Conditional

The Boston Globe reports that Jordan and Yemen are agreeing to "conditionally" send troops to Iraq.

Hmmn--I wonder what the conditions are....

From Monty Python's Meaning of Life: If you're not getting your hair cut, you don't have to move your brother's clothes down to the lower peg, you simply collect his note before lunch after you've done your scripture prep when you've written your letter home before rest, move your own clothes on to the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr Viney that you've had your chit signed.

Then send troops.

Yeah, I know I've used this line before--and I know the conditions aren't quite as absurd. But they aren't quite as straightforward either. Jordan's King Abdullah says he'd send forces to train the Iraqi police "if asked." Yemen agrees to be part of a UN peacekeeping force. Funny. I don't think either of these is all that likely, although Allawi MIGHT beg for Jordanian help if backed into a corner.

Meanwhile, the insurgency continues.

Last night, after a very pleasant telephone call, I found myself bored to the point of watching the Charlie Rose show. Normally, I avoid this guy like the plague, but last night I had the pleasure of seeing both Michael Moore talking about his movie AND Dr. Evil himself, Henry Kissinger, assessing the situation in Iraq. I'm guessing all five folks who give me a look will know Moore's general attitude--excited, humbled, ready to roll against Shrub--but the Kissinger monster has been out of the loop, it seems, since he slithered away from chairing the 9/11 Commission.

I found his take on Iraq interesting. First, he warned of dire consequences in the event of a "loss" in the country. That doesn't surprise me--Henry has played the doom card to his benefit for an entire career, and will ride it into the ground--literally--when he finally joins--well, I was going to say Marlon Brando, but if there IS an afterlife, Henry will have a LOT more explaining to do than Marlon. Anyway, the scenario he outlined was a general weakening of secular Middle East governments worldwide. He added that repurcussions would be felt as far away as India--to which I'll add perhaps Indonesia as well.

You know, in spite of embodying pure evil in virtually undistilled form, Kissinger might have a point. If the United States loses in Iraq, it will certainly have far reaching consequences--if for no other reason than the fact that the world's reigning superpower will be shown to have a glass jaw. Will it truly cause destabilization in the Middle East? Perhaps, although I really believe that most of the region has as little use for fundamentalist Islam as we do (or maybe I should say the Middle East no more wants fundamentalist Islamic rule than we want fundamentalist Christian rule--at least, I HOPE neither does). That said, the loss will be significant--both for us, and Israel.

Of course, Henry made it clear that the rest of us--not including himself and his family, of course--should shoulder any cost, and bear any burden, in order to "win." Now, interestingly, "winning" in his book isn't quite the same rosy picture George W. Bush fantasizes about when not stammering through a scripted press conference. No--winning is essentially Ba'athism without Saddam, which is not just a few steps down from the neo con program, but the equivalent of being tossed down a whole flight or two. And it once again puts Iraqis into the position of pawns in a chess game orchestrated by outsiders.

Which is why, in the end, Kissinger's fear will be realized. We're GOING to lose this one, and we might as well get used to it. Now, if the odd right-winger comes to this site, they might whine, piss, and moan about how such an assessment "doesn't help the troops." To which I say: Bullshit. You can't dream your way to victory, and at this point in the game the Iraqis will easily run the clock out on us, so you might as well take a serious look at Operation Go Fuck Ourselves and begin to assess what the hell went wrong. It's high goddamned time we learned from this blunderfuck and dealt with it, and leave the fantasyland dreaming for college football--although, to be honest, I can't for the life of me figure why die hard college football fans want to rip the heart and lungs out of a coach who loses two games (and put them on a stick in the yard) but don't have anything to say about idiot Bush who managed to get beat by the two weakest countries in Asia. Fire the guy? Hell, if there was any justice in the world, Dumbya would be leaving DC in a disguise.

Football analogies aside, Kissinger was telling us that OUR costs--in lives and money--are going to rise to the extent that Vietnam will seem like a two-bit ripoff. Yes, there's the possibility--indeed, the probability--that Iraq will soon be a theocratic nation, which is why when Bush, when not drooling, rhetorically asks "Is the world better off without Saddam Hussein?" the proper response should be "Is the world better off WITH Moqtada Al Sadr?" In the end, though, I think the public will see through the crap--once someone in the press stops drinking the Kool Aid long enough to ask a simple question like, "Mr. President, by August of 2001, it was clear that Al Qaeda was planning to attack the United States using planes as weapons. What sort of equivalent smoking gun--that is, what clear, hard evidence did you have--by March of 2003 that demanded an invasion of Iraq?" No amount of bloviating over years old charges of genocide (which, by the way we turned a blind eye to at the time) would justify the deaths of close to 1,000 young men and women wearing our contry's uniforms (not to mention ten times that number of Iraqi civilian deaths). THAT, by the way, is a question I'd like to see Bush answer.

As far as Saddam is concerned--may he rot. But I can't justify that much death and destruction for one pathetic old murderer--who, being weaker than anyone imagined, probably could have been toppled without nearly the amount of bloodshed--if only Bush had thought it through, instead of demanding an aircraft-carrier photo op.

Off Topic: Again, sorry for being a slow post. Work caught up with me--lot's of stuff before the 4th of July holiday. To which I say--enjoy it, enjoy the legacy it stands for--sort of--I prefer Tom Paine and John Peter Zengar to George Washington and Rufus King--and here's hoping we can one day actually stand for the ideals enunciated at that time. Cheers.