Every problem has a solution

When I was in college, I had the opportunity to work in a series of elementary and middle school computer labs under some sort of library grant. One of the more special seventh grade students had a bad habit of mentally and emotionally collapsing under even the most minor computer lab pressure. When stressed, he would begin slowly rocking back and forth, sweating, and mumbling to himself, "Every problem has a solution. Every problem has a solution." It was a very unfortunate situation for him, but one I always found interesting. The rest of the students didn't seem to take any notice of this, which means this was his normal mode of handling problems (bummer for him, but at least he seemed to be getting help based on his personal mantra), or he was a figment of my imagination. For the sake of this blog, let's assume the former.

Whenever I am confronted with a difficult problem, I am reminded of this poor child thunking his head on the keyboard and mumbling, "Every problem has a solution." For my loyal readers, you may understand that this has to do with my last post where I was bothered that I didn't feel Iraq had a solution. I still feel that way, although later that day I found an interesting article that, although not a solution, is an interesting best case scenario. Since I still don't have a solution, and since it still pisses me off, I'll just talk about the best case scenario.

Someone from the NY Times, someone probably smarter and more informed than me, someone who may actually have thunked her head on her keyboard while whispering a prayer for her solution, wrote an interesting article stating the best case scenario is basically that Iraq become the modern day Spanish Civil War. Now I admit I have an appallingly weak grasp of history, but I know most people consider the Spanish Civil War and the entire reign of Franco to be a fairly low point in world history. The article is included below so you can read it and draw your own conclusion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14cooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Basically, her point seems to be that our best hope is that Iraq itself descends into a modern day replica of the Spanish Civil War. If this happens, and as I mentioned in my last blog I doubt it can be prevented without a full military takeover, it would be ok for other governments to support the war financially so long as they do not become involved militarily, meaning they don't send troops. If this happens, the civil war will eventually take care of itself (probably with an oppressive dictator taking control again) but would not lead to larger conflict in the region. She mentions this is the only positive result of the Spanish Civil War, that it did not draw in other countries and expand throughout Europe. Of course, as is mentioned in the article, most of Europe was occupied with a larger world war. Other countries sent money or weapons, but not large numbers of troops.

So I think the solution here is obvious. I am going beyond what the NY Times printed, but I think I speak for all thinking people here. We need our fearless president, who I still think should be tried for treason (maybe we can let the wonderful new Iraqi justice system handle that one?), to call the famous Statue of Liberty play. That's right, the statue of liberty isn't just a hunk of metal in NY or a great football bowl play. The statue of liberty play is a trick play that involves some misdirection and some trickery. It's definately a premo call for our executive branch.

In war terms, to minimize the overall world effect of the civil war in Iraq, we need a diversionary world war to distract all the countries that would like to become involved in Iraq. So we need to distract Iran and Turkey and Saudi and France and England and all the other countries "worried" about Iraq with another war. I think Bush is going to fumble this and invade Iran, which is certainly located to close to Iraq to be a true statue of liberty diversion play. Instead, we need a larger target. We need a world pariah to attack. North Korea would make for to easy a play. The people are starving, the country isn't large enough, and we already tried it. I thought about a combined Venezuela and Cuba fight but decided against it. I like that we could call it the Venezuba war, or the Cubazuela Conflict, but you can't go willy nilly advocating war because of the naming rights. I do think we could sell those rights though. "Today's highlights of the Cubazuela Conflict brought to you by the US sugar industry. Don't support 3rd world sugar. Buy American Rum."

This leaves us one obvious enemy: Russia. If there is only one country in the world that needs a global smackdown, it's Russia. Putin's soul, which not so surprisingly connected with George Bush a few years ago, seems to have gone sour. They turn off oil to spite Europe. They might have poisoned someone in what is easily the most creative killing since god said "Fuck them" and dropped a meteor on the dinosaurs, and, quite frankly, I don't think they are moving toward a functioning long term democracy. If democracy is good enough to fight for in Iraq, should we not dear reader fight for it in Russia too? And they too have oil! To keep the sports analogies going, it's a slam dunk! Russia also has all the historical significance that I don't need to spell out for you. By attacking Russia, all the world would get involved and we could let Iraq fight it out among themselves. This would effectively minimize the deaths in Iraq because it would only be Iraqis. You might, just might, be able to argue this would create a larger world death toll but that's not the point. I am fixing Iraq right now, not the world. After the Russia-popalous war starts (I'll figure out the naming rights later - the Statue-evsky war perhaps), I'll figure out how to end it.

If I never blog again or start glowing blue, it means Putin is reading this and he knows I am right and I am onto him. It also means he is onto me! Fair readers, save yourselves!