The Balkanization Of The Middle East?

I borrow Andrew Sullivan's article heading, which points to the lack of any deep historical identity for any country between Egypt and Iran.  Sullivan quotes Shlomo Avineri who notes:

• "Most international borders in the Middle East and North Africa were drawn by imperial powers – Britain, France, and Italy – either after World War I and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire (the Sykes-Picot agreements), or, as in Libya and Sudan, earlier. But in no case did these borders correspond with local popular will, or with ethnic or historical boundaries. ("The Balkanization Of The Middle East," Andrew Sullivan, Daily Dish, 27 April 2012)

The latest focus is on the future of a Sunnis-Alawite-Druze-Christian-Kurd Syria. But one could also go back to the subject of the fascinating if a tad over-written and self-referential Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq, by Christopher Catherwood (Basic Books, 2004).  [And there is always Michael Zwerin's text from the 70s (see image until I can post a photo of the cover of my personal copy, from which our moniker is derived.]

the surge is...

...fill in the blank.

Here is the point: the surge of a 21st army against pipe-bomb insurgents will always "work," in the short run. An invading/conquering army has control of the air, the main arteries, and backup. Insurgents have..., well, time. Until the sides talk and recognize each other's strengths, then the situation that produced the insurgency--lack of jobs, ethnic cleansing, etc.--continues. Of course, the Maliki government will announce the success of the current program, because their continued "success" depends on American, well, continuance. Yet:

1. The insurgency is mainly against American targets, and our allies. Don't we expect at least some decline if those targets are no longer there?
2. The main reason for the decline in violence has little to do with our troops, and everything to do with walls, surveillance, etc., which has resulted in a MORE balkanized Baghdad, and a more balkanized Iraq. Which means, of course, that what we claimed we are fighting for (well the fourth attempt to explain what we were fighting for; remember: Get rid of WMD's?--fake; stop Saddam Hussein from providing safe haven for Al Qaeda?--fake; bring democracy to the Middle East?--fake {and ludicrous}), that is, a stable, unified government is, get this, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Three separate governments, yes; three governments unified in a very loose federation, possibly. But the only thing these folks are unified in, is, that US troops need to leave. Now.
3. The longer we stay, the strong Iran is in the region.