I was reading about Iraq, and I saw that Baghdad is hinged on the border of chaos. After 5 years of U.S. intervention, that area is still unstable.

I wondered what things would be like if we’d left that area alone and focused on catching bin Laden.

Did you see the movie “Mr. Destiny?” Jim Belushi was living what seemed like an OK life, but his front lawn and driveway were all mud. The slacker landscaping guy wouldn’t get on the ball, and kept asking for thousands of dollars more each time he and Jim met. Then Jim goes back in time, mentally, to a crucial moment in his past, changes it, and returns to the world he would have been living in all along had the past played out like he changed it. He goes to his house. His lawn is full of lush, green grass. His driveway looks terrific. But he doesn’t live there! A cop lives there instead, because Jim now lives in a mansion. When you think about it, something must have happened between the cop and the landscaper. If he hired the same guy, he probably gave him some kind of ultimatum, and saw concrete results. (ha ha)

Well, it all just makes me wonder how Iraq would be if some aggressive dictator showed up and used brutal force to instill peace. I know the U.S. wants to maintaining a certain level of civility, and I agree that we should. But in a tactical sense, I’m wondering if the fighters and Iraqi militia guys would ever allow that method to work.

It’s like a nice babysitter comes over to watch a bunch of rambunctious kids. They see she’s nice, so they know they can take advantage of her, and pelt her with Nerf darts all day. I figure that’s why we haven’t achieved peace yet, because the violence is desired too much by some, and they don’t respond as well to “soft” treatment. And sending a brutal babysitter runs contrary to our ideals.

Hmm, but maybe not even brutality would be enough to remove the urge to war… I guess if the problem is a fundamental part of someone’s ideals, then no matter what you do, if you can’t act in accordance with those ideals, lasting peace cannot be maintained. So when someone programs themselves with ideals so stringent that they don’t allow for their neighbors to be of a certain type, I guess that is like declaring war on the world. Because everybody is neighbors with everybody.

I've heard from McCain and others that our time in Iraq may be lengthy. Maybe 100 years. It's been 5 so far. The general consensus of a large portion of the public seems to be, "Let's get out of there now." In the news, you hear things about "major milestones" and "great strides," but none of it seems to be lasting.

I think all the "Mission Accomplished" talk is really motivated by spin doctors trying to shape the reality of the situation in such a way that it meets the demands of the "get out of there" crowd. If it really will take 100 years for things to work out the way we've "intended" in Iraq, then all the milestones will come much later. So why bother feeding us all the "we've turned a corner" rhetoric? Because it's a way to postpone the inevitable.

It's like a mother tells her kid to stop playing video games and go to bed. And he says, "Just a couple more minutes, Mom…"

Two minutes go by. She says, "I mean it, get to bed!"

And he says, "I'm almost to the end of the level!" Either that's what he thinks (and he's wrong), or he's lying.

Another 5 minutes go by. The Mom says, "All right, that's enough. Time for bed."

"But I just found the Sword Of A Thousand Truths!"

Seven minutes later, "Get to bed!"

The party for the war keeps telling the party against the war that "it won't be long now," even though the idea has already been put out there that it could take a lot longer.

But if we stay for 100 years, what kind of resolution could we achieve? I feel like the real major strides are dependent not on us being there (since 5 years hasn't really done the job), but on some unknown factor. Like maybe some agreement must be reached between a number of other countries, or some new technology needs to be invented that solves a major problem.

That could happen, and we're in Iraq in 2020. "War is over! Iraq is all better! Mission Accomplished."

Or we're not in Iraq in 2020, and those unrelated developments still take place. "Iraq is all better! Thanks to [insert solution here]."

I support America, I support the American people, and I support our troops. I believe blindly following the leadership without questioning the status quo is a quick route to an unregulated authority that inevitably weakens the public and the country. I think it makes logical sense that people who truly love their country are willing to judge what those in power are doing to ensure that the state of the nation remains strong.

I don't think this will really happen. It was just the first impression I got.

Reading on Yahoo today, I learned that "Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki issued an ultimatum Wednesday demanding that the militias surrender their weapons within 72 hours."

Further down the page: "Maliki stipulated in his ultimatum that the militants would be spared if they surrendered their weapons within 72 hours."

Of course, if you run a country (or try to), and a bunch of people go around shooting the place up, it doesn't make much sense to nuke them. You'd be nuking yourself.

But I just figured than any kind of ultimatum in a part of the world that is so problematic might end badly. Like maybe he says, "I'm going to count to three. One…"

The conflict doesn't stop.

"Two…"

Some of the fighting groups' bigger brothers (i.e. neighboring countries) say, "Hey, fight's on!"

"Three!" The enforcer tries to cut down the disobeying parties. Meanwhile, the big brothers say, "That's enough," and somehow escalate the conflict. Then they fight with each other. And it spreads and spreads, nation to nation, getting bigger and bigger, until someone says, "All right! I can finally use the nuke I got! Good thing I saved all the money I made on my paper route…"

FOOM!

Pure fiction? Or crazy like a fox? Stay tuned this weekend…