Perhaps we should revert to the simpler strategy of "cut-and-run", without all this business of bringing in Iran and Syria for their contributions. Then they shall have to meet directly, without the US as intermediary.
Oh, I forgot. They ALREADY meet directly, without the aid and assistance of the US.
We are just getting written out of the script now, is all.
And the "stability" we so desperately seek, shall continue to elude us and everybody.
Don't get sucked in by this. "Stability" is a fetish of career State Department weenies who give a sh*t less for the interests of the US. These wisenheimers identify with the country or region they specialize in--and begin to work for those interests instead of the US's interests. James Baker is a classic "stability" freak--who cares who wins, as long as the world goes on without disrupting my cushy deal?..."Diamond Jim"...you bet.
The only time we can realistically make progress is during periods of INstability--that is when we can shape and change the facts on the ground, usually with direct application or imminent threat of military force. Presdient Bush started out acting as if he understood this elementary reality, but somewhere a couple years ago he got misled, and a great opportunity was lost.