The news this weekend is filled with stories of a war ravaged Middle Eastern capital that in the last three days has seen another 113 people killed in fighting led by Islamic insurgents. One local leader said, “Today was one of the worst days of shelling yet…. We call on both sides to cease this war immediately.”

Close to 1/3 of the capital’s population has fled in the past three months and suicide bombers are killing dozens of people.

Baghdad? No. Mogadishu, Somalia.

The story is painfully familiar and happens with or without U.S. involvement. It doesn’t appear that U.S. or U.N. troops are the answer for these civil wars. The leaders of these groups are like rabid dogs and while we may, may, be able to pull them apart for a while, eventually we have to let them go and they are right back at it. While I hate the idea of simply containing the area and hoping the violence is isolated to the Middle East (a perhaps unrealistic hope), none of the alternatives we’ve tried seem to be working.

Perhaps a region almost permanently torn by civil war(s) is not suited to peace and/or democracy. It strikes me that until there is evidence contrary to what we are witnessing, maybe U.S. blood should not be spilled in the Middle East. Politics aside, if it doesn’t make sense in Iraq (and indicators are that it doesn’t), it also doesn’t make sense in Iran, Darfur or Somalia.