Of course we are all aware of the delicate volatility which currently plagues the Middle East.  I was reading the Wall Street Journal last week, however, and a map of the region in the article struck me as being particularly dire.  In short, there was a map of the Middle East with arrows placed on Palestine/Israel, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.  Next to the arrows there were text boxes listing briefly the economic/military unrest which is present in each of these territories.  Although we certainly know where these nation's are located, it puts things into perspective when seeing that all four of these "hot spots" are closely connected to each other.  Putting the Bush Administration and the Iraq War aside for a moment (these problems, of course, were around long before Bush took office and will be around long after he is gone), I am curious as to what will happen in this region. 

Naturally, Israel has the most to lose.  Although they have made threats towards Iranian President Ahmadinejad, they have done a reasonable job at containing their anti-Islamic biases within their own (and Palestine's) borders.  To the west it would appear that any option is on the table so long as it does not lead to a unified Middle East.  Granted, locations such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emerates, etc. are much better at understanding what is in their own best interest than is Syria or Iran.  But what long-term strategy should be employed in the region? 

With the Iraqi elections being praised as an undeniable success, the Democrats have suddenly grown strangely quiet on the issue.  The unexpectedly high Sunni turnout led to a one hour extension of the voting hours.  It would appear as if Iraqi's, even those in the "disgruntled" minority, embraced these elections as a sign that permanent reform is indeed upon them.  The Bush Administration certainly took the road less travelled in reaching their destination, but it appears as if the end is in sight.

Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard points out in a recent article that the many months of quiet from Mr. Bush with regard to the Iraq War was certainly a flaw in strategy, but it was intentional on the part of the Commander In Chief.  Indeed, Barnes writes, "Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq. It is a decision he now regrets. And has reversed."

 The argument has not been waged by the right that the war has been properly managed.  Flawed execution, poor intelligence, and a lack of contingencies has created an altogether less-than-great situation in Iraq.  And the media, for their part, goes to great lengths to show the chaotic, unstable situation which plagues the so-called "Sunni Triangle" region of Iraq.  Roadside detonations, ubiquitous insurgency, and mounting casualites are the points of emphasis of broadcast and print media.  It seems not to matter that true progress is indeed being made in Iraq--as various senators and congressmen substantiate after travelling to the nation.  These signs of progress, however, are largely neglected by the media.  Last week Senator Joseph Lieberman wrote an article which appeard in The Wall Street Journal.  Senator Lieberman's article stressed two main points: 1)Cutting and running on the part of the United States would be a grave error and would risk creating a failed state in Iraq, thus leaving an open wound for the entire Middle East region to deal.  2)The situation in Iraq is not nearly as bad as the media, and those on the left, seem to think.  In point of fact, Lieberman described how the Kurdish areas to the north, as well as the Shiite regions to the south, have actually advanced both economically and technologically beyond where they were prior to Saddam Hussein's ouster.  He also said that it is really only the Sunni Triangle region which suffers from a pandemic of violence and intolerance.

 Lieberman, as one might expect, was assailed from those in his own party as being a traitor and a Bush cronie.  Blatant McCarthyism on the part of the Democrats undoubtedly.  But it serves the administration well.  President Bush, as Barnes points out, attempted to look toward the future in Iraq by going several weeks without responding to the mounting spin being promulgated by the media and those on the left.  So baseless were most of these claims, however, that he was forced to go on the offensive himself.  Barnes interviewed an anonymous White House aide who put it this way: "Obviously the bombardment of misleading ads and the earned media by MoveOn et al. had an impact," the Bush aide says, "and culminated during the Libby indictment and the [Democratic] stunt of the closed session of the Senate" on prewar intelligence. "That's when we pivoted."

 The tragedy of this is twofold: 1)The Democrats seem not to grasp the true significance of the war in terms of its economic importance.  Indeed, the "Bush lied" theme being strewn about daily by those on the left seem to confirm this suspicion.  2)If Democrats secretly do understand the real reasons for war but maintain a false offensive in the name of "Bush lied," one cannot help but feel terrible for the men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day.  It is impossible to support the troops and not support the job the mission they have been sent on.  This is a paradox by definition.  That the Democrats would rather see Bush fail than have the U.S. be successful in Iraq goes a great distance to understanding the true identity of that party.  The media, in its own right, shares the responsibility for this over-spun, nationally detrimental media blitz aimed at dishonoring a sitting president.  Is this not treason?

The answer is not sexy or polarizing.  For those of us who follow American politics closely, and have studied the persuasions of past administrations, the present Iraq War is fairly simple to analyze.  Democracy, oil, and WMD are only contributing factors.  You must keep in mind why the United States is actually in Iraq.  Is it, as Bush proclaims, to "spread Democracy and freedom to an oppressed people?"  In reality, absolutely not.  Two years into the administration of Richard M. Nixon the president was sold by his economic cabinet "ministers" on the idea of Keynesian Economics, or, supply side economics.  In the Reagan White House it became known as "Reaganomics" and its most famous definition is "trickle down" economics.  The Administration of George W. Bush continues to promote these ideals (and perhaps rightly so), Karl Rove and Dick Cheney in particular are staunch Keynesian disciples.  Very briefly, the design is for government intervention of the economy to artificially stabalize prices--thus helping workers by controlling prices.  Like Marxism, this theory has only been partially realized.  For one, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were not proponents of the system and did much during their 12 years to eradicate its effects.  With Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, the government has essentially ceded its interest in the equation to the authority of big business.  The logic being that large corporations can better stabalize supply and demand, thus prices, better than government control (which any Republican despises).  This is where the pro-Big Business GOP agenda comes into play.

 Returning to Iraq, our market system is one which is hurt by uncertainty, namely, terrorism.  The Iraq War is Bush's attempt at stabalizing not only domestic markets, but those of our economic allies as well.  Oil is certainly an incentive, but it is not the be-all-end-all reason why we are in Iraq.  To be sure, the United States will get its hands on Iraqi oil regardless of who controls that nation.  In the end, the war has been horribly managed and chaos is evident in certain sectors of the country.  But if you keep in mind the real reason why the United States is there, the FINAL result (which we may not know for several years) may not be a total failure.  At least not to Republicans who seek stable markets.  In fact, the blundering management of the war is secondary.  GOP leaders in the end will be able to say, "yes, it was a poorly handled war but in the end we got what we want."  Are the soldiers who fight the war still heroes?  Absolutely.