Just a few questions to perhaps get some discussion going:

I was reading through General van Riper's interview concerning Iraq (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/nature.html) where he stated that a contributing factor to the initiation of the insurgency was the absence of a former surrender. Then I considered why that occurred, whether it was an intentional decision or simply did not enter into the computation. Formal agreements of any kind grant rights to the opposing party and a recognition, at least in some part, to their legitimacy. Part of Israel's problem in making peace in the Palestinian territories, for example, has been the inability to find a counterpart it considers legitimate with which to make peace.

However, I think the difference with Iraq is its recognition as a formal state. Nevertheless, we failed in somehow producing an Iraqi leader from the previous regime with which to make peace. Did our criminalization of the Iraqi regime inhibit us from doing so? Did that failure, even in some small measure, contribute to the instability of Iraq? Are criminalized states less likely to make peace knowing the consequences for its leadership? Does the erosion of political sovereignty as a result of the pervasiveness Western norms (read: criminalization of non-Western regimes) contribute to the generation of small wars?