ummm... Diebold elected Bush, if I remember correctly. At least that's been the rumor.

If I were a power figure bent on protecting American lives, perhaps I could start with the ones I threw in harm's way initially - the soldiers - and get them out of there.

If I were a power figure with visions of regional stability and democracy as my legacy, then maybe I would consider additional troops, which would conveniently coincide with a not-stated-but-highly-significant agenda of securing vast oil reservoirs.

If I were a power figure who knew there was nothing of value to me or the interests of big corporations under the land or anywhere in the region, I would probably be content to sit back and watch warring factions slaughter each other mercilessly into extinction while holding my troops in reserve to fight for big oil interests another day.

Other posters have probably nailed it. This is a Vietnam-esque quagmire all over again. Pessimistically speaking, the outcome is going to be the same: lots of lives lost for nothing, unless a continued plentiful suppy of relatively cheap gasoline at the pump is a good enough reason to sacrifice life and limb for a long time to come. Is anyone in Washington or the British Parliament daring to think "thousands of lives lost now is better than putting off the inevitable and losing tens of thousands of lives later"? Is anyone else thinking anything other than a strategy for securing a source of oil?