Not all who wander are lost...

 
RE-ARRANGING DECKS CHAIRS IN BAGHDAD...

Though most of you have probably never heard of them, BiteyTheShark's very favorite band is a group out of Arizona called Roger Clyne and the Peacemakers. The Peacemakers morphed from an early group known as The Refreshments. Probably best-known as the artists behind the driving guitar theme song to Fox's animated series "King of the Hill", The Refreshments album Fizzy, Fuzzy, Big & Buzzy would be my choice if I were stranded on a desert island and stuck with one album for the rest of my life.

Before The Refreshments split up in 1998, leading front man Roger Clyne and drummer P.H. Naffah to form The Peacemakers, Brian Blush was the lead guitarist. The Refreshments in concert was always a special treat, in part because Blush always brought the thunder. Much of the alluring pulsating guitar heard on Refreshments albums is a tribute to Blush. Unfortunately, Blush eventually became so messed up that his substance abuse was a large reason The Refreshments saw a premature end.

Right about now, you're probably wondering what the hell all this has to do with the title of this post...

Well, before Brian Blush disappeared from the Arizona music scene, he penned a solo song entitled "Re-Arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic." The title was born from stories Blush once heard about how the crew of the Titanic were so disillusioned about the grave nature of their plight, that some of them spent their final minutes re-arranging deck chairs to ensure that passengers wouldn't suffer the eyesore of seeing all the chairs in such a clutter. Blush takes the sad irony of the crew's meaningless efforts and applies the phrase to the inescapable downward spiral of one of his romantic relationships.

"I'm just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
It doesn't matter what I do,
she's gonna keep on sinking"

Lately, many people have been asking me what I think the U.S. should do about the situation in Iraq. The vote on the $87 billion came and went. I probably should have voiced my opinion back then, but hey, I've been busy.

To put it bluntly, my opinion is not a popular one. I say we get the hell out of there NOW. This belief comes from being very honest with myself when I look in the mirror and asking this one simple question: At what point does fighting an unwinnable battle become less of an honorable thing and more of a stupid thing?

From a flesh perspective, I asked everyone before the fighting started just how many dead U.S. soldiers they thought Iraq was worth. The ignorant answer is "whatever it takes." If you truly believe that, then how about 100,000. If you think that sounds astronomical, how do think 50,000 sounded when we first put boots on the ground in Vietnam?

As I segue to the issue of money, another verse from Brian Blush...

"Another day, another debt,
how much worse can it get?
A whole lot worse, its safe to bet,
can you see the light? Not yet."

Even some hawkish Republicans double gulped when Bush produced the $87 billion figure. Members of Congress were so afraid of backing the figure that when they eventually did, they cowardly did so by voice-vote. Now there's a vote of confidence! Congress should have had the balls to block the funding. If $87 billion makes you blush, why pretend that is the final amount? Anyone out there think the budget request for 2005 will be zero? If things go well, Iraq will still be costing us $40-$60 billion in 2005. And that's if things go well.

From a military philosophy perspective, generals will tell you that one of the the valuable lessons-learned from Vietnam was that military operations need to have a clearly defined mission. Tangible goals breed tangible success. Is there some tangible finish line out there? When exactly do we declare victory? I thought it was when we vanquished an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction. Then I thought it was when we toppled Saddam. Now we are just trying to avoid a coalition bloodbath. Do we really think we will be able to kill or convert every enemy soldier?

When drawing parallels, Republicans like to say Iraq will eventually end up like post-WWII Germany and Japan. Democrats tend to liken Iraq to Vietnam. I think they are both wrong. The true parallel is Israel. They don't even have the economic issues Iraq is facing, but Israel's troubles in the the West Bank and Gaza Strip are still an intimidating mess. Many in the Arab world don't trust the United States because of our undying support of Israel. Now it appears that we not only faithfully support Israel, but we are so jealous of their security situation that we figured we'd create the very same thing for ourselves. With Sunni, Shiite and Kurd concerns running around Iraq, the very best we can hope for Iraq is that it become our own private West Bank. Doesn't that sound like fun?

In totality, I believe it is more important to be smart and right than pretty and popular. The crew on the Titanic might have done the pretty and popular thing, but what they should have been doing was getting as many people into the lifeboats as possible. Just like there weren't enough lifeboats on the Titanic to save everyone, there is no way we can save every human life in Iraq. We can't bring back the dead American men and women, but we can sure as hell get as many of the survivors into the lifeboats as possible. Any unilateral move we make in Iraq short of getting out now is just like re-arranging those decks chairs. It doesn't matter what we do to look pretty on the way going down, the ship is gonna keep on sinking.










posted by Sean McMahon at 7:49 PM

 
NOW THAT IRAQ HAS FAILED, YOU'RE PROBABLY ASKING WHAT THE HELL WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO NOW???

Freaking brilliant!
posted by Sean McMahon at 1:05 AM