Confusion on Iraq

There seems to be some confusion concerning Iraq on the TV news.
I was watching Fox News this morning. A commentator was reporting that insurgent groups had captured two or three cities in Iraq. The commentator was bemoaning the fact that we had spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to come to this loss. He blamed it on the Obama Administration for having withdrawn US troops from Iraq too early.
However, let's look at a little of the recent history and put this in perspective with respect to cultural differences between Middle Easterners and Americans.
President Bush decided to invade Iraq, because he perceived Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as a "clear and present danger" to the US. I did not perceive it in the same way. My positive aspects were that Saddam Hussein had a well-organized country and had kept insurgents under control by jailing or killing them. In addition, he was always a threat to Iran, having engaged Iran in at least one recent war. It is unclear to me why President Bush thought that Saddam Hussein was a clear and present danger.
We then invaded Iraq with the stated intention of deposing Saddam Hussein. I believe we also had in mind that we should be converting Iraq to a democratic country in the Middle East, to further our continuing attempts at nationbuilding. In this case, Iraq would serve as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, and theoretically the whole of the Middle East could be democratized. We were successful in the stated intention. We killed Saddam Hussein. While this supposedly left the country open to democratization, it also offered a great opportunity for various insurgent groups to struggle for control.
Now let's take a look at cultural differences between Middle Easterners and Americans.. Culture is made up of two factors; belief in an unknown, which we generally categorize as religion, and practices which have existed for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. American religious beliefs are primarily Christian. Middle Eastern religious beliefs are primarily Muslim. However, the two eligions are somewhat similar in that both contain the concept of a "hereafter". For Muslims, the personal benefits in the hereafter are significantly better than the present benefits of life. For Christians, the personal benefits of the hereafter are less so. This leads to the fact that Muslims are usually much more willing to die for a cause than are Americans. This is demonstrated in the fact that Muslims usually engage in physical means to resolve disputes. Americans are much more inclined to use negotiation for resolution of disputes. In simple terms, insurgent Middle East groups will use killing of the enemy in order to establish control, while Americans will use verbal persuasion to establish control.
In addition, Middle Easterners have two cultural practices which Americans usually abhor or at least do not accept. Lying is considered by Middle Easterners to be an acceptable practice, even if not promoted. Secondly, perceived injustices by individuals or groups will remain for hundreds if not thousands of years as a basis for antagonism and retribution. For Americans, the Hatfield and McCoy controversy is funny. For middle Easterners, similar situations are a way of life.
So, we can now go back to consider Iraq. Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was a stabilized country under the domination of Saddam Hussein. Iraq also made a contribution to the world economy by reason of its production of oil. In effect, oil gave Saddam Hussein the power of an advanced economic society. As can be expected, it also attracted insurgent groups, who desired the personal advantages of power and high living conditions enjoyed by Saddam Hussein and his associates. As mentioned before, Saddam Hussein kept the insurgency under control through use of jail and killing.
When the US invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, insurgency groups immediately arose to take Saddam Hussein's place. Those groups fought among themselves to obtain a first position and were all controlled, at least in part, by the presence of American military forces. When Obama decided to move out the American military forces, this left the insurgents with the ability to fight among themselves which would result in one of the groups being a winner to control the country and reap the benefits of oil production. This has now apparently happened, with an insurgent group having taken over two or three Iraqi cities. We don't know which group this is, and it doesn't make any difference. One or the other would be the same. If having obtained a semblance of control, this will be extended to full control using the same techniques previously employed by Saddam Hussein; jail or kill the opposition. In any event, it makes no difference to the US, as long as the controlling group concentrates on consolidating its position of controland establishing a military power base so that it cannot be easily invaded by other Middle Eastern countries.
With that all said, we now must inject the other cultural aspect of grievances. Middle Easterners have a long-term grievance against Jews. There is no way that they will ever be talked out of this position. Therefore, they will individually attack Israel militarily whenever the odds seem to be reasonably in their favor. The likelihood of a Middle East country consolidation against Israel  is remote, because Middle Easterners and theirt countries are normally opposed to consolidation. They are strong proponents of individual liberties. Take another look at the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" to understand this point.
Other than perceived injustices by Israel, Middle Easterners also have a shorter-term perception of injustices by the US. Much of this involves its support of Israel. However, Middle Eastern countries have no significant opportunity to militarily attack the US. However, insurgent groups of radical Muslims, which we deem terrorists, have a long-term interest in making Americans as miserable as possible, through terrorist activities. Those terrorist groups always have need for physical bases from which to operate. Most Middle East countries are sympathetic enough so that they will supply such bases. Some recent examples are Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia.
So, what is it that the US should do with respect to the Middle East?
First, allow all military operations within any Middle East countries or among Middle East countries to proceed without any intervention by the US. Let these people struggle for power through the standard procedures that they have used for thousands of years. The more the struggling, the better, since there are then less time and facilities to devote to grievances against the US by use of terrorist activities.
Make it clear that the full power of the US military will come down on any Middle East country or insurgent group that attacks Israel.
Internally promote the development of oil and gas in the US in order to become less dependent on Middle East oil and thus avoid any need for US military operations in the Middle East in order to obtain an appropriate supply.
The US must maintain vigilance against terrorist groups operating against the US. Middle East countries should be notified that with or without permission of the host country, any terrorist bases of military training or administration will be targets of US attack.
Finally, the US should give up any idea of democratizing the Middle East; nationbuilding. Middle East cultural aspects involving religion and grievances make this an impossible task.