The Battle for the Middle East

Among other things, Omar says:

Let's call the battle for middle east, and I think politicians do not need anyone to explain to them what this part of the world means…the outcome of war in Iraq does not affect Iraq alone, a victory means disrupting the ring of terror and extremism the enemies are trying to establish while failure would be equal to allowing them to establish that huge ring, or should I say that gigantic octopus of terrorists and terror-supporting regimes that would extend from Afghanistan in the east to Libya in the west and from Iraq in the north to Sudan and Somalia in the south.And instead of creating islands of democracy and liberty, connecting them and extend from there to change the world to the better, the enemies would engulf those islands and add them to their multi-jointed entity of terror.

I keep wondering why the Democrats (embodied in recent days by our illustrious Senator Kerry) insist on seeing every conflict as the Vietnam War, then insist on repeating the same mistakes and losing the same way. Where's the brilliance and compassion in that? And if they can't believe the Republicans on this issue, why can't they listen to the Iraqis themselves?

Further, regarding Senator Biden's plan to divide Iraq up into three sections: the Dems say we can't "force" democracy on Iraq; Hillary says we can't "force" women's rights and western freedoms on them. They say the US was a unilateral bully to invade the country in the first place. But now, in the face of the elections that the Iraqi people have held and their constitution, we're supposed to divide up their country for them? Yeah, no hubris there. Does this really make sense to anyone?