Ouch My Head Hurts!

So, what are the options for Iraq?

I can think of only four, can anybody think of any others?

(Note: Life rarely provides simple easy solutions to complex problems. Don't expect one for this problem.)

Leave: Gallup is showing 19 % want to leave now and 33% “within 12 months”. So that's 52% who would probably support “leave reasonably soon”.

Consequence: Iraq Civil war. USA looses face (we broke it, but didn't fix it). Low troop moral and a propaganda coupe for Jihadists. Acceleration of the three state solution and all its consequences. The chaos may stop oil flowing out of Iraq.

Stay: Americans see war as something between a moral crusade and a sporting event, and they like a clear victory.

Consequence: Possible decades long “Forever War”. U.S. Military strength unavailable for other missions. Federal budget liability will be very significant and have consequences at home. If recruitment dries up, a draft will have to occur. Our presence acts as an “irritation” that makes a great recruiting tool for a growing insurgency.

A Murtha variation: Pull our troops out of Iraq, but don't abandon Iraq. Station them “over the horizon” and continue to fight, but only when you have a large identifiable target and an attainable goal. Paux americana, anyone making trouble gets a B-52 visit.

Consequence: May cost less. Possible decades long “Forever War”. May free up some troops. More open fighting between militias, but a full blown civil war may be avoided with repeated U.S. intervention. Acceleration of the three state solution and all its consequences. Jihadists will claim victory but the issue will still be in question. The chaos may stop oil flowing out of Iraq.

Border Patrol: Redeploy troops as border police. Stop Jihadists at the foreign borders and help defend the northern and southern regions from the Sunni triangle.

Consequence: Possible decades long “Forever War”. May free up some troops. The Sunni triangle will become a lawless living hell, but the rest of the country may become more livable. Baghdad will have to be abandoned. Jihadists will claim victory but the issue will still be in question. Our presence acts as an “irritation” that makes a great insurgency recruiting tool, but possibly not as much as the present situation. Oil fields would remain secure.

Once again I would ask that the Kool-aid drinkers not use this as an opportunity for multi-page psychotic rants about how their side is right and the other side is evil. There are other Iraq threads open on this site, and other sites where you can vent your spleen.

I'm looking for options and consequences, not a food fight.

Life, War, Religion and Blogging

The start of the current Iraq war could probably be listed as one of my prime motives for getting involved with the blogging community.

At the start of the ground war everyone in the office was giving themselves "high-fives". I ,on the other hand, sat down in my office; put my head in my hands and thought, "they have no idea the train wreck that is coming".

When I went to talk to my evangelical Baptist friends I was stunned by their reaction. They were incredibly ok with killing. They were so ok with it I was flabbergasted. I'm an agnostic; I'm allowed to be pragmatic about taking a life. They are supposed to be the paragons of virtue and turning the other cheek. They started quoting the Old Testament. To which I responded, "Are you Jewish or Christian? Show me something in the New Testament that supports the use of violence."

In the end I gave up trying to get them to turn the other cheek, and decide to expound on how I try to live my life. (Please note that this is something I am striving to achieve. I am not a saint, nor will anyone ever mistake me for one.)

Never in anger.
Never out of fear.
Never with hubris.
Always with compassion and respect.

The battle between light and darkness has always been an internal struggle.
At its core is the reality that we are mortal and wish to survive.
We need food, water and shelter.

But life is full of uncertainty and struggle.
Resources are limited. Competition is the norm.
Even the most enlightened individual will do evil when faced with starvation.

We must never deny that this struggle can cloud our judgment.
We must make a conscious decision to fight on the side of light.
While acknowledging that darkness may hold sway, till after the deed is done.

When you stop questioning your own motives you have lost the struggle.
When you act with absolute certainty and righteousness you have gone astray.
Decision must be made, but always acknowledge your fallibility and correct your own mistakes.

We have all done things we are ashamed of.
We have all done things we are proud of.
But has your existence made the world a better place?

More importantly, do your neighbors think your existence has made the world a better place?

People lie

That people lie should not come as a surprise to anyone. After all, everyone reading this has lied about something, at some point. I'm not talking about telling a fib when you were a kid. I'm talking about adult lying.

Now some people lie on a regular basis (politicians, reporters, bureaucrats, lawyers, salesmen....). Heck, in some professions, lying is part of the job description. The surprising thing is how much people lie to themselves. The really disturbing thing is how much self deception occurs among people in positions of authority.

Supervisors, CEO's and presidents tend to have people suck up to them. After all, if you want a raise or promotion, kissing up to the boss is a good strategy. What I've noticed is that people in lofty positions tend to start out with big egos, and that the fawning of sycophants seem to inflate things even bigger.

Now the President of the United States of America is one of the most powerful positions in the country. You don't end up in the White House by accident. A president has sold his soul and clawed his way up because he wants it really bad. Heck, he believes the country needs HIM! So it should be no surprise that their egos are inflated a little bigger than most.

Lets look at some recent individuals with well endowed hubris: Roosevelt, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Bush... You know, I'm having a hard time thinking of a president that doesn't belong on the list.

When they are finally called to task for their bad behavior they have one thing in common. They can't accept that they did anything improper. As the insider biographies get written years later they all have a common thread. The President didn't think he was doing anything wrong! Now it was pretty obvious to the majority of the public he behaved badly, but the president's ego is always so big that he can't admit his malfeasance.

I've come to the conclusion that a special prosecutor, from the other party, should be a permanent fixture. It could be setup like a supreme court appointment, with senate conformation hearings. Lets just start the investigation right after the inauguration. After all, if your already under investigation your less likely to do something stupid.

The first day in the Oval office would go like this: “Good morning Mr. President. Here is the hot line to Russia, here is the Nuclear attack codes and here is the man who will be inditing you and your staff for all the stupid and immoral things you do. By the way, the bathroom is through the green door and to the left.”

Judicial Philosophy:

Let me start by saying, "I am not a lawyer". On the other hand, neither were a lot of the founding fathers.

With that said, I think the whole concept of Judicial Philosophy is pretty lame.

People want what they want, and will do mental gymnastics to justify getting it. If two people read the same sections of the constitution, their interpretations will hinge on making it agree with what they want to do. If this was not an inherit part of being human, we would not need a Supreme Court. Heck we wouldn't need courts at all. If this were not true, everyone would read the same sentence and always agree how to apply it.

So I view the philosophies of "Strict interpretation of the constitution" and "The constitution is a living document" as being fake catch phrases. What the user is really saying is that they are a "right winger" or a "left winger".

Let's look at two items in the Bill of rights:

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I've read a lot of history and watched a bunch of period shows on the educational channels. I have a fair idea of what a militia was, and I can read the English language. (Even if I do occasionally flub my spelling.) It seems pretty obvious to me that I should be able to buy a machine gun, silencer or cannon with out having to fill out forms, pay license fees and wait for the government's permission to own any of these objects. The gun dealer shouldn't need a license and I should not need a license. "Shall not be infringed", seems like a pretty straight forward statement to me. Everyone at the time of the writing had guns and some of them owned cannons. They were not drooling morons; they knew what they were writing.

Yet just walk up to your local gun dealer and try to buy a cannon or machine gun today. You'll feel pretty darn infringed very quickly.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This seems like a pretty straight forward statement. To paraphrase the first half, "Both myself and my stuff is none of the government's (or anyone else's) business". I don't remember saying anyone could collect my credit history. And if I thought I could get them to stop I would tell them to. I have reached a point in my life were I don't need credit anymore.

I also don't look at the phrase "secure in their persons" and not realize the government doesn't have the right to tell me what to do with my body. If I want to have a "W" tattooed on my forehead or have an abortion (a physcial imposibiltity in my case), it's not the governments business.

For those of you who are not paying attention, I just interpreted the constitution. And I'm shocked to learn that I interpreted it in favor of my own personal views. What an amazing coincidence! No doubt this totally random event is due to my Judicial Philosophy of rigidly interpreting the text.

There are probably some saint-like individuals in this world capable of not letting their personal views affect their judgment. I severely doubt you will find any of them in government service or aspiring to high office. I've never met one, but I understand they tend to hangout on remote mountain tops and isolated monasteries.