1) Arab is not the same thing Muslim and Arab Muslim is NOT fundamentalist Muslim. Arab is like saying 'European' or 'English'. Its different than Christian, although nearly all English are christians. This is important because you are trying to say we are taking the fight to the Muslim Fundamentalist court. If the arabic ethnicity of Iraq is why you are stating that we are taking the war to Radical Islamists- then you are unequivocally unjustified in your statement. Your premises do not force your conclusion, you are not voicing a logically coherent argument.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I guess you are saying "Arab is not the same thing as Muslim and Arab Muslim is NOT the same as fundamentalist Muslim", if so I disagree. The Islamic religion fits the definition of fundamentalist perfectly. A strict code of rules that must be followed and takes precedent over civil law. Not all Muslims are terrorists or radical but they are all fundamentalist. If you scratch a fundamentalist you find a radical whether they are Muslim or Christian.

The ethnicity of Arabs is a strong bond as it applies to non-Arabs. This becomes volatile when combined with religion

2) You state that the secularity of Iraq works in our favor, to build a secular state- yet you point to their Muslim-ness as CAUSE for this war (taking the fight ... fundamentalism). Is it the case that you support this war, ultimately, based on the religious convictions of a people who favor SECULARISM (Iraq has a tradition of being more secular than surrounding areas)? And If so, how does that jive with AMERICAN values?

Iraq has a tradition of being ruled by a despot. Their potential tendency toward secular life is based on their relative educational level and not tradition. The possibility of an Islamic state is a living threat but perhaps easier to deal with than say, Afghanistan.

The politics du-jour of the Arabic world is one that pays substantial lip-service to the idea of Arab Unity. This is lip service, and will remain so. Arab lands have demonstrated themselved as FAR more contentious than Anglo-Saxon/Euro/American politics. Even the non ideological OPEC has shot itself in the foot at every turn, and the Arab League can not even get a quorum together. Your argument of 'enmeshment' is difficult to see as intuitive. Furthermore, even if we grant Arab 'brotherhood', this has nothing to do With Muslim Fundamentalism. As you point out- Iran is not entirely an Arab state, but IS a fundamentalist Muslim state. Again- this argument does not hold water (that Iraq is the 'backyard' of Muslim Fundamentalism), and I can't accept it on THAT basis

I almost didn't even respond to this but I will, simply to say that If you don't believe in Arab brotherhood as it applies to non-Arab, ask an Arab. Of course they have tribal hatreds but unity against non-Arab transcends. You also can't separate Arab and Muslim fundamentalism. The religion dominates their lives.

at least in any sort of way I can fathom

Isn't that what I have been saying all along. The feeling is mutual.

You view your supported course of action as Pragmatic because you have decided this course of action is correct. That is not really capital-P Pragmatism, just conviction and following the edicts of what you think is right.

I think that following the edicts of what one thinks is right is a good thing but beyond that, to follow a course that one believes is better than the alternatives is pragmatic.