One of the big problems is a foreign leader explaining to his/her people that their children are dying because of the mess Bush made. Would be a tough sell. I don't think, for instance, that the people of the US would have tolerated sending in Americans to die helping the Soviets after they invaded Afghanistan - and Afghanistan was right next door, half a world away, and didn't have oil.

However, if a new administration, or maybe even Bush but he doesn't have the ability to admit he's wrong, went to a comprehensive group of Muslim countries and told them the US wanted to pull out, would take Halliburton, too, and would fund their sending in a VERY LARGE Muslim stabilization/peacekeeping force, something might happen.

They would be expected to set up a civil infrastructure, including criminal courts, prevent a civil war, and broker a political settlement which would include all sects and largely leave them with their own areas of substantial influence.

That would remove the "American imperialism" label from whatever else happens, would put matters back in hands which might be sensitive to cultural differences, and could give some hope to your basic Iraqi.

In the long run will Iraq be one country? Not without a brutal strongman like Saddam. But it's possible there might be an accommodation, such as the Kurds had in the north, where they were almost a separate nation.

But the US will keep on, and maybe even attack Syria and Iran. Pakistan may be correct in their assessment of the Bushies aims.

Problems? Yes. As big as the present set? I don't think so.

Arf