The underlying operative construct to Mr. Haass' contentions is the tacit agreement by the vast majority of foreign policy establishmentarians that it is the assumed role of the US to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. Given the history of this interference in the Middle East-- Iran: overthrow of Mossadegh, installment of Shah; Iraq: employment of Saddam as agent well before his coup d'etat, encouragement of his war against Iran, supplying him with battlefield satellite photos and poison gas; Afghanistan: involvement with Saudis in creating the mujahaddin force to battle Soviets; Lebanon: intrusion into the civil war. And these are just the highlights that get us into our current predicament. We have simply picked up from Great Britain the Great Game it played for almost two centuries in the region. Nothing Great Britain or we have done appears to have improved the lot those we've pushed around. Afghanistan was arguably much better off when the Soviet installed regime was in power. But our game was to create for the Soviets its own Viet Nam. Our interference there, and in Iran especially, has had a very long tail with consequences that embroil our empire's citizens in angels on pinhead contretemps... wars of choice vs wars of necessity. In reality, all these conflicts have their source in our choice to interfere in the internal workings of these countries two generations ago when they represented not one iota of threat to the US. It was our nascent imperialism in the 1950s, nursed along by foreign policy wonks who view the Middle East as a chessboard on which to play their Great Game, that has led inexorably to these wars. Whether they are perceived in current contexts as established by choice or necessity is quite irrelevant. All these conflicts are a product of our surge toward empire.