In order to answer that, we must first have a definition of what success in Iraq and Afghanistan and the entire "war on terror" means. If it means a prolonged conflict by which the US can secure permanent military bases within the Middle East in order to maintain leverage over the natural resources in the region, while American political and corporate elites can continue to enjoy their war profiteering, then my advice is "stay the course"—we are doing just fine!

If, however, we define success as establishing peace and stability in the region while ensuring that there is no militant or terrorist threat against the US, then of course, a different road must be taken. The first step on this road is realizing the root causes fueling and instigating militant resistance against the United States from the Middle East. What is provoking continued resistance to the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran? What is motivating popular support throughout the Middle East for this resistance? There is no doubt that such militant resistance to the US has created a security threat for the United States both globally and domestically. This security threat has then been used by the American Government  to justify further military intervention in the Middle East—which has served to create further militant resistance against the US, thereby creating a cyclical security dilemma. Studies done by top American political scientists, however, show that violent militant resistance and terrorism against the US was not the cause of American military presence in the Middle East, but rather, the security threat against America was created as a result of American military presence and intervention, like support for oppressive regimes.

Thus, in order to properly solve the security threat in the Middle east, we must properly address its origins. Only then may we give the correct treatment to solve the crisis. Otherwise mistreating a misdiagnosed patient only worsens their problems. Robert Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago writes in his book, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, that the root goal of suicide terrorism, the deadliest form of terrorism, is "to compel liberal democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland. Religion is rarely the root cause… Even if our intentions in Iraq are good, our presence there will continue to help terrorist groups recruit more people willing to blow themselves up in the war against America."

Thus the first step towards achieving success in Iraq and Afghanistan, is to realize that the military resistance in the Middle East and its wide spread Arab support has nothing to do with differences in religion or culture, but is rather a reaction to America’s foreign policy, intervention, military presence, and occupation of Arab land. Pape writes

"This presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is wrongheaded, and it may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies that are likely to worsen America's situation….Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us."

Of course now we can take these four reasons, replace the third with the actual occupation of Iraq and add a fifth, the occupation of Afghanistan, and we can correctly asses the cause of militant resistance to the US. While none of these of course justify terrorism, nonetheless they are the political reasons behind militant resistance to the US in the Middle East. In essence occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is of course the cause of the insurgency legitimately (according to international law) resisting occupation of their land, and the other three reasons serve to provide widespread support throughout the entire Middle East to militant resistance against the US, and serve to instigate further attempted terrorist attacks against American financial and political institutions at home and abroad.

Realizing the true nature of the conflict is central because so long as Americans mistakenly thinks the violence in the area is due to intangible factors -  like difference in creed and culture -  then they can never take proper measures to solve the crisis. However, when Americans understand that there are actual tangible strategic reasons for anti-American resistance in the Middle East and terrorism worldwide, then they may take proper measures to solve the problem. Thus, the following steps may be taken once Americans realize the root causes of terrorism— which is namely US support for Israel and US military presence in the Middle East, NOT religion or culture:

-US public condemnation of all Israeli war crimes and violations of international law, the cessation of all military and settlement funding from the US to Israel. Direct pressure against Israel to give Palestinians full rights as any Israeli citizens and integrate Palestinians into the state of Israel—each city and territory should be governed by mayorships elected by their constituents. Palestinians should have equal access to all aspects of the democratic Israeli state and Palestinians wrongfully expelled from Palestine are given the right of return, so that it is a true democracy and Palestinians no longer feel oppressed and Muslims no longer feel the US is supporting an oppressive power. This issue is central to achieving peace in the Middle East since it is the main source of animosity against the US. No further efforts will work so long as the US is hated in the Middle East for support of what is viewed as Israeli human rights violations of Palestinians. Debra DeLaet of Drake University writes:

"Innocent Palestinians suffer as a result of the militarization of the occupied territories that Israel pursues as a security measure. At the same time, innocent Israeli civilians are targeted with violence because they are viewed by the Palestinians as complacent in their oppression. Thus, Israel’s response to its security dilemma helps to perpetuate the cyclical nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the end, Israeli efforts to bolster its security with measures that violate basic civil rights and liberties are experienced as oppression by the Palestinians, and the cycle of violence and repression continues to spiral."

With the billions of dollars in US military aid going to Israel, the Arab world sees America just as guilty in the oppression of Palestinians, and thus America has become in the center of this cycle of violence as well. So long as the US continues support of Israel, the US has no credibility with the Arabs, and will never have popular support in any work it attempts to do in the Middle East. If the US treats the Palestinian-Israeli issue fairly and provides justice for the Palestinians then the US will gain credibility and respect in the Middle East and other negotiations may succeed…

-Negotiation with the Taliban for the withdrawal of US forces, reparations to Afghanistan paid by the US to rebuild infrastructure and provide food, water, and health care. In return the Taliban will cease to support any attacks against the US domestically and internationally, which they would defiantly do if the US is no longer seen as the supporter of aggression in the Middle East. (It must be remembered that they are not fighting us because of religion or culture, but because of our policy in the Middle East, once we remove the cause they will cease to fight, as they stopped fighting Russia after it withdrew) Further the Taliban would agree to the protection of Human Rights, but not by western standards, rather by what is most effective for the region. Of course the US does not wish to negotiate with the Taliban since the Taliban would regain power—however they already are gaining more territory in Afghanistan, and have been the only group able to bring stability to the region, and the US has nothing to fear from the Taliban if it removes its forces, pays reparations, and is not supporting aggression in the Middle East. America can only take this step once it realizes and admits that Taliban resistance to the US has nothing to do with cultural differences and everything to do with our foreign policy. Further as Political Scientists have written, you cannot force Democracy onto a people, and definitely not a Democracy that follows your foreign interests.

- Iraq will be the most difficult, partly because there is evidence that the US and UK are involved in instigating sectarian violence. Nonetheless, the first step is a formal apology for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and admittance that it was in violation of international law. Next is to terminate all government contracts with American corporations in Iraq and instead train, hire, and pay Iraqis the billions of dollars going to western firms. This will greatly enrich the Iraqis and create widespread US support. At the same time, negotiation with top Sunni and Shia insurgent leaders must take place where the US agrees to withdraw all forces, in return for the cessation of all attacks against the US. New elections must take place where by Sunnis and Shias are equally given voice, and a new security service comprising of top Sunni and Shia leaders must be established to stop sectarian violence. There may continue some internal violence within Iraq after the US leaves, however that should terminate as one group takes control and establishes a strict intelligence agency, similar to the oppressive yet effective mukhabarat who can study and crush internal violence, as was done under Saddam’s regime. Justice may not be immediately be established in Iraq, but at least their will be stability and thousands of Iraqi lives will be saved. Meanwhile the US can politically pressure the group in power for more democratic reforms (if that is what the US really wants) in return for humanitarian and economic aid to the Iraqis, as Islamic movements grow within the political structures established. This is not an ideal solution, yet it seems to better than the other options. At the same time state funding and support for main stream traditional Islamic scholarly education well rounded in all Islamic sciences like fiqh (jurisprudence), tazkiyah (spiritual purification), Ihsan (perfection/rectification) should bring a revival of traditional Islam which emphasizes love and justice.

However, this leaves an important unanswered question. If the underlying reason America is in the Middle East is not because of the security threat (remember there was never a security threat from Middle Eastern States or the Islamic world before our intervention there, Iraq never had WMD’s, did not support Bin Laden, nor possessed a threat against the US) then why Is America there? Simple—to secure American economic interests. It would seem that the solution to America’s security threat is simple—cease intervention and occupation in the Middle East. However if the US does that, then there is a tradeoff it must make, it must loose its economic interest in the region. This is because America’s foreign policy towards the past thirty years in the Middle East has been aimed at securing strong influence over the world’s largest single sources of natural gas and petroleum—found in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and you guessed it, Iran (which has the largest unused potential for petroleum and is situated in a position to control 40% of the worlds petroleum exports). However, left on their own, without military pressure from the US—Middle Eastern leaders may pursue economic policies which benefit themselves and their countries, as opposed to benefiting the US. Apparently, people do not like their country’s natural resources used to enrich foreign nations at the expense of their own countries loss.

The main issue however is that the US must be willing to sacrifice some American corporate economic interests in the region. This may in fact be in America’s as a whole’s long term economic interest as the wealth (over one trillion dollars) using to protect Americas security and continue the occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq is reinvested in the economy. Not to mention a more friendly policy in the Middle East would attract favorable business dealings from the Middle East. It must not be forgotten that Americans bought gasoline very cheaply until the oil embargo by Saudi Arabia which was instated for a short time in reaction to America’s support for Israel which upset the Saudis since Israel was created by a "campaign of assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, intimidations, disruptions and sabotage" (BBC) against innocent British, Arabs, and even fellow Jews. This is a prime example of Middle East resistance to the US because of the US’s support of oppressive regimes.

Sacrificing American corporate economic interests, however, does not mean sacrificing American strategic long term interests. America is strategically better off not having leverage through military means over the resources in the Middle East and not being a target of world animosity and terrorism, then by having leverage over Middle Eastern wealth yet being a target of terrorism at home and abroad, while at the same time America looses the very civil liberties which make America, "America," in the efforts being used to combat domestic terrorism. And as mentioned, above, this may even be good for economy in the long run.

America’s military involvement in the Middle East has been shown not to be in the strategic interests of the US as it has only increased the security risk against the US. However the American Administration has not ceased military involvement in the region since that goes against the above mentioned economic interests of the US, as the only way America can pursue economic policies which will unfairly benefit the US at the expense of the local populations, is through dictators and the military. So the first step to achieving peace and stability in the Middle East is to be willing to sacrifice America’s self-centered economic interests in the Middle East, so that America may therefore may be willing to stop such policies (like support of dictators and occupations) which have created the tension and the conflict in the region. In doing that America may therefore be able to truly secure its long term strategic, security, and most probably even, economic interest.