ARTICLE: "Shiite Politicians Grow More Critical of Iraq's Government," by Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, 2 October 2006, p. A7.

ARTICLE: "In Northern Iraq, A Rebel Sanctuary Bedevils the U.S.; In Wake of Kurdish Attacks Against Turkey, Washington Is Caught Between Allies," by Philip Shishkin, Wall Street Journal, 2 October 2006, p. A1.

ARTICLE: "Fatal Clashes in Gaza Over Unpaid Salaries," by Steven Erlanger, New York Times, 2 October 2006, p. A9.

OP-ED: "The Key to Afghanistan: More Time," by Jim Hoagland, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 2-8 October 2006, p. 5.

ARTICLE: "U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil," by Michael Slackman, New York Times, 25 September 2006, p. A1.

ARTICLE: "Growing Unarmed Battalion in Qaeda Army Is Using Internet to Get the Message Out," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 30 September 2006, p. A6.

ARTICLE: "Report Cites Bid by Sunnis in Bahrain to Rig Elections," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 2 October 2006, p. A3.

OP-ED: "An Offer Tehran Can't Refuse," by Ted Koppel, New York Times, 2 October 2006, p. A23.

I never anticipated Iraq would be easy. When I described it in the original Esquire "Map" article, I said, "As baby-sitting jobs go, this one will be a doozy, making our lengthy efforts in postwar Germany and Japan look simple in retrospect." I also said in the later Iraq country entry: "Question of when and how, not if. Then there's the huge rehab job. We will have to build a security regime for the whole region."

For the life of me, I do not understand why there is no effort, especially from our quarrters, to create some CSCE-like (Council for Security and Cooperation in Europe that served as regional security forum for East v. West in the Cold War) entity for the region. Why is there no regional security dialogue that involves all the local players, plus the major outside powers?

You can say it happens in the UN, but that's saying almost nothing. You can say the outside powers cooperate on Iran, but that's only over one single issue (WMD).

Meanwhile, Iraq is coming apart (no big surprise, as the Sunnis are forced into accepting the same reality the Serbs were once forced to swallow--it's all gone and it's never coming back again), but that means--at a minimum--a multilateral conversation that involves the Turks, the Iranians, the Jordanians, the Saudis and the Syrians.

The West Bank and Gaza continue their downward slide, and now Israel is turning an eye once again toward settlements. Again, there is no multilateral regional security forum where that is discussed.

You have UN troops in Lebanon after Israel invaded. That also gets you Syria at the table, and probably Jordan.

Hoagland says more time is needed in Afghanistan. Hell, it's needed throughout the region, and a security forum that puts everyone around the table is a great place to buy such time.

You've got an election scandal brewing in Bahrain, where the government is apparently granting citizenship to any Sunnis it can lure from neighbors. Why? It fears the majority Shiia will be emboldened by recent events in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Doesn't that sound like the kind of thing a regional forum might address?

Shiia getting uppity across the dial, Sunni al Qaeda sympathizers pushing propaganda like never before across the web, Iran stepping into a MAD-like stand-off with both Israel and the U.S., both of which would definitely light the place up--with good reason--the minute some terrorist group flashed that it had a nuke and was willing to use it.

I understand that the Arab League gets together regularly and does less than nothing on every issue under the sun. I'm not talking about locals just talking to locals.

I understand the G-7 has talked this up several times. I'm not talking about outsiders just talking to outsiders.

I'm talking about locals plus the outside powers of interest in a forum where we finally get past the annual grandstanding BS we see in the UN General Assembly.

Instead, we get ass-covering foreign policies from both locals and outsiders, with the U.S. leading the pack. Bush and Rice are sitting on top of easily the most fluid and interesting and full-of-potential regional diplomatic situation we've ever faced in the Middle East, but what have we seen from them? Where are the bold strokes and stunning breakthroughs? Where are the inconceivables pulled out of hats by Rice shuttling back and forth in a jet?

Nothing. Nada. Not even an attempt. Not even a floater. Not a thing from this super-bold president and his universally acclaimed Secretary of State, who, like the previous, is racking up non-acccomplishment after non-accomplishment.

Think Kissinger or Nixon or James Baker or Bill Clinton would be sitting on their hands throughout this whole thing? Just staying the course?

I know you can find me dozens of regional experts who will tell you nothing of the sort is possible, for more reasons than I can count. The same regional types would have told you the same about all the diplomatic breakthroughs of the past right up to the moment until they happened.

I guess I just remain stunned that no one proposes anything of this sort, despite everything currently in play in the region, despite its huge importance to the global economy, despite the huge investment of military effort and the accompanying dangers of spreading jihadism.

I mean, Bush wastes his political capital on all sorts of stuff that never gets him anywhere (like loyalty to this or that person in his cabinet) and his second term is disappearing. What in God's name does the man have to lose at this time?