The strategies and techniques we use to deal with nation-states will obviously be different with those we employ against fanatical religious movements. That goes without saying, indeed, it is the failure to make this distinction which has led to our current problems in Iraq.

Well said.

But we shoud not make the error either that all Middle Eastern states are dominated by bearded, bomb-throwing anarchists and fanatics, some of these people are sophisticated and subtle thinkers from an ancient civilization, with Western educations and even much time lived in Europe and the USA.

I would not disagree, And I do not thing all middle eastern states are "dominated by bearded, bomb-throwing anarchists and fanatics". However, such factions exist within these states, and very importantly: are factions that extend into neighboring and non-neighboring states. And Even more: For at least a significant portion of the populace of many middle eastern states, the individuals allegience and sympathy with these groups pre-empts all other ties to the individuals' political government.

You are absolutely correct in saying that we can't deal with the middle east (and the larger region, actually) through the political lens or through the lens of the ethnic and religious factions. But both.

One thing to also keep in mind, is that in many cases the sophisticated and subtle thinkers are embedded in the ostensibly extremist groups!!! This can not be diminished in importance. A vast number of not only the higher ups are extremely well educated, but also the foot soldiers!

They understand us better than we understand them.
Indeed, thats why they have handily won this round of the conflict, that and our inability to sculpt a goal that is consistent with what they understand as unequivocal defeat... Again, as laid out in my prior posts on this topic.

They also have every reason to distrust their Jihadist elements as well, although they are perfectly ready to use them for their own purposes. They may not be our pals, but they ain't crazy either. Arabs, after all, know how to deal.

No, they are entirely sane by their own metric, that is what makes them powerful within the context of their cultural groups.

Traditional Western concepts concepts such as deterrence and compromise are not exclusively Western,

I do not disagree, but my point is a bit more subtle. Its not that these are essentially western notions... They are not, they are human notions. My point is that how we achieve these goals in dealing with western political bodies is not applicable to how they are achieved in this context. The root impulse and concept are universal, but their expression is dramatically different. 'Threat' and 'deterrence' means something entirely different in a cultural context where the ideal expression of 'a hero' is consistent with someone who straps a vest of Symtex on, pacts it with ball bearings coated with anti-coagulant rat poison, walks onto a bus packed with women and children and blows everyone to hell, or to greusome slow deaths from internal bleeding. A cultural context where children have 'toy' suicide vests. I don't advocate respecting it, but we must understand it if we are to defeat it. We shouldn't be fighting the battles we want to fight, but the battles we need to fight.

and may not work with Islamist radicals, but the existing governments, as well as those we'd like to see take root there, understand them perfectly well. But we also have to understand that all the players are playing to win too, and they are not going to roll over and die for us.

Indeed, and some of them are playing us like flutes! See the kurds. We need to think like the Kurds in northern Iraq if we are going to win this 'global war on terrorism'.

There is no cure-all strategy or philosophy, here. We need people who understand the area, grasp the long term, are willing to give in without giving up, and can devise strategies that meet an overall plan and simultaneously are flexible enough to adjust to current conditions. I know this sounds like double,talk but this is how the Great Game has always been played.

Absolutely. W need to fight the war and the battles that WIN THE CONFLICT, not the ones that we want to see as expressions of our national/cultural will. IE, we may have wanted to see M1A1 tanks charging though the sands of the middle east, shooting down the bad guys and raising an iwojima like flag. While We see that as 'the good fight, well won', the people we are fighting see that as their victory and our loss.

You just don't show up and establish a Western Democracy and expect everyone to kiss your butt in gratitude.

No, indeed not. While my ideals see the Democracy as the 'of course' answer, I think you know I'm not stupid enough to fall into that trap.

But neither do you hide your head in the sand and expect them to love you so much in return your problems will all go away.

Again, absolutely and I don't disagree. However, going out and fighting pointless wars with aims that are irrelevant to the struggle at hand (if not counterproductive!) is not an answer.

This is business, something Americans should be good at, and any businessman will tell you that you have to make a profit, but you also have to keep your customers happy. And most of all, you must use an honest measure.

Exactly. Our job is to sell defeat, at whatever price, to the people who wish to see us exterminated. If this means handing out flowers and chocolates (not that I think it does, but its a metaphor) to the people we would rather be sending to the gallows- well, then I say we hand out Flowers and Chocolates. I wont this conflict won, not satisfy my personal culturally founded notions of whats 'justice'.

Anyway.