing that lashed out against others for no reason. Historically speaking democracies do not fight democracies. It is simply something that will nearly never happen.

Islamic Democracy =/= Iran.

No single race of people are inherently angry and violent, it is a result of their condition.

Eric Im going to give you your key phrase for the day.

GEOPOLITICAL MOTIVATION.

Google it and come back to me with your report.

Ben,

Terrorism in the Muslim world is a response to occupation by foreign powers -- the French, British, and now us. Terrorists are not just drawn from the dregs of society but are often their most educated and refined citizens. Osama bin Laden is a millioniare, Ayman al-Zawihiri is an Egyptian doctor, Khalid Sheik Mohammed studied engineering in the United States, so trying to draw a nexus between corrupt states and terrorism is tenuous at best.

Democracy in the Muslim world isn't going to make things easier for us. What if Iran democratically decides to develop a nuclear weapon and opt out of NNPT? Will Bush support the democratic will of the Iranian people or will he try to thwart it? By demanding that democratic policies are legitimate we box ourselves into a corner that prevents us from challenging policies that might not be in our interests. This is why we shouldn't have a foreign policy that tries to expand an ideology. Our foreign policy should reflect our national interests. What if a democratic government decides to nationalize U.S. oil interests? Do we celebrate it as a triumph of democratic will or covertly fund a coup to overthrow the democratic government and install one that is more amenable to our interests?

The Arab world never really developed nation-states on the scale that arose in Europe and the Americas. Most loyalties are at the tribal level and the problem of minority rights is a perennial source of conflict. It was the rapid demographic growth of Shi'a Arabs that tore asunder Lebanon's democracy and the hegemony of the Maronite Christians. This problem still persists and ending the Syrian occupation isn't going to solve anything.

If we persist in killing Arabs and putting infidels on their sacred soil don't be surprised when there's an insurgency.

The initial response to European colonialism was Nasser's brand of very secular Pan-Arab nationalism. It was a brand of government I hold many issues with,as would any reasonable human being, but it was one vastly superior is the current Islamo-Fascism, and it was one that was leading the Arab world on the fast track to modernization, where proliferation of classicly liberal ideas and democracy would eventually and inevitably take place of their own accord. Islamo-Fascism became the staple for the Arab world, after Nassir's Pan-Arab nationalism had been destroyed by its various wars with Israel. Iranian Islamic militancy took advantage of the momentum generated by the 1979 Islamic revolution to fill the power vacuum that had been left in the wake of Nassir's fall. Learn your history.

Firstly anyone remotely in the know fully understands Iran is not a democracy. Secondly Eric has flipped me a new one. I never realized that to support democracy as a concept, you had to support every decision every democracy ever made. Thank you for enlightening me Eric.

Yes clearly Arabs are incapable of putting aside their tribal differences.

This explains the massive power of the Islamic empire, which while Europe was in the throws of the dark ages, was the mightiest and fastest growing nation on Earth.

This explains the Persian Empire, the greatest superpower of its time period.

This explains the Ottomann Empire, wherein a middle eastern nation, Turkey, created an empire on a scale just as strong as anything offered by Europe. It was only in the declining last days of Ottoman power that the Europeans were able to move into the Middle East and start cutting up the region for themselves.

This explains the VERY PHENOMENON OF PAN-ARAB NATIONALISM. A force that was almost entirely secular in nature, and swept the Middle East under Nassir's banner of ARABISM. They were not united by Islam or by tribe, they were united by the fact that they were Arabs. To this very day the Arab world has never held near the political power they could command during the day's of Nassir's pan-ARAB Nationalism.

There is no question that Arab people are able to coorperate and unite beyond their tribal differences. History is riddled with examples of Arabic coorperation.

Ben,
"Secondly Eric has flipped me a new one. I never realized that to support democracy as a concept, you had to support every decision every democracy ever made. Thank you for enlightening me Eric."

This is the problem. If we say we're for democracy and the end result of Islamic democracy is the development of nuclear weapons, the nationalization of U.S. economic interests do we celebrate it as a triumph of the people or oppose it as a threat to our interests? We should avoid elevating democracy to a political panacea and concern ourselves with nourishing benign regimes -- whether democratic or not.

The Ottomans and Persians are not Arabs. However, within the Arab world you still have the problem of clannish and tribal loyalties hindering the growth of a greater national consciousness. In Iraq the rate of consanguinity is over 60%. Iraq still exists as a tribal society within the artificial framework of the British Empire.

Of course tribal loyalties HINDER the growth of national unity. Nassir's Pan-Arab nationalist movement is proof positive they do not make it impossible.

Sorry, had to post it
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/Jchristensen/POL%20495a/495a%20syllabus.htm

If you were in the military, you would know that "major combat operations" is military terminology. Major combat operations were, indeed, over when President Bush made the statement on the USS Lincoln.