PICK A SIDE!!!!

Ugh. Civil war in Iraq. To me this is a no brainer.

The United States has the ability for an unspeakable amount of physical force, in other words violence. We can do ANYTHING we want as long as it involves killing and destruction. That sounds horrible honestly, but the truth, or the "good" in that is that we represent an unbeatable military threat to ANY frontal assualt in the world today. No one can beat us, head-on.

Fact- WE DON'T WANT TO LEAVE. It is in the United States interest to stay in Iraq for a number of reasons. 1 - We actually believe establishment of a democracty in the middle east is a good thing. EVERYONE benefits from a democracy in these awful states who do not support free speech, who oppress women (horribly), and promote intolerance across the world. 2) This is a PERFECT place for us to establish a big, fat military base that makes it easy for the United States to project power (or at least intimidate) Iran. If you don't believe that, you're a pansy liberal, stop reading here. (kidding, sort of).

Problem - we currently have too few troops in too big a space in the midst of a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Iraqi Shite's (we'll forget about the Kurds who like us for the moment.)

Solution - PICK A SIDE. The United States should pull back to a single side. Pull all of our troops into a specific area for the Sunnis or Shites - whichever we decide is the most defendable. Concentrate our forces in a geographic area and calll it the "Shite" area for example. Pledge that the U.S. will fully defend the living daylights out of that geographic area. Pay off everyone in that area with social benefits (very liberal of me I know, but we're nation building here).

The net effect is a "stronghold" of U.S. power, with a populace that feels protected from it's enemy. The enemy is incapable of attacking with a frontal assault (see above - we're tough). Sure, they could still do a guerilla war, but the people are on our side this time.

And the alternate state? The one without our oversight and protection? Well, too bad! They elected to be a violent state. Can't help them. Sorry.

What's wrong with this approach? We stay in the middle east. We protect the peace. We build a democracy (yes, that does mean we can build McDonald's- what is so wrong with that?) . And we're still able to project power in the region.

Darfur

Okay, this is a post not based in a ton of fact, but I hope the logic is sound.

There is an element of the conservative side of the country that says no American troops should be deployed to an area of the world unless there is a "Clear and Present Danger" to the United States. The idea is that no American serviceman or woman should be put in harm's way unless there is a specific danger to the United States. This logic is sound and I agree with it to a point. There needs to be a real reason for the United States to commit forces to a part of the world that in turmoil. There is too much "bad stuff" going on in the world for the United States to solve everything.

However, I must part with the rest of my conservative brethren at a certain point. At this point, I must enlist the "Superman Principle." This may be a real thing out there somewhere in "thought land," but in my mind the Superman principal boils down to, "with great power, comes great responsibility." I know...right out of a movie, huh? The point is that Superman is a super-hero. As a society, we would frown on Superman passing buy a woman having her purse stolen, a bank being robbed, a car being stolen, and doing nothing. Superman has the ability to solve things that are BLATENTELY before him. With relatively little danger to himself, Superman has the power to prevent these evils.

The United States of America is the single remaining superpower in the world. We do not have some other-worldly power that Superman has. However, we do have the power to project our power in certain places in the world, with relatively small risk to ourselves.

Today, Darfur is this place. Unspeakable evil is happening in Darfur today (if all the reports are true, which it seems they are). We a "realtively" small projection of force, the United States could "enforce" some amount of peace in this region of the world.

This is not a small task. It does not come free. Super-people, in the form of our United States Military would be put at risk. They are NOT bullet-proof, but real human, heroes. However, these people are special. These people, in general are the type who are prone to use the power of the strong to protect the weak. Honestly, I bet if you took volunteers withing the already volunteer military, you would find a large force of fighting men and women willing to stop the genocide in Darfur. I don't make light of the sacrifice asked of these people. It is a big risk.

How is this an interest of the United States? Well, honestly, it's not. Darfur could be wiped off the map and it is not likely that it would affect too many citizens of the United States. The point is, that with the most power in the world, the United States has the moral responsibility to step in. The United Nations is the truely obligated body to step into this mess, but it is a wholley inneffecutal organization. Darfur has been called to the attention of the World. There is no walking by without noticing. The U.S., like Superman, has the power, and is morally responsible for not looking away. We should stop this violence, now.

Yawwwwwwnnnnnn

So I'm watching John Edwards on Hardball. OMG this guy is annoying. I would vote for Hillary before I'd vote for this ambulance chasing buffoon. I know that isn't highbrow analysis, but is anyone actually inspired by this guy?

And while we're at it, Chris Matthews, you ass kisser! It's supposed to be "hardball" and he actually preembled a question with, "i'm going to be a little hard on you now, is that okay?"

Ugh. Yuck.