Courageous leadership, or political pandering?

Why was General Patraeus unanimously approved as our new commander in Iraq, if Democrats were going to pull the plug on the mission before we could even begin to have any success? And if they are deadset on withdrawal, why haven't Democrats started planning for what they are going to do in the aftermath of a hasty US pullout from Iraq? Are we going to partition the country? Withdraw to Kurdistan? Strike a deal with Iran or Syria? Does "pulling out" mean all 150,000 troops? Are we going to leave any of them to fight Al Qaeda? As Joe Biden pointed out, just "bringing home the troops" is not a plan or a strategy. It is a politically convenient and intellectually inane talking point.

One absolutely cannot discuss withdrawal without having a plan for it - and it better be a damn good one. The risks that would follow such a power vacuum in Iraq are enormous, and the Democrats aren't even beginning to acknowledge it, let alone discuss how to prevent a wider catastrophe. This is not Vietnam. This is not Vietnam. This is not Vietnam. There won't be a communist takeover and then peace once we leave. There will be far more violence. It is immoral and irresponsible to just plan on packing up and going home, leaving the region to implode in an orgy of ethnic cleansing, civil war, and regional conflict.

And now Hillary Clinton, one of those wise souls that voted for the Iraq war, and said a few weeks ago that she supported the 'surge', has started talking about a 90 day deadline to have troops out of Iraq. We have deluded ourselves into thinking that things can't get worse. Well, they can. And guess what? Its our responsibility to help fix it, whether we like it or not.

Don't even think about it.

I'd like to reiterate how strongly I would oppose a unilateral air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Some time ago, we sent a second carrier strike group to the gulf. A bit of sabre rattling, but not something to be alarmed about. In fact, I suspected that Bush's personality might come as an advantage in this standoff with Iran. Think about it - if Americans are worried whether Bush is going to bomb Iran, Iranians have got to be wondering more when than if its going to happen. In this game of diplomatic chicken that we seem to be playing, perhaps that might be the impetus that the Iranian leadership needs to negotiate a deal.

A strong position against Iran is very important. While Iranian support for Iraqi Shia insurgents is mostly exaggerated, Iran's support for Hezbollah is well documented. As we saw last summer, that proved to be a very destabilizing force in the region. I'm also very concerned with the Iranian nuclear pursuit, as I've written before. Not because I'm concerned that Iran will go and nuke Israel or even pass off nukes to terrorists (which is possible, but unlikely). The main risk is that Iranian nukes spark a regional arms race with the Gulf Arab states; Saudi Arabia and Egypt in particular. A nuclear armed Middle East would be a disaster waiting to happen.

This all being said, a strike on Iran's nuclear sites would be a disaster. It would rally their people around the government at a time when Ahmedinejad is becoming less popular in Iran for his extreme rhetoric. The air strikes would probably do little, if any good. We set back the nuclear program for a couple of years, and then what? Iran could retaliate throughout the world; in Iraq, Europe, and America. If we think the Shia insurgency in Iraq is bad now, just wait till we bomb Iran. Its just not worth it, not yet anyways. If we must do something, we should impose an oil embargo with our Navy - prevent Iran from exporting any of its oil.

The reason I write this now is because I've just heard that Bush sent a 3rd carrier strike group to the Middle East, and now I'm nervous that Bush isn't bluffing. If legally possible, congress should pass legislation that would prevent Bush from striking Iran without congressional approval. And Americans need to speak up and make sure this President knows that we don't want another war.

Subverting Democracy

Fabricating Casus belli. I'll say it again - I'm not against impeachment.

Speaking of getting rid of Bush. My presidential picks are definitely between two men: John McCain and Barack Obama. McCain has been my favorite for years now. Even though hes been selling out to the right a bit lately (hey, everyone has to play the game), he is one of the most genuine and most capable leaders this country has. In the event that relations worldwide are deteriorating and war or confrontation looks likely, theres nobody that I'd rather have than McCain.

Lots of things could go wrong with the world, too. Things could spiral out of control with North Korea. There could be a confrontation with China over Taiwain. The violence in Iraq would result in a regional war with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et cetera. Russia has been becoming more...fascist, lately; some speak of a renewed cold war. Incidentally, Putin had some disparaging remarks about the US this week; McCain's rebuttal was very impressive.

However, if things between North Korea and Iran have cooled down, and Iraq's violence is localized to that nation only, I'd support Barack Obama. This nation's image worldwide has been horribly damaged, and we need a salesman. Someone charismatic and appealing, to again sell America to the rest of the world. Electing an ethnic minority Democrat would send a positive message to Europe and to our own minorities. The election of B. Hussein Obama might suggest to the Arab and Muslim world that American's aren't as Islamophobic as they might think. And having an African president would go a long way towards developing great partnerships with African nations.

Besides, who else can compete? Hillary Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq but now has no ideas on how to fix it? She is so divisive, and calculating. What about Mitt Romney? A Mormon who is catering to the far-Christian right; where do I sign up!? Rudi Giuliani? Name one thing he has done other than be mayor of NY during 9/11. I'm not saying hes a bad guy, but that hes overrated. John Edwards? As Joe Biden pointed out, he knows nothing about Iraq and how to fix it. Incidentally, Joe Biden is the other foreign policy guru that I could support, except that I dont agree with his idea to partition Iraq (nor do any Iraqis or Arabs for that matter). And lets face it, the Democrat race is a two person contest between Hillary and Obama.

So there it is. McCain or Obama. Nobody else measures up.

John Kerry sells out America.

Recently John Kerry has been abroad, chatting it up with Iran's leadership about the faults of America. For doing so, I believe he is a scumbag of the lowest order, and he is making the world a less safe place by doing so. I dont mind criticism of the US government, of course. God knows, they deserve it. But when abroad, especially when speaking to the leadership of a rogue state like Iran, such action is extremely counterproductive. Not to mention, contrary to American political tradition.

We are having a confrontation with Iran at this very instant. Right now, it is a war of words and of propaganda; it should remain that way. To win this war of words, we must convince the world, the Iranian people, and the Iranian leadership that a nuclear armed Iran simply cannot come to be. I've already posted extensively as to why not.

Sure, the US government has faults! But so does the Iranian government. Are Iranian officals going to come to the US and admit theirs as John Kerry has ours? Hell no! And theirs are many. First and foremost, publicly calling for the eradication of a UN member state. In addition, the Iranian government has repeatedly hung people accused of being homosexuals. The Iranian government recently hosted a Holocaust denial conference. It sponsors and controls Hezbollah, which started a war with Israel this summer and is about ready to start another civil war in Lebanon. It actively funds Shiite death squads in Iraq, helping to stoke tensions there. And all of the while, it is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and may spark a regional arms race in the process.

Recently, Iran's president has been coming under intense pressure, both at home and abroad. Iranians are tired of his extreme rhetoric. They are disgusted with his failed economic policies. They are angry that he keeps turning the international community against Iran and seems to be driving the country to war with the USA. The Iranian President is weak right now, which means it is an opportune time to strike a deal. And then John Kerry goes and completely undermines the USAs rhetorical case. The Iranian leaders already tell their people that the USA is evil. When John Kerry seconds this opinion, will they be more willing to negotiate and make peace? Or more resolved to stand and fight against the Great Satan?

Oh, and to hell with Jane Fonda. Socialist movie stars are the worst.

One last chance to avert WW3.

When I first heard rumors of what Bush was going to do, I was strongly opposed. Several weeks ago I wrote that it was time for the United States to withdraw to Kurdistan. This position change stemmed from the fact that the political process was not moving forward. Regardless of that the media claims, I define a civil war as what happens when political negotiations fail; it seemed that Iraq was at that point.

And it still may be. But now Bush had put forth a new strategy, that couples increased force for security with major political concessions by the Iraqi Shiite Prime Minister, Malaki. He is offering a massive olive branch to the Sunni Arabs (who comprise the bulk of the insurgency) by addressing four of their main complaints. These are:

1. A new plan to spread oil wealth equally among all Iraqis.
2. Revision to the constitution that would make the future amending process easier.
3. Easing and eliminating many of the de-Baathification policies to allow qualified Sunnis regain their jobs.
4. A promise to fight renegade forces of all sects, including Shia ones.

In addition, we have two other advantages with this changed strategy. The first is new leadership. Some time ago, a certain US military commander was in charge of Basra (a large Iraqi city) and brilliantly orchestrated a political deal with the locals that resulted in peace and security. Unfortunately, this commander's unit was relocated and replaced by a unit using traditional US military doctrine. The situation in Basra quickly deteriorated. This same commander, who was so successful in Basra, has recently been made the commander of all US forces in Iraq.

Our second new advantage comes from the north. The Kurds have a well trained military organization that has turned Kurdistan into an oasis of calm and prosperity in Iraq, known as the Pershmerga. The Kurds have promised to send some of these units to Baghdad, to help secure the capital. These forces will be seen as neutral intermediaries between the Sunni and Shia Arabs who are warring. And the Pershmerga have a knowledge of local language and custom that US troops could only dream of having.

These are real solutions to an enormous problem; a far cry from the inane propaganda that we normally hear from the Bush administration. Unfortunately, it is likely that we will fail. I still support this last effort, however, because the alternative is simply not acceptable. At best, the conflict would stay localized to Iraq and there would only be a bit of ethnic cleansing and genocide. At worst, the war would spread to the wider Middle East. There could be millions of casualties either way. And imagine what oil prices would do in the event of a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Kiss the world economy goodbye.

I will greatly regret the US casualties that we will face, but I feel that we owe it to Iraqis and Muslims in general to give it one last shot. And besides, Bush set an implicit timetable in his speech anyways. If there hasnt been serious political gains by November, we're gone.

Why presume to know Iraqi politics?

Clearly the US leadership has no idea what is going on politically in Iraq. Heck, the leading senator on the intelligence committee didn't even know that Hezbollah was Shiite and Iranian-backed, while Al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Sunni Muslim group. That would be like someone having tried to broker a ceasefire in Ireland without knowing the difference between Catholic and Protestant.

The question I have, given the obvious ignorance of our leadership, is why do they continue to try to formulate their own solutions for the problems of Iraqis? The latest bad idea involved a really strange mix of secular Sunni Iraqis, fundamentalist Iranian-backed Shia, and Kurds. Basically, the three groups in Iraq most at odds with each other. The whole idea was to isolate Muqtada al Sadr, a nationalist local Shiite leader, who is a "cause" of some of the problems in Iraq. The plan was submitted to the leading Shiite leader, the Ayatollah Sistani, and Sistani rejected it flat out; not so surprising: Link.

There was an opportunity after the invasion to get things rolling in the right direction. That opportunity has long since been missed by our leadership (including "the greatest secretary of defense in American history", according to Dick Cheney). I said it recently, and I'll say it again. There is no putting a lid on this violence. Bush can send all the troops he wants; every faction in Iraq now knows that America's days in Iraq our numbered - till 2008 at most; I can pretty much guarentee nobody is going to fold to our bluff.

America cannot stabilize Iraq - only Iraqis can do that. At this point, we better start deciding who our real enemies are, and pick our allies accordingly. Our two main enemies are Al Qaeda, first and foremost, and Iranian-backed Shia fundamentalists (SCIRI/Badr), to a slightly lesser extent. We should be backing the secular Sunnis, as they oppose both of these. And we should be backing Al Sadr. He isn't our enemy, he is a nationalist. He opposes America because we occupy his country, not because of who we are. He would fight Iran just as quickly, had they occupied his country.

I am many things; a pessimist is not one of them. But the new path that we have chosen in Iraq, is not going to work.

Oops, did I say cold war?

Juan Cole seems to think it will be a hot one. Hes probably right. The proxy will start in Iraq, but might take a more destructive turn soon after. Heres hoping neither nation is nuclear armed when that happens.

Look for an Israel/Arab peace in the near future. The Sunni Arabs seem to think their real enemies are Iranians and Shiites; Israel is a powerful ally to gain in that battle.

Betrayal is hard to forget.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani condemned the report by the Iraq Study Group released by the US government:

"We can smell the attitude of James Baker in 1991 when he liberated Kuwait but left Saddam in power."

Then, Bush Senior had encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam, which they did. The rebelling Shias and Kurds took over 14 or so of 17 provinces. And then the good Saudi King called up Bush and expressed 'concerns' with having a Shia-Muslim dominated neighbor. So instead of supporting Shia and Kurdish rebels against Saddam's tanks and helicopters, Bush did nothing. And the rebels were massacred, hundreds of thousands of them. It would have been like stopping at the borders of Germany in 1945 instead of finishing the job.

Who knows; maybe Bush was right not to get involved. Maybe there was no exit strategy. Regardless, if nothing else we should at least guarentee the Kurds that we will see them through to the end; that they will either have a stable Iraq or an independent Kurdistan. And as I've said before, we haven't won but neither has anyone else. We need a change of strategy, as the mass occupation isn't working, but that doesn't mean we should leave the country altogether or give up on the whole thing.

Link to all of Talabani's statements.

A New Cold War

A Saudi advisor writes:

"because King Abdullah...gave President Bush his word that he wouldn't meddle in Iraq, these requests (to intervene against Iranian influence) have all been refused. They will, however, be heeded if American troops begin a phased withdrawal from Iraq. As the economic powerhouse of the Middle East, the birthplace of Islam and the de facto leader of the world's Sunni community (which comprises 85 percent of all Muslims), Saudi Arabia has both the means and the religious responsibility to intervene."

I'd write more but my life is absolutely god aweful right now.

Sucks to be al-Maliki. And, why Iraq is completely unlike Vietnam.

I suppose simply being an Iraqi politician sucks, since no matter which side you're on there are at least a few million people that want you dead. But Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has it bad even among this unfortunate bunch, because arguably his two most powerful supporters are demanding opposite things from him.

President Bush is planning on meeting with Maliki in four days. However, Muqtada al Sadr has just demanded that Maliki refuse to see Bush. Al Sadr commands one of the most powerful militias in Iraq, and his faction controls a huge number of Maliki's parliament seats. So if al-Maliki meets with Bush, al Sadr quits the government and the whole thing collapses. Alternatively, if al-Maliki refuses to meet with Bush, then US support will rightfully be removed and the government will collapse that way.

It seems to me that al Sadr is doing this intentionally. These actions will have no other effect than to bring down the current government. And ultimately that may not be a bad thing, as it clearly isn't working or even improving. We must not be quick to condemn al Sadr, though. His goals are a strong independent Iraq, free from Iranian domination, and he has in the past been willing to ally with Sunnis. He will be a natural ally in the future. Allow me to explain.

There are more battles going on in Iraq than just Sunnis vs Shiites. Within the Sunni community, the secular faction (former Baathists) are fighting the fundamentalists (Al Qaeda). In the Shiite community, al Sadr's group is fighting the Iranian backed Badr militia. These intra-sectarian battles aren't the major source of fighting at this time, but they would be as soon as US forces left the main part of the country.

With these differences in mind, the US should withdraw to Kurdistan and from there seek to accomplish four goals:

1. Negotiate a peace between the Kurds and Turkey, which would include getting the Kurds to reign in the PKK terrorist group that is acting in Turkey.

2. Supporting secular Sunnis against their fundamentalist enemies (Al Qaeda). This will be easy, since the secular Sunnis are already winning hands down from what I've been reading.

3. Be prepared to support al Sadr's nationalist Shiite movement against the Iranian-backed SCIRI and their Badr military wing. The Badr might accurately be thought of as an Iraqi version of Hezbollah.

4. Negotiate an alliance between these three national Iraqi groups (the Kurds, secular Sunnis, and nationalist Shiites). This would involve resolving points of dispute, such as the current Sunni-Kurd battle over Kirkuk. With some real diplomacy, I think these differences could be hashed out. And with American military power preventing a complete takeover by one side, I think it might even be possible to entice these sides to come to agree on a democratic government.

Regardless of what people are saying, Iraq is not Vietnam. In Vietnam, we were fighting a single powerful, well organized, and well funded adversary - the communists. When we withdrew from Vietnam, the communists immediately took over. But in Iraq, we aren't fighting one faction. We're fighting many factions that are roughly equally matched. We won the conventional battle of Iraq, but now we see that doesn't mean we won the war. Now some people are saying just because we're losing the battle to stabilize Iraq and establish an independent democratic government, we've lost that war.

They're wrong. America hasn't won, but neither has anyone else. This thing is far from over.

Putin murders former spy?

Here is the end of a letter written by the spy after he was poisoned:

"But as I lie here I can distinctly hear the beating of wings of the angel of death. I may be able to give him the slip but I have to say my legs do not run as fast as I would like. I think, therefore, that this may be the time to say one or two things to the person responsible for my present condition.

"You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed.

"You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value.

"You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women.

"You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life. May God forgive you for what you have done, not only to me but to beloved Russia and its people."

I really thought Russia had moved on from this kind of thing. Clearly, not. The Economist had an article on Russia about a month ago; here are the last two paragraphs:

Russia's huge size and troubled history make any comparisons risky. Yet some see historical parallels in present trends. Yegor Gaidar, a former prime minister, draws an analogy with inter-war Germany, which like post-Soviet Russia experienced economic chaos, then a period of stabilisation in which post-imperial nostalgia took hold. Vladimir Ryzhkov, one of the few remaining independent parliamentarians, worries that Mr Putin seems to be switching from an imperial idea of Russia towards one more resembling a “Reich”.

History also offers a term to describe the direction in which Russia sometimes seems to be heading: a word that captures the paranoia and self-confidence, lawlessness and authoritarianism, populism and intolerance, and economic and political nationalism that now characterise Mr Putin's administration. It is an over-used word, and a controversial one, especially in Russia. It is not there yet, but Russia sometimes seems to be heading towards fascism.

Hey, assholes:

Your leaders tried to exterminate several racial groups, and started the most destructive war in human history. Our leaders were in charge of a handful of soldiers who made jailed insurgents form naked human pyramids, not unlike pledges in a particularly nasty fraternity.

That means just because we got to try and convict your leaders, you dont necessarily get to do the same to ours.

I don't like Rumsfeld. In fact, there isn't another politician that I dislike more. We should investigate his staggering level of incompetence, and he should be held accountable for his authorizations of torture or any other wrongdoings.

However, I'd prefer it if interpreting American laws was left to American judges, thank you very much. Here in the USA, we are perfectly capable of monitoring and punishing leaders who overstep their bounds. And unlike the Germans, we always have been.

***Update***

Darfur is getting worse. It would be nice if Germans spent their time going after real war criminals (hint: they are hiding in Khartoum) instead of making political points. It isn't America's job to police the entire world, and we're busy right now. It makes me angry to see the Europeans doing absolutely nothing to solve the problems that they created.

Dey tuke ur johb!

While there is some debate, the evidence strongly suggests that economic liberalization and the removal of barriers to free trade is beneficial in the long term. However, the adjustment process and short-term damage of free trade is far more visible. Seeing jobs sent overseas is painful to watch, but ultimately it is for the better.

The debate typically stops there, however. The rallying cry is to always protect American workers. I think we might do well to remember two other benefits in particular:

1. Sending jobs overseas provides a source of income for the world's poorest people. Is their life less important because they are not American?

2. Fewer barriers to trade means more trade. And nothing stops conflict and war like economic ties. The more we trade with Africa and the Middle East, the more our interests become their interests.

A final quote from Winston Churchill:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

I always get my way.

In the last few weeks, the world has been very kind to me. Almost every single important issue up for decision has gone my way. I'm getting spoiled!

-The efforts of Hugo Chavez to secure a UN Security Council seat for Venezuela have failed miserably. We haven't heard from him since.

-Kim Jong Il has agreed to restart negotiations on its nuclear program. I'm optimistic about the final result.

-The Democrats took both the House and Senate. Not that I'm thrilled about Democratic leadership; its just that I'm resigned into accepting that all of our leaders are worthless at this point. The best we can hope for is a divided government.

-Joe Lieberman won back his seat from Ned Lamont. Screw you, left wing activists. With the balance of power in the Senate so close, Lieberman is stronger than ever. That is a good thing, because he is a moderate with a proven record of bipartisanship.

-Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death by hanging. Putting someone to death in Iraq doesn't take as long as it does in the USA. Saddam will be dead in a matter of months.

-A right wing evangelical nutjob (Haggard) was humiliated and exposed for being the hypocritical and deceitful fraud that he is. What a scumbag.

-Don Rumsfeld lost his job. FINALLY.

-And, the most recent news, John Bolton is going to lose is job as Ambassador to the UN! That couldn't have happened soon enough...

I should go play the lottery.

What we missed during the election.

I had written a post a while back about nuclear proliferation. It can be found here (it is the second half of that post). In that post, I go into great detail as to why we should be particularly concerned with the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons, and why that reality would greatly increase the risk of nuclear war.

Here are some particularly relevant excerpts from that post:

"When one nation acquires nuclear weapons, then its major rival(s) feel extreme amounts of pressure to do so as well. Otherwise the balance of power is extremely upset in the favor of the nuclear armed nation. The result is a nuclear arms race; such a race greatly increase the probability of nuclear war. So when the US got nuclear weapons, you can bet that Stalin had his scientists working overtime to catch up. And they did, quickly."

This same phenomenon explains why Pakistan rushed to develop nukes, once the Indians had acquired theirs. How does this apply to Iran? Another excerpt:

"So why is Iran such a problem? Iran is a problem because Iran has a LOT of rivals. For starters, every Arabic country in the Middle East, save Syria (which has a temporary alliance of convenience with Iran). Keep in mind that Arabic countries are Arab Sunni Muslim dominated, while the Iranians are Shias and Persian. They dont get along. Heck, even Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs dont get along; look at Iraq."

And now the news. According to the UK Times, six Arab states have declared that they intend to pursue nuclear technology. These nations include Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Let me repeat that. Six Arab Muslim states are going to pursue nuclear technology.

Of course, these six nations officially say they just want nuclear technology to generate electricity. Thats a laugh. Saudi Arabia has a population of 25 million people, and is sitting on enough oil to power the world for about 80 years. They must be dying for more energy. I'm sure some people still believe Iran doesn't want nukes, either.

I hope our new Democrat-led Congress has noticed this. This is what our government needs to address, right now. Nevermind global warming. Nevermind AIDs, birdflu, or terrorism. This is, hands down, the most serious challenge to world prosperity, possibly ever. We must stop Iran from developing their nuclear program; only then could the other nations be convinced to abandon their nuclear ambitions.

There could be, in a matter of decades, 8 countries in the Middle East with nuclear weapons. Six Arab nations, Iran, and Israel. That wouldn't make nuclear war likely. It would make it a virtual certainty.

Making excuses.

We are not losing Iraq because "Arabs are incapable of democracy". That is a racist and empirically untrue excuse. Besides, there is nothing that Arabs have done that Europeans haven't done worse. Ethnic violence? Civil war? Religious extremism? Genocide? Please. Iraqis are amateurs compared to the Europeans. Now the Europeans have taken a break for what, one generation in two millenia? And suddenly they are the pinnacle of human existence?

Moderating and democratizing the Middle East is going to take less time than the Cold War. That is my prediction; one that I unfortunately dont have time to explain right now. Just figured I'd say something optimistic for once.

Human shields.

This is the chosen tactic of Hezbollah and Hamas. It is disgusting, pathetic, and cowardly. Those things aside, the use of this tactic confirms a suspicion that I've had for some time now. These militants clearly hate Israel more than they love their own people. Perhaps this is something that we should always keep in the back of our mind when the complexities of the Middle East puzzle us in the future.

Its time.

The United States isn't going to stop the violence in Iraq, but that was never really a debate. The hope was that eventually the Iraqi government would be strong enough to take control of the country. It is clear now that the Iraqi government isn't going to be able to control Iraq in the far distant future, if ever. It is more fractured by the day, and its constituents are at each other's throats. There is even Shia-Shia infighting, with Al Sadr's militia fighting the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade (who have infested the police force).

What now? A complete withdrawal is a bad idea, because it is almost sure to drag Iraq's neighbors into a regional conflict (ie, quite literally WW3). Partition is a bad idea, because huge areas of the country are mixed in population; ethnic cleansing would certainly follow. The best idea is to withdraw to friendly Kurdistan, and let the Sunni and Shia Arabs fight it out. It would be important for us to negotiate a peace between the Kurds and the Turks. Further, our presence in the north would prevent Iraq's neighbors from getting involved. Finally, even though we won't physically be occupying Baghdad and other places, we'll still have an enormous amount of diplomatic leverage. We can use that power to try to negotiate a peace between the warring Arab factions.

It is mind boggling, the sheer stupidity of this entire adventure. Why the Bush administration found that a secular Arab dictator who was at odds with both Al Qaeda and Iran was an enemy worth removing is beyond me. In four years, Rumsfeld has failed to make any progress in Iraq, yet Bush still thinks he is doing a good job. We should drop them both in the middle of Baghdad, and be on our way.

But I might settle for impeachment.

Venezuela will not give up!

I dont consider myself to be a spiteful person. But I wanted sooo badly to see two people in particular fail at their endeavors. One of my wishes has been granted. When voting at the UN was in deadlock only a short while ago, Hugo Chavez had this to say:

"Venezuela doesn't give up. I say it here to the whole world, Venezuela will continue waging this battle."

And as of today, here is a BBC headline:

"Venezuela and Guatemala have withdrawn their rival bids for a UN Security Council seat from Latin America, diplomats have said."

Eat it, Chavez.

For the record.

I am a moderate libertarian, according to the World's Smallest Political Quiz.