Petraeus; Abbott and Costello; "Who's on First" and a nation that doesn't "give a darn.

This past Saturday, I went to a going-away get together for the friends of another young soldier being ordered to Iraq - Frankie. Now, I said to wife Rita, we have to start worrying again for still another friend being ordered to risk - and if fate so decrees, lose - his life. "For U.S. interests."

Not, mind you, in defense of his county, but "for U.S. interests."

A few days ago, as I noted on my "Question of the Day page here," I made reply to a solicitation to the public from Florida Congressman Robert Wexler for questions to ask the General commanding our troops in Iraq, General David Petraeus. I sent a list of questions by return e-mail (to see them, go to the Question Page).

Of course, the questions were obvious ones, as obvious as the historically unprecedented stupidity of invasion and the bumbling, bumbling, pratfalling conduct of the "war" (for everything related to the matter, new definitions seem necessary). The questions were as obvious, in fact, as what the general would say - regardless of the questions. In fact, I said months ago- right here - what he would say today. Need I remind you? Click here, go to the Mongoose Trick Archives for September 26, 2007.

To paraphrase by way of analysis what the soldier said (does anybody remember George Bernard Shaw's "I never expect a soldier to think" observation?) the way all the media pundits and "analysts" do, the general said that because things are going so well, we need to maintain our presence - "surge" included - in Iraq. If things were going badly, we would still want to maintain our presence there.

If the Iraq government and its forces were perfect, and doing everything perfectly, that would be a reason to stay, If they were doing miserably (pssst - the way they are), that is also a reason to stay.

And, the general said - here's a revelation for you - there's no way "right now" to judge when we can start "orderly withdrawal" great military minds like John McCain keep pontificating about.

General, let's see if I understand (some more of that "analysis" we get from the great minds of the media):

Since we don't know what's going on, there's no way to predict what will happen - that about it?

Since every time we included Iraqis in anything - political, military, what have you - a big percentage of them stay home, sabotage something, or go over to the other side, we're not sure when they will be able to begin running their country the way we want them to. That about it? General?

Since neither you nor we have any way to know how many "civilian military contractors" - CIA army, that is - are in Iraq or what they're doing, there's no way to assess their effect; or, in view of history, even their intentions. How do you command an army when you don't know exactly who they are (which puts you pretty much in the same condition as the public, doesn't it?).

Which brings me to how one assesses progress, costs, or status quo and the price of beans when you can't so much as define "winning" and "losing." I guess to define oh, so abstruse terms like that, you'd need also to define "interests." You know: those "U.S. Interests" we keep hearing about - as in "U.S. interests in the region." We're fighting to protect "U.S. interests" in Iraq. Dammit, what ARE our interests in Iraq? I mean, if I'm supposed to build a house, don't I have to know what it's supposed to look like when it's complete?

I watched the TV today, listened to the whole, damned posturing rigmarole of congressional hearings and the general's "testimony." I can't stomach these people, but it's the most - and the least - I could do for Frankie, I said to myself.

When can we leave (when have we won, when have our interests been served, when are we losing, when have we lost, etc., etc., etc.,)? No matter how the question was phrased, whatever its form, the answer was always the same: well, then we'll have to "make an assessment" (but you and I, of course, won't know when or what it is, and . . . oh, to hell with it!). When Senator Joe Biden - among others - asked how we know when conditions will be right for withdrawal of troops - some or all - I was reminded of another routine like this one. It was enacted by a couple of guys named Abbott and Costello, and it's become known as "WHO'S ON FIRST?".

"Costello: I throw the ball to who?

"Abbott: Naturally.

"Costello: Now you ask me.

Abbott: You throw the ball to Who?

"Costello: Naturally.

"Abbott: That's it.

"Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU!!! I throw the ball to who. Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third and I don't give a darn!

"Abbott: What?

"Costello: I said I don't give a darn!

"Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop.

"Costello screams."


Costello screams, and that's pretty much where the nation is. Me, too . . .