Supporting a sacrilegious sanctuary, scientific society, and solace for Southern secularists.

Iraq is just a mess. There is a lot of disagreement on the correct solution. What I fear, however, is that there are too many people- in the general public and in Washington- who are championing one idea or another just because it fits their personal or political ideology. We need to use our brains in a situation as complicated and dangerous as this. First, we must ask the right questions and consider implications.

1. We "stay the course". All evidence points to the fact that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. Obviously a negative trend like the one we have seen indicates that current policy is not effective. So...

2. We send more troops. The potential problem with this solution is that it may exacerbate the situation. Currently, 90% of the Iraqi population want us gone, 80% think we are making the situation worse, and 60% believe it is acceptable to kill Americans. Will a larger American presence encourage the insurgency and jihadist elements in Iraq to cooperate more? With less infighting would there be more threat to American troops? Would escalating the number of troops simply result in more casualties, similar to the escalation in Vietnam? What about regional conflicts? Would Iran see an increase in American troops as a pretense to covertly prepare for invasion? Might they follow the (shameful) U.S. doctrine of preemptive strike? What about Syria or Hezbollah? Might they join in? Instead, perhaps those countries and organizations would simply increase their indirect support for insurgents, seeing an opportunity to weaken U.S. strength? Would the committment of more U.S. troops to this conflict embolden North Korea? How many deaths of American soldiers can we bear for a cause whose foundations are shaky at best, non-existent at worst.

3. We withdraw our troops. Although Iraq had no connections with jihadists before the war (One of Bin Laden's primary complaints with the U.S. was that American troops drove Iraqi troops out of Kuwait when he had asked his Saudi government to let him and his mujahideen soldiers do it. He hated the secular government of Saddam Hussein, and thought the use of infidels to fight them instead of his holy warriors was a disgrace to Islam) it has definitely become an active recruiting place for terror organizations. The Iraqi government is anything but stable. If we withdraw troops now, will Iraq become a haven for terror groups? Will sectarian strife result in perpetual civil war? Will a situation arise that causes other nations, such as Iran or Syria to step in? Will their influence in any new Iraqi state increase? Will Iraq over time return to totalitarianism, making our modest achievements empty? Would leaving such a mess cause more harm to our credibility on the international stage?

I don't have answers to many of these questions, and it makes it very difficult to take a decisive stand on what our solution should be. I'm not sure who could answer any of these questions or the many other important ones that I haven't listed. I hope there is someone qualified out there to provide at least some insight. My fear is that people, even those at the highest levels of decision making, are failing to even ask questions. I am afraid they are blindly following either a preconceived agenda or towing a party line. You may say, surely they are more thoughtful when so much is at stake. Don't bet on it. Take Representative Terry Everett. According to Jeff Stein, the national security editor at Congressional Quarterly, Everett- the seven-term Alabama Republican who is vice chairman of the House intelligence subcommittee on technical and tactical intelligence- when asked what the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite is, responded, "I honestly don't know. I think its a difference in their religions or families or something." U.S. Representative. Vice-Chairman of an intelligence sub-committee. Three and a half years into a war in Iraq, he still hasn't bothered to find out the difference between the two major sectarian groups. Or consider this:

Representative Jo Ann Davis, a Virginia Republican who heads a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.'s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information, was similarly dumbfounded when asked if she knew the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.

"Do I?" she asked. A look of concentration came over her face. "You know, I should." She took a stab at it: "It's a difference in their fundamental religious beliefs. The Sunni are more radical than the Shia. Or vice versa. But I think it's the Sunnis who're more radical than the Shia."

Did she know which branch Al Qaeda's leaders follow?

"Al Qaeda is the one that's most radical, so I think they're Sunni," she replied. "I may be wrong, but I think that's right."

But hey, look at their role-model. Bush had to have someone come in and explain the difference to him just before the invasion. After the first round of explanation, it was rumored that he was astonished and said, "I thought the Iraqis were muslim."

We know a lack of critical thinking and a personal priority of ideology over evidence helped get us into this mess. I don't fear terrorists. I fear incompetence. And with the same boobs in charge, I have little faith that more of the same will get us out.

The Southern Fried Skeptic.