The Last Variable
The
Drake Equation is a well known scientific attempt to quantify the number of intelligent civilizations likely to be in our galaxy at any given time. Now stay with me here, this isn't a science post at all, but there is a part of this equation that is illustrative in our current situation. The Drake Equation looks like this:
N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L
The idea being you plug in the values for the variables based on your best information/knowledge/guess and you come out with an answer. R is the number of sunlike stars, p the number of those stars with planets, e the number of those planets that are earthlike, l the number of those earthlike planets that develop life, i the number of those that develop intelligence, and c the number of those that go on to develop electromagnetic communications. The last variable, L, is the one I've been thinking about a LOT lately. It is the longevity of those intelligent, communicating societies. Because for the purposes of the Drake equation, where those societies exist in space is important, but just as important is where they exist in time. While human intelligence is 200,000 years old, technology on any level is only about 40,000 years old, we transitioned from an agrarian society to an industrial one less than 200 years ago, and only began communicating electomagnetically about 100 years ago. A thousand year old technologically advanced society might have destroyed itself only 100 years ago, and we'll never know about it. Or even more sadly, we'll receive the signal that confirms the existence of a technologically advanced society, excitedly monitor it, discuss and research it for a few years, when one day it just stops. Nothing. Ever again. We will have watched the end of this society.
Humanity is capable of great things, leaps of science and engineering, literature and art. But in many ways, we are an adolescent culture, at least as focused on destroying things as we are on building them. Much of our research goes into more and better ways to kill humans and destroy societies. At the same time, the resources of our planet are finite, and limited. Our scientists can even measure the rate they are being depleted and the time when they will be gone. Yet in our greed and immaturity, we do not reduce or even manage our consumption. Our planet's very ability to sustain human life is being reduced, and we can measure and track that too. The impact of our industrial society on the atmosphere, the seas, the clean water, indeed the earth's very ability to renew and sustain itself is huge, and growing. And yet we are unwilling to set limits, to live in a sustainable way, so our society can go on into the future.
When you think of how much damage we have done, how far down the road to our own extinction we have traveled in only 200 years, it is sobering. No, it is frightning. One can only look up at the stars at night and wonder: How many times over the millenia has this happened? How many societies developed the science that allowed them to exploit the resources of their native planet. The fossil fuels, the nuclear fuels, the forests, the agriculture, the seas. And then, long before they had developed the technology to allow them to expand to other planets, they found that they had killed the one they were born on, and in dying, it killed them. Or perhaps resources depleted, the water and atmosphere toxic, the climate deadly, a few small bands left their grand technological past behind and returned to their small, low tech agrarian roots, just outside the ruins of formerly great cities, never to live out the promise that shined so bright in the centuries before.
To merely contimplate the longevity of an intelligent race is to ask fundamental questions about our own. To whom do we owe the future? What could cause us to recognize our obligations to preserve this rare, fortuitous biological accident we were afforded? If we are truly to live up to the promise of our intelligence, of the good things inside us, how long will that take? 500 years? A thousand? Can we find a way to last that long without our greed or our hate killing us? Quite frankly, I am not optimistic.
Our planet is sick, and she is telling us that she is. And yet our priorities are "economic growth" and our military. Nothing wrong with either, in moderation and used for good, but we are neither moderate nor particularly good. We could be using these resources to help raise people out of poverty, to extend health care to the sick and dying, and work together with people all over the world to develop good, planet-healthy, sustainable processes for living. Why must that sound so hopelessly idealistic? When you think about it, it would be a process that would benefit us as much as the rest of the world. Our very greed should be taking down the path that allows our survival.
We continue to build more and more dangerous weapons. We now actually have TWO classes of "Doomsday" weapons--Nuclear and Biological. Think about that. What built-in psycopathic insanity would cause humans to develop weapons with which they could make humans extinct? What possible purpose can they serve? Not only does the world become more and more militarized, but the discourse and rhetoric becomes more strident. There are more people openly expressing hate and bigotry today than there were a hundred years ago. There are more extremists, and they are more extreme. And in another five or ten or twenty years everybody will have access to the ability to destroy the planet. Honestly, what hope is there?
Frank Drake's genius was to see that in order to detect another intelligent society, they would have to be not only relatively nearby in space, but we would have to overlap in time. But the reason we must consider the longevity of an intelligent society as a variable is that we can see how fragile it really is. We can see that any number of conditions can extinguish an intelligent society. They can destroy themselves in war. They can simply poison their environment, until there is nothing to sustain them. They can end up in a situation where the home planet simply cannot provide the food, water and sunlight they need. Mutations could become so commonplace that the species itself dies. Indeed, the paradox seems to be that to do nothing, to continue as we have before, is to die. To survive would take work, and change, and consensus. And it is for that reason that I am not optimistic.
Harsh Realities
After the carnage of the last couple weeks in Iraq and the years of lies, of wasted time, money and lives, I've noticed a great unwillingness to face squarely up to what Iraq is, what it means, and what to do about it. With all the different things that people seem to tiptoe around, like a big steaming pile of dogshit on the living room carpet, it's time to face some hard facts.
First, the people who have died, Americans and Iraqi, have, indeed, died in vain. It's hard to say, and even harder to hear, but honestly, how can we delude ourselves into believing otherwise? We were lied to by our political leaders, who wanted this war for their own reasons. They lied right to our faces about why we needed to invade and occupy Iraq, and anyone around them who pointed out the factual inconsistencies of their lies was quickly discredited, fired or had their personal reputations impugned. They WANTED war. Think about that. Who WANTS war? This is the 21st century. There is no special honor in being a "War President", and the only legacy Bush is leaving is not just that of a bloodthirsty criminal, but an incompetent bloodthirsty criminal at that. Ask yourself what will come of this mindless, criminal exercise in empire-building. At the end of the campaign, we will be less safe, poorer, hated by millions more, with an exhausted, understaffed military and a permanently fractured electorate. How can anyone say these lives were not lost in vain. Let's ask Miriam Webster:
Main Entry:
vain 
Pronunciation:
'vAnFunction:
adjectiveEtymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin
vanus empty, vain -- more at
WANE1 : having no real value
: IDLE, WORTHLESS2 : marked by futility or ineffectualness
: UNSUCCESSFUL, USELESS <
vain efforts to escape>
in vain 1 : to no end : without success or result 2 : in an irreverent or blasphemous manner
To no end. Without success or result. This entire Iraq debacle has been in vain. And the lives were, simply and honestly, wasted. Nothing we can do about that but cry. But there is one thing we can do, one thing that recognizes the futility, honors the dead and protects the living. We can bring our troops home. The key is to lose not ONE MORE LIFE in vain.
Second, you hear most people, Democrat and Republican, dove and hawk, say "OK, we're there now, we have to stay there and see it through". Here's the part they're missing. All the troops in the world, all the money in the world, all the commitment in the world, will not win this war. No regular army ever defeated an insurgency or a guerilla war without resorting to atrocities and war crimes of a dimension we are not, even under this administration, willing to commit. What does that mean? We can't win this, no matter what we do. More troops, more tanks, more artillery, more air strikes. What does that get us? Is there a way for a regular army to defeat a guerilla insurgency? Especially one where the regular army is occupying the nation against the will of the citizens of that nation. We need to put more real thought into this. The shouting of slogans and the administration lies as talking points are not enough. Ask yourself something: While a team of fighters is planting a thousand pound roadside bomb made up of artillery shells, do you think they are invisible? Of course not. The whole village, the entire neighborhood knows what they are doing. And nobody tells. Why? We are an invading army, an occupying force. THEY DON'T WANT US THERE. Oh sure, there are factions that find the American occupation temporarily useful to their political agenda, or that American military power can be used to some advantage, but we're simply being manipulated. Another harsh truth: The elections, the constitutional process, the politics of "Democracy at Gunpoint" are all a sham. The real power in Iraq is in the hands of a couple of clerics, notably Sistani and al Sadr. They are aligned with Iran. And we have handed them power, and continue to take casualties to make certain they can hold on to that power.
Third, it is not unpatriotic to be opposed to this administration, it's policies and programs, and specifically the unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq. In fact, it would be unpatriotic and unAmerican to see these people actively engaged in the destruction of the America I love and all that she stands for and NOT take a stand against them. As citizens, we are supposed to defend our country and constitution against ALL enemies--foreign and domestic. They didn't put that domestic part in as an afterthought, or by accident. I cannot understand the people who continue to support the administration and their illegal, unnecessary war. I mean, who WANTS war? To be "Pro War" would be like being "Pro Murder", or "Pro Rape", or maybe "Pro Arson". Any human who is genuinely pro war is seriously deficient in whatever it is that makes us human. Kind of amazing how many of them also claim to be adherents to the teachings of an ancient preacher/philosopher named Jesus. If you find yourself in a war, all people of good conscience must concentrate all their efforts on ending it as quickly as possible. The end of the war is what is sought. Those of us who seek the end of this conflict are not only good Americans, we are righteous humans. To seek perpetual, unending death and pain is truly evil.
Fourth, the Democratic party should NOT be supporting this war in any way, shape or form. As Democrats, it is CRITICAL that we let our political leaders know that we will NOT support them unless they call for an immediate, full and unconditional withdrawal of all American and coalition soldiers from Iraq. No "finish the mission" bullshit, no "send more troops and do it right" nonsense. That is an ill conceived, poor strategy that can only fail. We cannot emulate the failed policies of the right and succeed. If we cannot be seen as correct on defense without selling our souls and mindlessly sacrificing more American, not to mention Iraqi, lives on the alter of power politics, then we have failed, but we will have failed with our honor and integrity intact. This administration abused their power, lying to the people to start a war of aggression, an unnecessary war that harms America's interests in every way. Ask yourself how America's invasion of Iraq is any different than Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In spite of all we've been led to believe, we are not always and automatically the "good guys". This was a criminal act of aggression and the people responsible for it need to be brought to justice. Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld should have a cell right next to Saddam or Milosevic. They are responsible for immeasurable death, pain and suffering, and must be called to account. Prosecution for war crimes and crimes against humanity would be a good start.
Fifth, it is utterly unrealistic and dishonest to refuse to even consider the possibility that the terrorists might have some actual justification for being angry with America. To truly defend against terrorist attacks we MUST understand their root causes--this is only good sense. To recognize that there may be a basis for their hatred is NOT to say that terrorism is ok--quite the opposite, understanding them will help us fight them. To be willing to address some of our own shortcomings in policy areas is NOT appeasement, nor is it unpatriotic. And nobody (at least not me) is recommending that we undertake ANY policy that is not in our best interests. However, it is unreasonable to believe that American policies have always been fair and even handed, or to argue that America has always been a fair and honest broker in world affairs. So if there were policies that we could follow that would make America and the world safer, more peaceful and more prosperous, and these same policies would cause other cultures to like and respect us, rather than hate and fear us, wouldn't those be appropriate policies to follow? To believe that Islamic Extremists have such an unfocused, burning need to kill and maim that they just "go off" and do so at random, is naive, stupid and disingenuous. Every action has a cause, and identifying and eliminating that cause is the first step to solving the problem.
Sixth, there is simply no way for us to "Support the Troops". This is an evil, venal, disingenuous method for stifling discussion. If you do or say anything the criminals don't like, you can be discredited by their saying you don't support the troops. But how can I support the troops? Should I send them cookies? Is everyone who doesn't send them cookies guilty of not supporting the troops? Sure, I'm being facetious, but really, what does "Support the Troops" mean? Let me be very honest. I DON'T support the troops. Oh, I don't blame them. I'm intelligent enough to know that the war is not their fault. And I certainly don't expect them to go to prison instead of following orders to go to Iraq. They are not responsible, and I do not hold them accountable as I do their leadership. And I honor their courage and the fact that they uphold a proud history of the American fighting man. But to "Support" them, whatever that requires, would be to support their mission, and I do not, can not, and WILL NOT. My idea for supporting the troops is to get them out of a war zone they have no reason to be in. Their job is to defend America, not occupy a foreign land on behalf of American business interests. In fact, I am MORE patriotic in my support of the troops than the mindless right. They would leave them over there indefinitely, to be killed, wounded and scarred. I would end the costs in American lives today. I would see that many of them lived who otherwise will not. That is a harsh truth, but a truth it is.
President GW Bush, Our Homicidal Maniac in Chief
The list of crimes, ethical transgressions and simple dishonesty of George W. Bush is as long as his public history. His business failures have been well documented, but at least it was just his friends, relatives and investors that suffered from his arrogance and incompetence. His political life has been marked by a Karl Rove influenced "anything goes" approach to political operations that included lying to discredit those that would challenge him. He used his family's political connections to steal a presidential election in 2000. In the White House, he has shown an absolute and unshakable unwillingness to ever admit that anything he has ever done was wrong, or even questionable. But if you look at it from a slightly different angle, his public record shows another, more disturbing behavior trend. A growing and insatiable blood lust, a love, probably sexual in nature, for killing, torture and mayhem. And he doesn't seem to be overly concerned who suffers for his personal gratification--Americans, Iraqis, Afghans, Women, Children--It all seems equivalent to him.
While governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over the execution of 152 human beings. That's more than any other governor in modern times. One can imagine how this incredible power of life and death played against a long developed latent sadism and tendency towards sociopathic behavior. Serial killers are notable for their complete lack of empathy. Their victims are not seen as equal beings, but rather something put there for their pleasure, to be used and thrown away. We see those same behaviors in our President. At no time while he had this awesome power did he ever make
any effort to actually consider the issues when presented with 152 death warrants, he only knew the rush he got when he would take the clemency form and check the "Deny" box.
So Bush came to power in Washington with a new, strong lust for inflicting pain and death for his own personal satisfaction. But now he had the most lethal military force in the world, including a highly advanced Special Operations capability with which he could selectively take lives. Now, in the last 3 years, he has started two wars, and used his "War on Terrah" as an excuse to take who knows how many lives worldwide. In hindsight, it is obvious that this lamentable man-child, this irresponsible, unaccountable beast with a lust for creating human suffering, lacked the mental stability and discipline to be president of the corner convenience store, let alone the United States of America.
And isn't it interesting how his odd, seeming un-natural and politically tone-deaf attachment to torture plays right into this same dangerous, serial-killer like dysfunction? How much would you bet that in that drawer in the oval office next to Saddam's gun, there are photos from Bagram, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, much worse than anything we have seen? How often does he take them out, looking through the stack slowly, with sweating hands, reliving the blood and pain, like a killer going through his trophies.
Now for the most sobering thought. One thing that sexually sadistic psychopaths, serial killers and rapists, and those of similar ilk, have in common is their tendency to increase the frequency, savagery, brutality and anger in their attacks as time passes. First, there are months or even years between attacks, as the memory is enough to excite them. But as time passes, the memory serves them less well, and they need to kill more, and more often to attain the same gratification. Eventually, they begin to break down, "disassociate" the head shrinkers call it, and lose all control. How does this little nugget of knowledge affect us, you ask? Well, the killing in Iraq is steady, but unspectacular. It can be in no way as satisfying as the "
Thunder Run" from April of 2003, when American armored forces shot their way into Baghdad, a city of 8 million souls, under air and artillery cover. The blood, death and suffering of that week is almost unimaginable. It's more than likely that Bush is getting itchy, wanting to inflict more bloodshed, torture and pain. Another war or two will cripple the United States militarily, economically and even destroy our standing in the world. And yet, for George Bush, it's only a matter of feeding the lust burning in his heart. Who knows, he may privately have set a goal, like taking a quarter of a million lives before retiring to his ranch in Texas. Whereupon I would recommend digging up the pasture to find the bodies he will have buried there by then.
OK, for the last time--There Is No Debate!!
Let's be very clear. I do not live in a "Red State". I live in Silicon Valley. Particularly in this region, with it's great institutions of higher learning and history of applied science, it seems especially shameful to allow a religious and political agenda to be described as, or equated with, science. Intelligent design is not science. Science requires research that makes testable predictions, the outcome of which must be a net increase in mankind's accumulated knowledge. ID makes no predictions that can be tested experimentally, and the outcome of the "research" is to say "It is the result of magic, some unknowable force, and there can be no further discussion". This does not add in any way to mankind's knowledge. There are many theories in the scientific realm that have yet to be adopted as factual, from cold fusion and parallel universes to String Theory and alternatives to the Big Bang. But no one suggests that we should teach these theories in high school science curriculums. They have not met the requirements.
No one, either, is suggesting they should not be studied. Let the people at the Discovery Institute and others who support various forms of Creationism and it's politically dishonest sibling Intelligent Design do what all other scientists have to do. Let them study, do research, perform experiments and write their results in peer-reviewed journals. Let them prove their case, no differently than any other science, including evolution. Of course they cannot, for once again, ID is NOT science. Therefore they resort to the courts and the ballot box, getting their adherents and acolytes elected to school boards in order to pursue their religious and political goals. If that fails, they sue. Can you imagine a physicist going to court to compel the teaching of cold fusion in high schools? Or using the courts to force the local high schools to teach astrology alongside astronomy? Of course not. In science class they teach science, and what is and what is not science is most emphatically
not decided by the courts, or by elections, or by popular opinion.
No one says that to believe in the scientific method as a way to understand the natural world is to deny God. There is nothing that science can find, at the end of the day, that would disprove the existence of God.
Science is neutral on God. But it is the
methodology of science that is under attack here, and that is simply not something we can allow if we are to retain our competitiveness in the global marketplace.
Over and over again, the media makes the statement that there is a "Debate" between evolution and the various religious creation myths, most recently called "Intelligent Design" Let's be very clear: There is NO DEBATE. I recognize that the media feel it is important to appear neutral, to discuss both sides of an issue in order to provide balanced coverage. This works well in politics, business and sports. It is unacceptable in science. In science you are dealing with facts. Opinions hold no value whatsoever. Therefore, to present an argument wholly unsupported and unsupportable because it is a religious belief, not a scientific theory, on an even basis with a scientific theory that works well in describing the world around us, is dishonest, poor journalism, and in no way in the best interest of our community. Religious beliefs require faith. Science requires evidence.
The undermining of good science and the teaching of pseudo-science is to the tremendous detriment of our students. They will be competing in a global economy with peers that were taught the discipline and rigorous methodology of science, and will have very little chance to win that competition. It is up to the mainstream press to draw a line in the sand and describe these beliefs as what they are. Teach them in Bible Study. Teach Science in Science Class
What should Iran do? What would YOU do?
When you think about it, a government, any government, has only a few broad areas of responsibility. Beyond those, it is up to the people, the government itself and the bureaucracy they spawn to require, or allow, the government to take other responsibilities. The broad, necessary duties of a government are infrastructure, some facility for generating revenue, and probably the most important, the defense of the country and it's citizens. Without roads, communications, bridges, schools and hospitals the country cannot function. Without revenue, the government, whether elected or not, cannot continue in power. But it is the defense of the sovreign nation and it's people that is the single most important role a government can play. Leaders as diverse as George Bush, Tony Blair, Musharef of Pakistan, Koizumi of Japan and John Howard of Australia all share this opinion.
Now lets look at Iran. In a violent region, with nuclear armed Israel on one side, Saudi Arabia's advanced military on another, NATO member Turkey on another and well over 100,000 American troops occupying their neighbor to the west, they have a great many genuine concerns about maintaining their sovreignity. And after the American President refered to them as a member of the axis of evil, and has continued to espouse "Regime Change" in Iran, those fears are heightened and made more immediate.
Now in this discussion, it really doesn't matter if you feel Iran is an oppressed nation, innocent and well meaning, or if you believe the Islamic Republic to be the personification of evil on earth. This discussion speaks to a Government's responsibility to it's own sovreignity. It cannot be denied that the Iranian government has the same role as any other nation's government. It is their duty to their constituents to prevent attacks, invasions and occupations.
Now imagine for a moment that you are part of Iran's leadership. You have been included in an "Axis of Evil" that includes Iraq and North Korea. You saw Iraq, with no significant strategic weapons, mass destruction or otherwise, fall to an old-style armored invasion, which you could see coming for more than six months. You saw a nuclear armed North Korea untouched, unthreatened, and negotiated with. In view of your regional situations and global threats, what should you do? The answer is simple--you take your current flow of billions of oil dollars and invest it in a crash program to produce a couple of nuclear weapons, as fast as you can. And you do it with Uranium, to which you have access and workable bomb designs, rather than plutonium.
And the whole nuclear proliferation thing gets crazier and crazier. The United States is in violation of the NPT for not living up to its agreement to build down its nuclear weapons stockpile. North Korea withdrew from the NPT and is in peaceful negotiations with the US. India refused to sign the NPT, developed nuclear weapons illegally, and is now welcomed by the US into the family of nations with nuclear weapons. Israel, Americas greatest ally in the Mideast, has never signed the NPT and is thought to have up to 300 nuclear weapons. And yet the US continues to slam Iran over their alleged "nuclearization" of the persian gulf region. What a sick joke.
What is it within the American Government that makes them believe they can dictate the scientific research and technology goals of another government? What's next? Will we tell South Korea they cannot engage in stem cell research because our religious fundamentalist extremists have decided it violates god's law? It is not up to the United States Government to decide what nations have the right to pursue what sort of defense or deterrent policy. That is the nature of sovreignity. The Iranian government is responsible and accountable to their nation and people, not to the American Administration. And they would be irresponsible to follow any other course.
Spaceflight, The Shuttle and Life at the Edge of the Envelope
I remember the astronauts of my youth. Strapping, athletic young men with the squinted eyes and crew cuts of fighter pilots. Men who would climb into any machine and take it up, just to see what it could do. Men who lived their lives on the razors edge, counting on skill, fast reflexes and not a little luck to live another day. Men who asked no guarantees of life, just a chance at adventure, a chance to do something or go someplace no one else had ever been.
It's 2005. We've lost two spacecraft in 19 years, along with their crews. At what point did we think the exploration of space would be bloodless? Who was it that promised it would be as safe as a carnival ride? No astronaut ever said "Whoa, whaddaya MEAN it's risky? I ain't going if it's not safe!". No. It was precisely because of the risk that made it an adventure for those special men.
It's embarassing to listen to NASA now. They talk as if their number one goal is to take all the risk out of spaceflight. Memo to NASA--That's impossible. Safety should be an integral part of the program, sure, but at some point recognize that your undertaking is inherently risky and GET ON WITH IT. It's not about inspections and repair kits. Have you forgotton the goal?? It's about exploration, pushing the limits, exploring the frontiers. Where would we have been if the overriding concern in 1840 was the safety of the pioneers. America might stretch all the way from the East Coast to St Louis! Sure you control the risks, but not to the point where you squeeze out all the rewards. Just sayin.
Good Job, Bush!
Oh yeah. You did a great job. You took a nation that was in no way a threat to America or the west, that was not aligned with Islamic Extremists and that was completely controlled and contained by UN Resolutions, Sanctions, No Fly zones and a completely crippled military, and at the cost of only a few tens of thousands of human lives and half a trillion dollars you single handedly turned it into an anti american islamic theocracy closely aligned with Iran. My. I guess you HAVE made a difference in the world.
The thing that makes me sick, and should make all Americans nauseous, is that we are STILL spending lives and treasure to prop up this hostile government we created. The thing that makes me laugh, sadly, is how completely Bush got out maneuvered by Sistani. Sistani brought the right pressure at the right time to cause the American occupation to give up it's original plan to install a docile puppet government and call early elections. Oh sure, our administration had plans to cheat (not a surprise with this bunch, who ALWAYS will place politics above policy), but even these masters of arrogance and hubris had to back away from that plan in fear of being exposed. So, it could not have come as a surpise that Allawi could not overcome the built in 60%+ Shiite majority and overnight Sistani and al Sadr were in charge. These are ALL people who lived in exile in Iran for DECADES while Saddam Hussein (remember him?) was running Iraq. Now, ask yourself. In the face of the Sunni Insurgency and the Kurdish Military and Economic power, what's keeping these guys in power. Oh, wait! WE ARE!!! American money and lives, propping up a government that will be a thorn in our side for decades to come.
WAKE UP, America. Especially you "Red Staters". Yep, it's your strapping, healthy young midwest homo hating christian boys who are being killed and maimed so that al Jafaari and his cabal can hold on to power. So that militias in Basra can beat students to death for listening to music, murder shop owners for selling alcohol and beat, rape and kill women who violate the Sharia's "Family Law Provisions". By the way, doesn't that remind you of "Focus on the Family"? I'm telling you, these religious zealots are getting awful hard to tell apart.
Push will come to shove at the end of the year when the real government is elected. They will then "ask" the american military to leave. What will we do? If we leave, the whole thing will have been in vain. We didn't protect ourselves from terrorists. We didn't create a democracy. We didn't even get the oil. Will we leave quietly, with our tail between our legs, like a good, or at least a reformed global citizen? Or will we refuse, turning a low-level insurgency into a full blown guerrilla war with both Iraq and Iran?
Look, at this point we've lost. Whatever it was we ever stood to gain, that's all down the toilet and we've lost. The only way to preserve even a modicum of dignity and integrity is to GET OUT NOW! Sure, bad things will happen. The Turks will roll up the Kurds, Iran will effectively annex Iraq's southern provinces, and the Sunnis will be left with sand and camel dung. At which point the Shiite militias will be the ones digging and filling the mass graves. Sad, ugly and 100% our fault. But any alternative will result in more horrific outcomes.
