This is a great article about a topic of enormous implications to the US and the world and an example of unintended consequences. I do not believe that there is a way out of Iraq for the US that will in any meaningful way preserve even the existing status quo or advance the interest of the US in the region. I am concerned that we will have to "negotiate" a formal understanding with Iran under duress that will in essence, in exchange for the US leaving Iraq "with honor", the US will agree that (1) most of Iraq will fall under the control of Iran or some puppet Shia regime to be controlled by Iran (2) the US will agree not to interfere with Iran's plans to acquire nuclear weapons (3) the US will agree not to attack Iran openly or secretly undermine the regime (4) the US will not permit Israel to attack Iran and (5) the US will not keep military forces anywhere in the region following withdrawal. If there is any consolation to the US, Iran will agree to use its rather effective police state security apparatus to crush Al-Qaida in Iraq and any other Sunni based insurgency that might be considering an insurgency. As a side comment: what the US did not appreciate back in 2002 and 2003 is that there are only two truly effective means of controlling a well-motivated insurgency and they are (1) genocide and (2) a brutal police state security apparatus, where there are no civilized rules of engagement. Saddam and many others have followed this recipe effectively, and, surprise, there was no appreciable insurgency for 35 years in Iraq. Clearly, the US is not going to embark on any such policy, but this should have been heavily considered prior to occupation.

The realty is that the US has few bargaining chips on the ground and no real good options beyond a hope and a prayer.

Gary Kamiya's aricle misses the following key point: the return of the occupied territories following some comprehensive agreement would not mitigate the hatred of the Arab world against Israel because there was plenty of hatred that preceded the 1967 war that resulted in the occupation and the holding of those territories in the first place. Gary Kamiya is talking "in circles". Any negotiated settlement that is based on some romantic view of the past or arbitrarily set boundaries is not worth the effort to negoitiate and raise hopes. That's the historical problem with the Middle East in that all the boundaries were set arbitrarily after WWI and has been a nightmare ever since. Both sides have to negotiate pragmatically to ensure that Israel has reasonable boundaries and the Palestinian state does not become a tangled mess of former Israeli settlements, water rights and whatever else that reamains after Israel grabs the choicest real estate. Basically to strive for the 1967 borders as a negotiating objective accomplishes nothing other than reset the clock back to 1967.

By all measures, the Democrats should never lose a national election. Not only are there more registered Democrats nationally than Republicans, the trend line always favors the Democrats with newly arriving immigrants, youthful voters, etc. Somehow, Democrats lose for any number of reasons such as women under the age of 30 being too busy to vote or a low turnout among minorities where the Dems get 80-90% of the vote. The other reason is the candidates themselves. I still do not understand how Al Gore lost in 2000. Actually I do know. He allowed himself to be was over-managed by consultants who wanted to appeal to the broad base that is the Democratic party. The result was that Gore was transformed or remade into the "perfect" yet ineffective candidate. John Kerry was also victimized by this to the point where he allowed himself to be "swift-boated" by the Republicans. I don't hear the same critique of Republican candidates because they seem to wear rumpled suits, speak plainly on issues, stick to time-honored themes like patriotism, low taxes and defense. The Democratic candidates usually fail on the likability index along with complaints about soaring rhetoric and a hint of condescension. For some reason, the Dems nominate candidates that are chosen to improve upon or moderate the party's platform whereas the Republicans do not expect their candidates to significantly alter the party's message. As a result, the task of marketing the candidates is fundamentally different depending on which party the candidate calls home. Unfortunately for the Dems, their superior numbers cannot overcome the candidates themselves and their messages.

Joe Conason does not let on what the quid pro quo would be if the US were to have public face to face talks with Iran and Syria on Iraq. The price for the US would be steep: (1)unconditional withdrawal of US military forces from the Middle East (2) hands-off the Iranian nuclear program (3) agree to no regime change in Iran (4) appease Syria on Lebanese internal affairs.

However, the Saudis made it clear to Dick Cheney in the hastely called meeting last week that was designed to preempt any talk of a unilateral withdrawal of US forces from the region that the Saudis expect the US to live up to its obligations in Iraq, which loosely translates into the US becoming a military buffer between Shiites and Sunnis. In exchange for this agreement, the oil keeps flowing and certain "moderate" regimes stay in power.

The hardest thing for the Bush Administration to accept is that its experimentation with democracy at the end of a gun barrel in the Middle East will end and the US will have made no progress on any singular issue in the Middle East such as the defeat of al Qaeda, nuclear weapons proliferation, Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Islamic fascism, terrorism, etc.