There are literally tens of millions of Arabs in the region (not to mention the Iranians, Palestinians, etc.) who think that the Americans are only interested in two things in the Middle East: oil and Israel.

I think they have arrived at the correct conclusion.

It is unwise and immoral to continue the Iraq charade. It's far past time to admit that the whole thing was a fraud from the get go, conceived and incompetently executed by the Maybery Machiavellis. Continuing to pursue this fraud based upon lies is nothing short of delusional.

Small point, but I do enjoy this:

The former has a Middle East agenda which outweighs all, while the latter has what it believes to be wisdom far superior to (and more Serious than) the views of the dirty and ignorant masses

It's how Glenn capitalizes words like "Serious" to put that slight bit of scorn to them, a subtle dig at the people who hold themselves in such high esteem (or should I say High Esteem?)

It conveys the slap well, and gives your audience a lot of credit to "get it" - which is I think the mark of great writing. No different than how a Great Simpsons episode has jokes that you only get if you have some kind of background knowledge (usually of some obscure movie they're referencing) - but to others the point is lost.

Glenn doesn't beat you over the head with everything he's saying I wanted to point it out. Of course, if one missed this point, the thesis of the piece would hardly be lost, but by seeing these things, it just becomes richer.

We’re going to be in this part of the world. We aren’t going to leave. Now, we can readjust our strategy for Iraq. We can extricate our troops from the sectarian violence. But we’re going to have to contain the problems that could spill over and the—and cause this critical part of the world to spin out of control.

Zinni is a full-fledged member of the Imperial War Party, it's just that he's a rationalist, unlike the neo-cons. He and James Baker would probably get along just fine in running the world the way it "should" be run, unlike the clueless Mayberry Machiavelli's in charge now.

What needs to happen, with people of good will in both the Democratic and Republican parties, is that America has to decide if we're going to be an empire or not. I say not -- as do Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM). We should get out of the Middle East, close our bases, and leave. If the oil-having countries there don't want to sell us oil once we leave their territories and stop bothering their citizens, I'd be very surprised. And if Israel can't fend off its neighbors with its load of nukes, perhaps it should start talking to a few neighbors -- but that's Israel's problem to solve, not mine or America's. This is a discussion that is long overdue.

The Founders had a good idea -- no entangling alliances, no standing armies, friends/trade with all, enemies with none. It's time for the U.S. to decide whether it will consciously abandon those ideas, or not.

The Mayberry Machiavellis have framed the entire question in what is clearly an unfalsifiable manner. No matter what happens, they can continue to claim to see light at the end of the tunnel. Scientists know that unfalsifiable claims are empty.

That light you see? It's a train, boys. Get off the tracks.

Babblemouth me this morning. The War Tsar idea is NOT dead, via antiwar.com:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18089899/from/ET/

The American public has been told that we’re “turning the corner” in Iraq since 2003, and they’ve now realized that when you keep constantly “turning corners” and you keep seeing the same things that you’re going in circles.

In the Vietnam era, we kept hearing about the “light and the end of the tunnel” and the public soon realized what nonsense that was too.

Nixon may have been delusional enough to talk to portraits in the White House, but even he finally recognized that the public had turned against the war. Bush hasn’t done that yet, and he keeps talking like the public supports this war and this “surge” – they don’t. Bush, Cheney, the neo-cons and part of the Beltway media cannot grasp this simple fact – because they don’t want to. They dwell in delusions draped in denial.

Their only real strategy is to blame the Democratic Party for “surrendering” to the terrorists. They have no real plan, only their “fear and smear” propaganda that’s no longer working for them. The only thing that’s “turned the corner” is their credibility, and it has disappeared from sight.

Should we leave?

Should we stay?

It seems to me that Zinni is saying that we should stay in the Middle East, but not necessarily in Iraq, and certainly not in the mode we are currently operating in there.

As I understand the current proposals, we would NOT abandon the Middle East by withdrawing from Iraq. What we would do, however, is reposition our forces so that they could provide security for whatever forces remained in Iraq in advisory roles, and to provide a deterent to both Syrian and Iranian acts of crossborder agression. (I would personally be more wary of Turkish agression in the area than I would be of either Syrian or Iranian agression).

So yes, Zinni believes we should stay. So do Congressional Democrats.

It's all a matter of what the word "stay" means.

Of course no one will take the job- they know that the Bushies are looking for someone to blame for the war ex post facto , and what better way than to install a 'War Tsar(czar?)' in the last two years- just long enough for the revisionist historians at the BushII Presidential Library to make the argument, citing these same articles by the KaganGroup, that 'the surge was working, the President was right, it's just that the War Tsar came in at the end and messed everything up'!