Hmmm. Now I know that's one way to look at it. And I certainly have lots of respect for you, Markass.

But this is a lot more complicated a situation than perhaps it seems. Relations with the other global superpowers like Russia and China literally do need to be relatively harmonious in order for the world economy to function well and for our economy to do so. And in the Middle East, we do have a vested interest over there--one that ultimately benefits our taxpayers and citizens and not just because of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, either.

If we were to simply pull out and leave Iraq and Afghanistan to fend for themselves at this point, we'd leave them and ourselves much more vulnerable to terrorism than we would if we were to stay and finish our work and help with reconstruction of what we've dismantled. This is a lesson we learned after we left unfinished business after intervening in the Afghanistan-Russian conflict in the 80s. By not staying then and completing the Afghanistan reconstruction "end-game," as it was referred to by the officials involved (read the book or see the movie "Charlie Wilson's War"), we left that place vulnerable to the development of the Taliban and its connection with Al Qaeda. Same if we were to leave the Sudan to fend for itself. Often by not intervening, we could ultimately cost our citizens and taxpayers much, much more in security vulnerabilities.

Obviously, any reasonable person wishes we'd had solid actionable intelligence on Iraq in the first place and that we'd directed our resources more toward Afghanistan and Al Qaeda. But a very solid case can be made--no matter which end of the political spectrum you stand on--that we ourselves left Afghanistan vulnerable to the growth of terrorism in the first place.

There are quite literally dozens of situations like these in the world at any given time. Situations where we have to decide to intervene militarily or diplomatically or simply with U.S. assistance (usually money or food or both). When it's a human rights or health question, like the situation in Darfur or the AIDS problem in Africa or ethnic-cleansing, like in the Bosnia-Serbo-Croatian situation, the answer's often easier. Religious tolerance and disease control benefit us all. But in other situations, it's not as easy to understand the potential ramifications of involvement versus non-involvement, and we definitely have to pick and choose what we get involved in.

I just want to remind you to take a step back and look at the bigger picture involved than just what's defined by our borders. We're not an island. The world's more interconnected than ever, economically and medically and security-wise. That's what our leaders and diplomats are taking into consideration even though it may not seem that way when you're simply looking at it from a domestic standpoint. If we were to pull completely out of Iraq and that part of the world went to hell in a handbasket and gasoline began to cost $8.50 a gallon and our economy collapsed, we wouldn't have done right by American taxpayers then, either.

Hope this made sense. Sorry for such a long answer.