Is It A Good Idea?

Is a troop surge a good, final gasp idea in terms of gaining control over the situation in Iraq, and particularly Baghdad? And if it is, why wasn't it done long ago? Actually, according to the two lead generals which Bush recently fired, we have already tried this on two prior occasions, without success. It sounds a little like squeezing the toothpaste out of the tube, or the mustard out of the mustard container; you squeeze one end and the stuff (or, the insurgents) just go somewhere else, and regroup. That's what happened in Fallujah and many other Iraqi cities already. It sounded like what Bush said this past week in his speech was that we were using the losing strategy, and now we're going to go with the winning one. Doink! (as I hit myself in the head). Why didn't we go with the winning strategy first? Sounds like a newer version of that ol' WMD story with repackaging; i.e., more made up junk! I think the guy pictured above, Muqtada Al-Sadr, a Shiite religious leader not so fond of the Americans, is going to end up in charge in Iraq sooner or later, and being the desired choice of the majority of Shiite Iraqis, who are the majority in Iraq, we are just going to have to deal with it! "Suddenly, Saddam doesn't seem quite so bad", I'll bet Bush is saying to himself, in his more private moments. I keep hearing rumours of a widening of this war, and of a desire to expand this thing into direct conflict with Iran. That, would be an even bigger mistake, than Bush's Iraq folly.

Will there even be a Presidential election in 2008? That may be up to the Decider, and if he decides to create an Iranian crisis which leads to the suspension of the election, and then of the constitution, and creates an Imperial Presidency. Keep your eye on forthcoming events; this could get terribly, terribly interesting.