chankya

I think we're just talking past each other.

I agree with all of what you're saying. However, saying that they brought it on themselves does not lessen their perception of threat. From your posts it seems like you think of them as irrational actors. I'm thinking they aren't.

Let's for a minute assume that you do agree that they feel threatened. Hypothetically?

I'm thinking that US troops will stay on in Iraq, when and if Iraq does stabilize. Given the political climate in the US I think the possibility of conflict with Iran would find a more receptive audience if the US were not actually tied down in Iraq. I'm not saying that the US is not capable of it, just that public opinion would probably not support another conflict.

Given these two it makes logical sense to try and tie down the US Army in Iraq for as long as possible. Further given the disparate treatment of NK and Iraq, the other two members of the Axis of Evil club, it's reasonable to expect them to try and obtain nuclear weapons.

You're angry because they're killing your guys. Fair enough. But if you ever want them to stop bothering you, without going to war, then you need to understand why they do what they do.

Note: I tend to think of the US and NATO as synonymous entities. Perhaps in light of the recalcitrance of your NATO allies to commit troops to combat in Afghanistan that is a mistake.

If the Pakistanis ever get to vote in a real election I'm thinking they'll be pretty vociferous in their objection to US troops in A'stan. And Jordan, Turkey, KSA, and Kuwait are US allies. It's not the same thing at all.

__________________
"Of all the manifestations of power, restraint impresses men the most." - Thucydides