THE WORLD: "A New Approach to Afghanistan: Obama is looking at a regional strategy that would include Iran," by Karen DeYoung, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 17-23 November 2008.

NEWS ANALYSIS: "In Baghdad, Debating Post-U.S. Outlook: Concerns that a government will retain power," by Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell, New York Times, 21 November 2008.

So Obama's review (and one would assume Petraeus is political enough that CENTCOM's ongoing review won't get too far away from this logic, as should Mullen's own rethink in the Joint Staff) looks to draw Iran in on Afghanistan and encourage Kabul to keep talking to the Taliban, while upping the effort on AQ in the FATA. The upshot? We'll get a whole lot more realistic on what nation-building should aspire to in Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, Baghdad's many factions contemplate life beyond a controlling U.S. military presence. It won't be pretty. It just needs to remain decently stable.

Inside the parliament, the fear logically surfaces that the Maliki government will become a pawn of the Shiia majority.

So don't be surprised if the Sunni and Kurds have their own particular set of desires vis-a-vis the U.S. military presence once the all-important "combat troops" are removed come 2011.

I see trip-wire troops being left behind for many years--if we're smart enough to say yes and the Sunni and Kurds are smart enough to ask.