The Solution to the Iraq Problem

We are now approaching four years of involvement in the second go-round for Iraq. Four years is not a long time on a geological scale, but is quite substantial in the context of war. The U.S. Civil War was only four years. World War II was six.

An aside... If you think the bulk of WWII was fought in France, England, North Africa, and the Pacific, I beg to differ. An estimated 23 million Soviets died in the war--military, civilian, and Holocaust. That's 24 times the combined deaths of the UK and US.

But, back to Iraq.... Those were wars that had clear winners and losers, so it's easy to see where the tide turned and fortune smiled on the eventual victors. Not so for Iraq. In fact, I don't think it's clear who is winning, but it is surely not us. (Think on that). I also think I know why.

We choose not to win. Yep, choose.

A conventional military cannot defeat a determined guerrilla campaign without exceedingly harsh measures. That same military cannot defeat a suicidal guerrilla campaign without extreme measures. Let's look now at some successful methods of dealing with such campaigns from the past.

1. Genocide. This is clearly the most effective method. If a people is giving you trouble, you kill them all. Simple and long-lasting. The historical precedents are too numerous to list. Our military is more capable than any in history to make this a reality.
2. Assimilation. You destroy a culture by breeding it out. Effective, but time consuming. Our military is not well equipped to handle this chore.
3. Destruction by alliance. This is really two methods: (a) Turn the populace against the guerrillas and (b) arm one faction and let them fight the other. Method (a) requires harsh and certain retaliatory measures against the populace so that they are vastly more scared of us than the guerrillas. We could easily accomplish this. Method (b) is even easier.
4. Bribing. As of this writing and according to this site the total cost of the war is over $360 billion. That's a lot of money. With that much money, you could give all 27 million Iraqis around $13,500 with that amount of money. This is in a country that before we invaded has a per capita GDP of around $1200. The equivalent of giving $465,000 to an American, when you adjust for purchasing power. You buy a lot of "democracy breaking out" for that.


We do not choose any of these options. Thus, we do not choose to win. We could easily accomplish all of the options save assimilation. We choose not to because our hearts are not hard enough. We don't have the stomach for it.

On September 11, 2001, I sat on a good friend's back porch and said that I thought that what had just happened would make us worse as a people--that it would make us more evil. I don't think it really has. We are still the country that lost Vietnam. We are not hard core enough to play games with people who have nothing to lose. Sadly, I think that means that we should go home and accept our loss. Sure, we killed Saddam and if that's a win in your book, then huzzah! But the whole "let's-make-a-bunch-of-sectarian-backwards-tribal-illiterate-
barbarians-into-4H-loving-Lutherans" just isn't going to happen.

We went there to make sure they didn't use or contribute to the use of weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that's going to happen now. As John Derbyshire of the National Review put it in 2003 (but has since recanted), "There is no trouble from rubble." Amen.

How a cyborg, wife beating, and sex clubs may have chosen our next President

Barack Obama. He has a new book out about hope and audacity. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream

I should think so. How unlikely is his Presidential candidacy? Damn, damn unlikely, if you ask me. Here is a quick recap for those of you who haven't followed the meteoric rise of Sen. Obama.

• Obama was an Illinois state legislator who had lost his only bid for national office in a run for the House in 1999.

• He trailed badly for the Democratic nomination for the Senate until it was disclosed that the front runner, Blair Hull, was, in a addition to a multi-millionaire, a wife beater.
• Obama won the nomination and faced Jack Ryan in the general election.
• Ryan's ex-wife is Jeri Ryan, who played Seven of Nine, a Borg, on Star Trek: Voyager:

• She had divorced him in 1999 and fought a custody battle for a few years later. The divorce papers were public but bland. The custody battle documents were anything but. A California judge unsealed them at the request of the Chicago Tribune.
• Jackpot.
• The former Mrs. Ryan had accused Jack of taking her to sex clubs in LA, New Orleans, and Paris and asking (forcing?) her to engage in sex acts with him in public. How titillating.
• Ryan was finished.
• He withdrew on July 24, 2004. Two days later, Obama gave the keynote address at the Democratic Convention--something he certainly wouldn't have been asked to do if the summer's disclosures about Ryan had not made him a clear front runner. He was spectacular and vaulted into the national consciousness.
• The GOP, in a befuddling move, asked columnist Alan Keyes, a Maryland resident, to take on Obama. His main qualification, I suppose, was that he was black. He is also far too conservative for a "purple state" like Illinois, an outsider, an opinion columnist, and, to be frank, somewhat crazy looking.
• Obama won handily.
• Now, not even halfway through his first Senate term, he's running for President.

If he wins, he should have the grace to thank cyborg orgies and rich wife beaters.

A dream that may come true

My first real post will not be about politics, religion, the law, or anything really important. Instead it will be about a daydream coming true. When I think of the things I would do if I were a multi-billionaire, one thing always floats to the top of my mind. I would produce a miniseries of my favorite books of all time, George R.R. Martin's series, A Song of Ice and Fire. It would take a miniseries unless I could find a studio willing to even take my money to make 18-30 feature length movies.

And now, Lo! Variety is reporting that HBO has inked a deal to do just that. A Song of Ice and Fire miniseries. The director is unknown and it is WAY too early for casting. Nevertheless, I find myself giddy with anticipation. It could be so very good.

Strangely, one of the things that hit me hardest was that this will be a unique opportunity for a dwarf actor to really play a good role--Tyrion Lannister. A role where dwarfism will be a central part of the character and where jibes, shame, and self-mockery will be a big part of every scene. You rarely (ever?) see a Little Person play a role where the fact of the character's dwarfism is even acknowledged. He probably doesn't know it yet, but some sub 4'6" guy out there is going to have a chance at an Emmy playing Shae's Giant of a Lannister.

For those of you who have read ASOIAF, as the series is acronymed by the faithful, you will no doubt be aware that the series is full of frank sexuality--homosexual, with girls under the modern age of consent; violence--warfare, domestic violence, trial by combat, death by molten gold, etc.; and ambiguity--good guy? bad guy? These things generally are sanitized or simplified for TV. But not HBO. Look at Rome, Deadwood, The Wire. If they make ASOIAF anywhere nearly as well as they do those shows, I'll be very satisfied.

For those of you who haven't read the series, for shame. Move yourselves at all deliberate speed to your place of book buying and purchase all four books that are currently available (number five will be release soon). Or you could just go to Amazon. com:

The Unpaid Pundit Begins His Punditry

Every now and then, I'll actually say something that sounds--even to my exceedingly humble ears--pretty damn good. At these times, I will often say, "See? See? I should be a pundit! I should be one of those people CNN, Fox News, or NPR calls up when they need to ask an expert to make sense of today's big news story."

Now, I'm not really an expert on anything. This doesn't disqualify me in the least, though. Most pundits I've seen appear to be experts in obfuscation and hair gel application. I can do those two things, I think.

Anyway, I am going to start making comments about things that happen in the world. Some of them may actually be insightful. The vast majority, I'm sure, will not be.

I will blog under my own name and with my main email address. I think that will keep me honest and prevent blogging when I'm feeling particularly nasty. Those times are rare, but I would like them to be private, too. Anonymity brings out the best and worst in people because it brings out who a person really is. Some people suck when they can't apply their candy coating. Maybe I'm afraid that I'm one of those people.

Well, here goes...