MORE TROOPS TO IRAQ?

A “surge” of U. S. troops to Iraq seems to be a distinct possibility. The numbers being bandied about are in the 25,000 to 30,000 range. An official rationale has not yet been provided, but the general, ephemeral idea is probably that more troops will reduce the overall level of chaos. Maybe. Or maybe it’s a case of a day late and a dollar short. Or maybe by this stage it’s just plain too late and any number of U.S. troops short of the 500,000 who should have been sent initially won’t, in the long term, make a difference.

Here are some facts about the U.S. involvement in Iraq. First, at some point in the not-too-distance future we are going to leave. It may be three years, it may be five years, it may be ten years or longer. But we ain’t staying permanently. They don’t want us there, and the American people don’t have the patience to be long-term occupiers.

Second, there will be no “victory” in Iraq in the classic sense: no surrender by the opposing forces, no wiping out of all opposition by us, no victory parade down 5th Avenue by triumphant returning troops. At best there would be a semblance of stability, most likely imposed by an authoritarian government whose human rights record will be dismal. The chances of this “best” scenario coming about are slim.

Third, to counter the nonstate forces that would do us harm in this world, we need to be one helluva lot smarter than we have been over the last few years. We have sought to meet the threat posed by a relatively small number of nihilistic terrorists by waging a conventional war. A major consequence seems to have been the creation of a lot more potential and actual terrorists. We have come to be viewed by much of the world as a lumbering ineffectual bully and are being treated accordingly.

Fourth, the nation of Iraq is a relative new concept. The nation was created by some mid-level British and French diplomats after World War I. The three distinct groups in Iraq—Kurds, Sunnis, and Shites—share one thing: a distinct dislike of one another. Why try to hold together these three ancient adversaries?

From the United States’ viewpoint, the major problem—other than George W. Bush’s pride and stubbornness—is summarized by former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s observation that if we break the pottery, it becomes ours. Well, we broke it. So now what?

Well, here is one solution from the peanut gallery. First, stop yaking about victory, accomplishing the mission, bringing freedom to the people of Iraq, and the like. Second, accept the fact that Iraq is really three distinct “nations.” If they can manage to live together under a federal umbrella of some sort, fine. But stop trying to mix oil and water. (Not a very good metaphor or analogy, but you get the picture.) Instead of trying to create an Iraqi army, an Iraqi police force, an Iraqi government, let the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shites each create their own. If in doing so the various sides feel they have to pound the crap out of each other every now and then, fine. Let them get it out of their systems.

Third, pull U.S. troops back to a few isolated bases. The near term mission would be to, when the fighting between the factions gets excessively rough, emerge and pummel the participants a bit. The long-term mission—18 months or so—would be get all U.S. troops out of the country.

Finally, in 2008 elect a U.S. President who does not believe the neoconservative notion that bringing democracy and freedom to the world is a task easily accomplished with just a modest expenditure of resources and the appearance of a few U.S. soldiers. In short, elect a President whose idealism is tempered by reality, who is not the slave of an ideology, any ideology, right or left. Core values are one thing. Trying to ram your view of the world down the world's throat is another.

DSH

NANNIES AGAIN

Wow! The cranky old guy didn’t realize that nannies were such a hot, er, touchy, er, compelling subject.

Let’s be clear. Cranky is not against nannies. And he does not mean to imply that having an attractive young foreign woman in a household is necessarily a source of tension and stress. Although to be perfectly honest, it certainly can be. No, the cranky old guy is mainly an interested observer of the nanny culture that has grown up in many localities, including his own. Nannies were once limited to the households of the elite super rich. No longer. In a middle class community such as the cranky old guy’s, nannies are now as common as cats (and not nearly as annoying).

The issues raised by the nanny culture constitute a sizeable proportion of the comments and queries on the website of the cranky old guy’s neighborhood. How do I find a nanny? What do I pay a nanny? What should the nanny call me? How do I discipline a nanny? Is a nanny my partner in raising my children, or my employee? What if my children don’t like the nanny? What if my children are little hellions who need a drill sergeant rather than a nanny? (No one ever asks this question directly, but Cranky can read between the lines.) What if my children get too attached to the nanny? What if my husband gets too attached to the nanny? Okay, the cranky old guy’s mind is wandering again.

A major topic concerns part-time nannies. “I need a nanny between 1 and 4 on Tuesdays, 3 and 6 on Thursdays, and for any hour Friday morning. Can anyone help me?” Or “Anyone need a nanny Wednesday afternoons? Our nanny has Wednesday afternoons off and would like to work during that time.” Or, “Need a nanny for two adorable children [yeah, right] and a dog on alternate Thursdays, except in November.”

Of course, nannies also have their side of the story. The cranky old guy has been doing some research into this (No, not in the way your dirty little mind is thinking). Some families apparently think nannying is a 24/7 job. Time off? Not from our household, Sweetie. Our jobs require emailing, cell-phoning, and Blackberrying around the clock, so don’t even think of time off.

Many nannies are found through agencies, and in theory the agencies have hotlines that a nanny can turn to if she is having problems with her family. But to the nannies, the hotlines appear to be manned only on the second Monday of every week. Not getting along with your family? Required to work on weekends? Being followed around by ol’ lecherous eyes? Forget about getting any help through the hotline.

Finally, the cranky old guy himself is in the market for a part-time nanny. He is a member of a neighborhood group of cranky old guys who play poker once a month. We need someone to serve drinks, stack chips, and other stuff. And no, a spouse would not be an acceptable substitute.

WHAT TO GET THE NANNY FOR XMAS

The cranky old guy lives in an upscale suburban neighborhood of the nation’s capital. A goodly proportion of the climbing, networking young families populating the neighborhood depend upon au pairs, or nannies as they are sometimes called, to hold the household together. The two adults can thus pursue their dreams and careers in government, the K Street law firms, or whatever, while the children are under the protective care of the finest young women of Europe, Latin America, or the Far East.

Of course, a nanny-dependent economy is not without its issues. One such issue was recently posted on the website of the cranky old guy’s neighborhood. Incidentally, communication via neighborhood website is fast becoming an integral component of modern urban and suburban life, but comments on this phenomenon are beyond the scope of the present piece. Anyway, the issue posted on the cranky old guy’s neighborhood website concerned nannies and Christmas bonuses: “Is there a standard for nanny Christmas bonuses? Any advice?”

Before responding to this inquiry, the cranky old guy, prompted by his too-much-time-on-his-hands son-in-law, must ask a question: “Is the nanny hot?” Depending on the answer to that question, the cranky old guy has two lists of suggestions.

BONUSES FOR THE NON-HOT NANNY

1. Christmas morning off.

2. Twenty-five dollars.

BONUSES FOR THE HOT NANNY

1. The gentleman of the house serves the nanny breakfast in bed.

2. The gentleman of the house gives the nanny a therapeutic massage.

3. The gentleman of the house and the nanny take Christmas week off, and maybe the next week too.

4. At least $500, more in "special" cases.

Okay, so the cranky old guy is also a dirty old man. He’s just happy that back when he and the Mrs. were a young couple, he was not surrounded by the temptations that now pervade his neighborhood.