What after the elections?

Amid all the expectations and fears about the upcoming elections in Iraq, one cannot but ask, "What if the election worked but the violence persisted? Then what? What are we going to do after that?"Some people think the elections will answer all these questions while others think it won't change anything and that the war against terror in Iraq is lost anyway. This piece at Andrew Sullivan's is a good example of the perspective of those who think the war is lost and I can't help but offer "my two cents".Sullivan has been arguing for a long time that more troops are needed in Iraq to win this war against the "insurgency". I must admit that so many times I found myself agreeing with him on this issue. I don't believe that he believes this war is lost but I think he's just too frustrated because he really wants it to work and he can't see it working this way, meaning the way the American administration is handling it. I couldn't, however, demand the same as I'm Iraqi and I feel it's not my right to ask people to sacrifice more so that I can live free. But I thought since it's what I believe it should be done even if I were an outsider then I should say it.I do not agree with the whole analysis that Sullivan linked to, especially the conclusion, but I also believe that Iraq's problems won't be solved simply after the elections. It will have a good impact for sure but won't end the struggle. So the question remains, "how to defeat the terrorists in Iraq".I think part of the answer lies in the Palestinians elections. I see Abbas's election as a victory for peace and moderate forces in Palestine despite what some people might say about him. It's a small victory but it's a very important step in the road of peace for this seemingly endless struggle between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This victory was not possible without toppling Saddam, as before that Arab rulers and Saddam had no other issue to use to as a decoy that distracts their own people's attention from the real issues they need to solve in their own lands other than the Palestinian one. Now they're too busy trying to spoil America's plans in Iraq that are much more dangerous to them than Israel to the degree that they left Hammas and its likes alone in the battle and that was with the death of Arafat enough to enable moderate voices in Palestine to find their way. I maybe too optimistic here but I think Just the fact that there has been an election at all is a positive step and at any rate there are more chances for peace now than before.What the analysis linked by Sullivan misses is that America is not fighting a Sunni insurgent alone, as there are the whole powers of terrorism behind it and the support and finance of most Arab countries. This means that establishing peace, order and democracy in Iraq requires defeating terrorism as a whole, and that's the goal of course, but it's the ultimate goal not the immediate one expected from toppling Saddam. To expect to defeat the whole global terrorism through battles in Iraq is not realistic. The realistic goal is deprive them of one more base, establish a democracy in Iraq that can affect the neighboring countries to a great extent and then move on to another base, do the same (which would be much easier than Iraq and won't necessary require an invasion) and so on.Now it's not easy to determine the next base that should be attacked but I agree with those who said that Lebanon is the best candidate. Not Lebanon as a whole of course but Hizbollah and the Syrian army there. There are certainly many arguments against such choice, but I believe it's the best for many reasons. It would terrify Syria and Iran and distract their efforts in disrupting Iraq's march towards democracy, it would help democracy in Lebanon get rid of the influence of the Syrian Army and Hizbollah and it would give Iraq a much needed time to recover and build its infrastructure in a way that makes it not very rewarding to attack it again as the way it is now with the fragile infrastructure. The ex-Ba'athists aided by a very tiny minority of Salafis in Iraq won't be able (without huge aid from neighboring countries and Arab fighters) to stand against the Iraqi government aided by massive American power. They would most likely divide into small gangs that can be annoying but certainly not strong enough to determine a whole country's future.Some people will say, "Are you insane? Another war, while we're not sure this one was the right thing to do?" and I think yes, another war, a limited one most likely would be the right thing to do now. Any half solutions would be as disastrous as a total withdrawal.So yes, more troops would be very helpful for Iraq now and for a short period after the elections but in my mind the best answer to the challenges in Iraq is another strike somewhere else, somewhere near and I can't think of a better option than the south of Lebanon.