’Heartland’ strategy in Iraq

Well I do disagree on this one. (surprise)  Central Asia cannot be dominated by the United States because it is not reachable by sea.  Our milieu is the rimland, Russia's is the heartland.  It makes no sense to interpose ourselves in the region (other than temporarily, and with Uzbekistan's agreement).  We have policy differences with some of those governments, and it they want us to go we will.  NATO presence in Afghanistan is now less in need of central Asian support bases unlike in 2001/02.

I don't think US policymakers ever looked at the region except as a temporary jump-off to Afghanistan.  Of course the region is of concern in that instability and great power conflicts that may arise cause problems that can spill over into other areas (Transcaucasus; Iran, of course Afghanistan...that place has been a problem for everyone for like 24 centuries).  Don't look for permanent golf courses or baseball fields in Uzbekistan.

Alot of those insurgents fighting in Iraq are not fighting for the same reasons. I'd be willing to bet that a fourth of them are Saddam supporters, as during the election you saw one side of the insurgents warning the other not to attack or they'd be fighting each other. They are all fighting for different reasons.

The FBI last week said that Al Qaeda was looking for blonde hair and African Americans to use in a attack at a upcoming basketball game. Our enemy doesn't have a face and doesn't have a territory to protect. They work in cells with any amount of people and there are probably a few sleeper cells in the US now. They are not dumb people, they understand that they now have to be much more careful in how they work.

Like I said before, it only takes a handfull of willing terrorist. They may have never even seen the frontline. Those fighting in Iraq are mostly lower class people, but most terrorist come from middle class. If they want to perform an  unorganized attack they would have, but I believe they are planning something much bigger.