The most important thing to remember is that this can turn into a "civil war" only in the sense that Iraq be considered a state within the larger nation which is the Islamic Arab world. The various states in the ME and surrounding regions consider themselves Muslim first, independant states second, whether or not the Muslims hold political power in each individual state.

The fighting going on in Iraq has been demonstrated to have roots in the fact that the insurgents are comprised of a high percentage of Arabs from Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. That is not a "civil war". If we had a civil war in the US and fought enemies who were mostly from Mexico and Canada, it ain't a civil war at all.

I think those ME peoples opposed to the Islamic political state will become much more confident provided we have a W victory in November. Let's not forget that terror sponsoring states like Libya and Saudi Arabia have taken steps (baby steps, in the Saudi case) to control the militant Islamic movements and have shown that they understand that the West represents their best chance at a higher standard of living for all ME peoples and nations.

I remain optimistic, mostly because GWB understands the WoT. Let's hope he remains steadfast.

The invasion of Iraq, and to a lesser extent Afghanistan, was always a gamble with a very real possibility of failing to meet it's strategic goal of changing the entire dynamic of the Mideast. This is a fact that I've faced from the getgo. A Western-style constitutional republic very well may not take root in Iraq and, even if it does, may not spread to other countries in the region. Still, if it fails there's no real downside.
If we don't manage to change the dynamic of the Mideast we eventually have to fight the entire region anyway. Too many of the movers and shakers over there want us all dead for us to avoid that fight for much longer.
If Bush's gamble works we've managed to avoid a bigger fight. If Bush's gamble fails we've already taken out one of the major players in the region while managing to carve out more or less secure bases for the next step in the war. We are also in one helluva good strategic position. The three leading nations in sponsoring Islamic terrorism are Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Let's look at them one at a time. Iran is in bad shape, strategicly, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf are American lakes, our Carrier Battle Groups can roam at will, we have major troop formations and air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have smaller units as well as air bases in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. There is not one single square inch of Iran that is not in easy range of our fighterbomber aircraft, most of Iran is in range of our Apache, Super Cobra and Sea Cobra attack helos. If we have to fight Iran they're screwed.
Syria is in slightly worse shape, they're caught between our troops in Iraq and the Izzies and the Med is another American lake, our Carrier Battle groups own that Sea. If we have to fight Syria, they're screwed and blued.
Saudi Arabia is in the worst shape of all, they have an army smaller than some Boy Scout Troops, we still have Iraq, we've still got the Arabian Sea and the Gulf, we also have the Red Sea, plus we have Qatar. If we have to fight Saudi Arabia, they're screwed, blued and tatooed.
So, either Bush's gamble works and we don't have to fight the next series of battles or it doesn't work and we have to fight from a far superior position. All at a cost, so far, of casualties so light that, in previous wars, if they'd all come in a day, it would be considered a quiet day.

Peter -

I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis.

I'd rather not have to fight the whole region, but Peter is 100% right in that Iraq is a prime stage for operations.

Hopefully, Iran will be next. Syria is a thorn in the side but are decidedly weak militarily. Saudi is also weak but I still believe that they can be reasoned with. The Saudi royals have been butting heads with the Islamic tribes within their own borders for years now and are not going to go to war with the US on their behalf; they are much more likely to side with the US and allow us to come in and be the Orkin man.

Syria may be somewhat weak, but somewhere in that region is hidden something very important. Since mass is conserved, the WMD that the UN inspectors knew about (prior to their ejection in the late-90's) are *not missing*, instead they must exist somewhere, in some form. This is something that the press and the Dems ignore. Unfortunately, the Republicans haven't done a very good job making this point. Anyway, the only safe assumption, until proven otherwise, is that these WMD are still around the region somewhere. I'd say a really likely guess is Syria.

- Eric.