Well....both of you make excellent points, and I can't say honestly that I disagree with the bulk of them. However, since I've lived and worked in the region, and have a number of acquaintances there with whom I continually keep in contact, I have only one rebuttal........backed up by their first hand wisdom:
Iran is the problem........
Iranians are not Arabs (Semites), and the theocracy in Iran is going to start a real shooting war........it's not a question of if, but a question of when........
We are already engaging Iranian proxies in Israel, Indonesia, South America, Central America, as well as other Middle Eastern countries. It's not really open for debate......Iranians just this past week attempted to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador right here on American soil.....
The Shi'a in Iran believe that war is the only way to propagate Islam.......they believe that as fundamentally as Christians believe that Christ is the Redeemer. Diplomacy and multilateral discussions or sanctions are not going to change that.......ever.......after initiating hostilities with one of their neighbors, Iran's first official act will be to close the Straits of Hormuz, cutting off 60% of the world's supply of oil.
Will you be happy to sit here, with all of our troops at home, when our economy is totally crushed, and we are paying $50 per gallon of gas (when we can get it), our homes are cold, and our industries are grinding to a halt?
Therefore, we are left with two choices......fight them over there, or fight them here.......leaving them alone, and walking away looks good on paper, makes us feel good, but it is extremely risky.
If we abandon a strong military presence in the Middle East, sooner or later Iran is going to drop a nuke on Israel, and further, Pakistan's government is devolving toward theocracy as well, and will ultimately look more and more like that they will enter into a nuclear exchange with our close friends in India.......this will ignite a conflagration that will involve the US, whether we like it or not.
Therefore strategically, would we rather have some military assets retained in the region to both act as a deterrant, as well as be available to respond quickly should hostilities erupt.......or would we rather sit on our collective asses, and when they erupt be in a position where it will require six months to marshall the forces to accomplish anything........??
Obama will likely be a one term president, and we need to elect a replacement that has a very large metallic set of gonads........I don't think we can assume that the job is done, and take our ball home without placing American interests at significant jeopardy.
I understand that you see this as a futile effort, but respectfully.....it isn't.....our future is very definitely at stake here.
YMMV
doc