One of the primary reasons given by the Bush Administration for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq—after the lies about WMDs had been proven to be, well, lies—was a need to create stability in the Middle East. Israel and any number of Arabic countries in the region have always been in conflict. So it would be nice to promote peace somwhere in the region. It sounds so good in the abstract. But like everything else upon which the Bush Administration has embarked, the concept has fallen far short of reality. The Administration has no one talented or intelligent enough to pull off something requiring so much tact, diplomacy and finesse. As a result, George W. Bush and his people have in fact destabilized the region.

Let's review.

Afghanistan. This is the only country in which we should be fighting. The Taliban government of Afghanistan was responsible for the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. The Bush Administration considered it an act of war, and attacked Afghanistan with the goal of ousting the Taliban ruling party and capturing Osama bin Laden, who was being protected by the Taliban government. It is now six years later. The Taliban, although effectively deposed as the ruling party in Afghanistan, have regrouped and started to take back sections of the country. That is easier for them to accomplish because the US failed to assist in the creation of a stable regime to replace the Taliban. Although the US set up a "president," Hamid Karzai, in Kabul, his power ends at roughly the city limits. He is more like the president of the city of Kabul than the president of the country. The majority of Afghanistan fell under the rule of local warlords, each fighting for his own self-interest. Hardly a stable situation. And Osama bin Laden is still at large. Mission far from accomplished.

The irony is palpable. We bankrolled Osama bin Laden when he was the leader of the mujihadeen, leading rebel forces against the Russians who had invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s. We sat back and enjoyed Soviet Russia suffering through their own version of Vietnam even as we armed the insurgents. Russia finally gave up the fight and bailed out of Afghanistan. However, we created a monster by supporting and arming Osama bin Laden, who next turned on the US and masterminded the September 11th attacks. Russia had to have gotten a laugh out of THAT turn of events.

So: Afghanistan far from stable, and far from the prospect of being stable in the near future. One reason Afghanistan's stability is unlikely is that the US stormed in, screwed everything up, then effectively stormed back out again, leaving a reduced military force (and an inept diplomatic presence) that cannot possibly bring stability to the country. The Bush Administration shirked its responsibility to stabilize Afghanistan and instead turned its sights on, and sent the majority of its military forces to, Iraq.

Iraq. It is hard to know where to begin with Iraq, because the majority of Americans are blissfully ignorant of the truth. But we can begin with the threat Iraq posed to the US, which was insignificant to the point of practically none. Thanks to purveyors of misinformation like FOX News, a large portion of Americans—46% according to the last poll I read (in early 2007)—are STILL unaware that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks on America. There was never any proof that Saddam Hussein had any connection to the Taliban or Osama bin Laden. Ever. It is a testament to the propaganda machine of the Bush Administration, the gleeful complicity of FOX News, and the unbelievable gullibility of the American public that so many people came to believe a complete and total falsehood that was never supported by any tangible proof.

But wait, there's more. Although the Bush Administration executed a stealth misinformation campaign (with near-total plausible deniability) to convince the American people that Iraq and September 11th were connected, they conducted a bold and public misinformation campaign to convince the American public that Iraq had robust weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) with which they could either attack the US or arm terrorist groups to attack the US. The Bush Administration talked about nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and program development facilities. And that was not such a stretch, considering that the American government knew for certain that Iraq did have chemical weapons of mass destruction, because the Reagan administration provided them to Saddam Hussein in order to fight Iran. Ironically, the George H.W. Bush administration, following Operation Desert Storm, oversaw the destruction of the stockpiles and manufacturing facilities. Nevertheless, the George W. Bush administration was certain Iraq not only had reconstituted its manufacturing programs, despite over a decade of sanctions intended to prevent just such an occurrence, but had also developed and deployed robust biological and nuclear weapons.

The United Nations sent in an inspection team headed by Mohammad al Baradai to look for Iraq's nuclear stockpiles and/or manufacturing facilities. The UN found no evidence of an active nuclear program. George W. Bush ignored the findings of the UN inspection team, advised them to vacate Iraq or they might end up killed in the anticipated military invasion, and then invaded Iraq against the advice of practically the entire planet Earth. After the invasion, which was botched in so many ways I cannot begin to recount, the Bush administration sent in two US inspection teams who also found absolutely nothing. After occupying Iraq for over four years, the US forces have still managed to turn up absolutely no evidence Iraq had any kind of WMD stockpiles or programs. It is highly unlikely any WMDs will ever be found because it is a near-certainty that such stockpiles and facilities do not exist.

So after the misinformation about Iraq's involvement with September 11th began to lose credibility, and the statements that Iraq possessed any WMDs were proven to be false, the Bush Administration regrouped and began selling the invasion and occupation of Iraq as necesary to "stabilize" the region, by removing a reactionary leader and installing a democratic government in his stead. There are several flaws in this argument. First and foremost, Saddam Hussein was not a reactionary leader who posed any credible threat to the stability of the region. In fact, past US administrations had allied with Saddam Hussein in order to keep Iran in line. Iran, in fact, DOES have a reactionary government, which is intent on destabilizing the region and establishing a pan-Islamic empire not unlike the Ottoman Empire. Saddam Hussein was opposed to such an Islamic empire because he was basically a secular dictator. In removing Saddam Hussein, we removed one of the strongest adversaries Iran faced in opposition to its dream of regional domination. Removing Saddam Hussein destabilized the region.

The Bush Administration pointed out the human rights violations of Saddam Hussein's regime. And yes, he was a brutal dictator. However, he had always been a brutal dictator. He was a brutal dictator when Ronald Reagan provided him with chemical weapons to use against Iran, which he also used against his political enemies, such as the Kurds in northern Iraq. However, the Reagan Administrator was not overly concerned with his brutality toward his neighbors and the population of his own country as long as he was useful to keep the Iranians in line. The history of US involvement in other countries is filled with instances where the US supported a brutal dictator, turning a blind eye to any inconvenient human rights violations as long as it furthered the geopolitical goals of America. We have no high moral ground to claim.

By removing Saddam Hussein, we removed the political force that kept the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds all in line within Iraq. Once Saddam Hussein was removed, the majority Shiites, long oppressed by Saddam Hussein's support of the minority Sunnis, began to assert their dominance in the elected government. The minority Sunnis have employed terroristic sectarian violence to disrupt a majority Shiite government. So Iraq is now fractured into a sectarian civil war, with Sunni Muslims killing Shiite Muslims, Sunni Muslims killing American and the minimal coalition forces remaining in Iraq, and Shiite Muslims killing Sunni Muslims. And the weapons of choice are unattended car bombs and improvised explosive devices, and the occasional suicide bomber. So they kill indiscriminately. It is more important for the Muslims in Iraq to kill than to cooperate. It is hard to imagine how they will ever manage to establish a stable, democratically elected government when all they seem to understand is genocide and all-or-nothing. It sounds terrible to say it, but maybe Iraqis are not predisposed to democracy and a strong, necessarily brutal dictator is what they need to live in forced harmony. The only group in Iraq that seems to be able to maintain peace in their region is the Kurds.

The Kurds, the smallest of the three secatrian groups, have consolidated in northern Iraq and for the most part kept the warring Sunni and Shiite factions out of play on their turf. In fact, the Kurds have maintained a relative peace in northern Iraq, while the Sunnis and Shiites bomb the bejeezus out of each other down south. However, being the smallest of the three factions, the Kurds will never be able to effect a coalition government in Iraq. They are probably more inclined to separate from Iraq and establish their own little Kurdish nation, which would probably be the stablest country in the region. Unfortunately, although the Muslim majority of Iraq could care less about the Kurds, they would probably fight to the death to prevent the Kurds from taking away any part of Iraq. And that's not all. There are Kurds in Turkey, which borders Iraq on the north and is adjacent to the Kurdish-controlled areas of Iraq. And the Kurds in Turkey have been agitating for some time to carve out a section of Turkey as a separate Kurdish nation, which the Turks adamantly oppose. So it is in the best interests of Turkey to destabilize the most stable section of Iraq—the Kurdish-controlled area—lest the Kurds in Turkey take strength from their Iraqi Kurdish neighbors and redouble efforts to establish a separate Kurdish nation. Which brings us to Turkey.

Turkey. If ever there was a country destined for national schizophrenia, it is Turkey. The modern remnant of the once-great Ottoman Empire, Turkey straddles Middle East and West, wanting desperately to belong to the modern Western world, but actually living with the tribal attitudes and mentality of the Middle East. The secular Turkish government rules uneasily over the Muslim population, which would prefer a Muslim government and a return to the greatness of the Ottoman Empire. As if that wasn't enough of a problem, there is a substantial Kurdish population living in Turkey, and Kurdish rebels (or terrorists, depending on your point of view) stage attacks in Turkey, agitating for a separate Kurdish homeland, from—you'll never guess where—Kurd-controlled Iraq. So Turkey is making noises about invading the only stable region of Iraq to eradicate the Kurdish rebels/terrorists. The US, of course, would like to see the only stable region of Iraq remain stable, and a Turkish invasion and occupation would likely make that problematic. However, continued rebel/terrorist strikes across the border into Turkey will have a deleterious effect on how effective Turks feel their government is. The Bush Administration is caught between a rock and hard place with regard to Turkey. It will be hard to pressure Turkey to do anything since Turkey is the lone US ally in the region. There are US military bases in Turkey, and the US uses Turkey to stage military operations in the Middle East. If too much US pressure is brought to bear, then Turkey might decide it is time for US military bases in Turkey to be vacated. So Turkey gets away with a lot. Allowing US military bases to remain in Turkey is not as popular with the Muslim population of Turkey, though. So kicking out the US would strengthen the Turkish government's standing with its own people. It is either win-win or lose-lose for the Turkish government, depending on how you care to view it. But they certainly have bargaining power when it comes to US demands about Iraq. Still, Turks are unhappy that the Turkish government appears to be supporting the US and abandoning fellow Muslims. So Turkey's secular government is destabilized.

Pakistan. Another strange-bedfellow ally of the Bush Administration is Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf. Pakistan and the US have been uneasy allies since India aligned with the Soviet Union way back in the 70s. Both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers, and if you know your history, you know that relations between the countries has always been poor. Primarily Muslim Pakistan seceded from primarily Hindu-and-Sikh India in 1947. Eastern Pakistan seceded from Western Pakistan in 1971 to form Bangladesh. India and Pakistan are fighting over Kashmir, among other things. And although Pakistan was a US ally against Soviet-ally India, in recent years Pakistan was aiding and supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan who were responsible for the Septemebr 11th attacks on the US. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, India became more atrtactive as an ally to the US, as well as a great place to outsource technical support for America. So it is likely the US is financing both India and Pakistan in their efforts to claim Kasmir. But Kasmir, thankfully, is not of consequence to the US, nor, in all likelihood, to the rest of the world—unless the issue escalates into a nuclear exchange. So George W. Bush is best buddies with former Taliban supporter Pervez Musharraf because now he has seen the light and stopped supporting the Taliban. Except that it is no secret that the Taliban we cannot seem to find and eliminate in Afghanistan travel freely across the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and US forces are constrained from following them into Pakistan, where they can regroup and from which they can redeploy when ready for another foray into Afghanistan to continue rebuilding their political base.

All is not bright for President Musharraf, though. The Bush Administration is pressuring him to relinquish his position as head of the military and just be the civilian head of government, which he has kind of done. Democratic elections were promised, but now Musharraf has declared a state of emergency and suspended the Constitution and basically declared himself dictator until things settle down. Part of the unsettling goes to the return of Musharraf's political adversaries, who are vying to unseat him in the elections which now may or may not be held. There's a good chance all of his adversaries will wind up arrested or disappeared during this state of emergency. But the REASON given for the state of emergency is that Pakistanis unhappy at Musharraf's alignment with the US and abandonment of the Muslim fundamentalist terrorist Taliban have staged attacks in Pakistan, some directed at Musharraf himself. Involvement with the US has softened Pakistan strongman Pervez Musharraf, and his perceived weakness has emboldened Muslim extremists. So Pakistan is now unstable as well.

And so we have just come full circle. The strongest nation in the region appears to be Iran. Iran probably would not be as strong if Saddam Hussein was still living next door, fighting the debilitating war that kept the two nations occupied and drained of resources throughout the 80s and 90s. But with Iran's (most current) historical enemy—Saddam Hussein—removed by the US, Iran is now free to concentrate on denying the US a foothold in the Middle East. And about all the US can do is make noises about invading and occupting Iran. Anyone who thinks THAT action will not precipitate unparalleled unreast throughout the Middle East and the Muslim world is dangerously clueless. Sadly, "dangerously clueless" is an apt description of George W. Bush and his administration. Keep in mind that his chief diplomat, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was the National Security Advisor whose grasp of international geopolitics was so weak that she advised invading and occupying Iraq based on faulty and incorrect intelligence when it was her JOB to make sure the Administration's ducks were lined up. She was an inept National Security Advisor and she isn't faring much better as Secretary of State. About all she is is loyal, and loyalty to a clueless president and administration is NOT what this nation needs.

Prospects for stability in the Middle East are grim. We can only hope the Bush Administration will not start ANOTHER war that we cannot win. Or, as President George W. Bush himself alluded to, World War III. If that doesn't pucker your butt, nothing will.