Topic category:  Other/General

In a previous incarnation, I was a Systems Analyst for over ten years. Nothing more than a glorified title for one who uses computer code to solve problems.

My world was black and white. Assumptions were forbidden, and always resulted in having to do the job over again. The results of my work were either valid or invalid. My computer code, which was modeled on logic, either executed or failed.

It's amusing how one's thought processes are guided when forced to employ logic. It's even more amusing watching faulty logic employed. All sorts of unintended consequences can result.

Currently, the Bush administration's strategy is stuck in an infinite loop, the "blue screen of death" for lack of a better analogy. The only way out is to reboot the damn machine, and hope that when you log back in, you can recover where you left off, and if that fails, to recover from some known point in the past and move on, if you have a backup strategy that accounts for incremental changes...

Fuzzy logic involves translating the inputs to a problem into a predefined set of values. Various weights (ranks) are then assigned to the inputs, and the resulting outputs are then translated back into real world values. This works great for Internet search engines or computerized pattern matching, which both return thousands of results; not so good for producing the single, most desirable result for trying to end the most barbaric conflict in my generation, but I digress...

While we're on the subject of fuzzy logic, the long anticipated report from the Iraq Study Group has been released.

Nothing Earth-shattering or new. It reads more like a PR campaign; chock full of action verbs, calling on the US to support, stop, secure, prevent, promote, energize, validate, assist, and help, but there is no mention of how to do any of those things without more military force, considering the violence is so widespread, it now claims thousands of innocent lives monthly.

President Bush finally got an independent rebuke of his overall plan. It was also a candid assessment of the extent to which Iraq has deteriorated, and a list of 79 recommendations, the majority of which deal with what the Iraqis must do to bring order to chaos in their own country.

The Group's best shot --and their overriding message-- is a strong diplomatic push, with heavy emphasis on consensus building. There are also lots of mixed signals.

Regional diplomacy --as a solution to Iraq-- is a pipe dream. Other Arab nations are either actively aiding the ongoing murder of US soldiers, or are at the very least too afraid of their own populations to truly help. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait refuse to take even the most modest of steps; writing off pre-war Iraqi debt, owed by the Hussein regime. After saving their bacon in 1990, they owe us.

The report states "some countries are undercutting stability", but doesn't name names, concurrently recommending actively courting those same countries on the diplomatic front, and engaging them to help in some constructive fashion. Both countries were criticized in the report, but in the virtual context of passively refusing to help, as opposed to the absolute context of their active interference and support of foreign jihadists.

In the past, our over-emphasis on consensus building is what led to the appeasement and re-arming of Nazi Germany prior to the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide, and is now leading to the execution of whole villages in Darfur, while the world watches.

There are far too many assumptions made in the recommendations by the Study Group where the military is concerned. The military's job is, as they say "to blow things up and kill people". The report suggests actually embedding US forces with Iraqi units[1]. Iraqi units whom the report also suggests have no loyalty, discipline, or readiness. This, I believe is asking too much of our soldiers.

The report suggests that to satisfy the Shia, we need to fight the insurgency. The Sunnis won't trust us unless we deal with the Shiite death squads. Neither side will give in, which hints that a political solution is premature, and there's still fighting to be done.

A comprehensive solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict can only occur if all of the players can at least recognize that Israel has the right to exist. Considering Hamas leader Ismael Haniyeh's refusal on Arab television the same day the Baker report is released, it isn't likely. This recognition must be the starting point of any Israeli peace effort. Any offer that falls short shouldn't be taken seriously.

In terms of it's assessment, the Study Group's report is the same message the American people have been screaming loud and clear to a tone-deaf administration for 2 years. It just seems -all of a sudden-- to carry more weight, when coming from a Blue-Ribbon government commission.

The report's major recommendations are diplomacy and a foreign policy makeover, accelerated training and deployment of Iraqis, and reunification of disaffected Sunnis.

The Sunni population needs to be reminded they chose to boycott the political process, and in a democracy, that has consequences. They need to be given one final opportunity to renounce violence, and in return given a true stake in the direction and prosperity of their country, or left to their own devices.

The militias and death squads must be disarmed, eliminated and outlawed.In a strange non sequitur, the report calls for moving all forces not necessary for "force protection" out of Iraq, in favor of embedded trainers and rapid reaction forces who would provide force protection if needed.

It defies logic to move them further away from where they're needed, if called to assist other US soldiers who are embedded with Iraqi units, and are being overrun.

As if that weren't enough, how about this paradox? The conservative approach (considering the indecision on whether to continue to apply military pressure) would actually be to completely withdraw. But the only way to accomplish the report's recommendations are to increase troop levels.

Just as in the case with Bush's war plan, the failure of Baker's commission to account for Iraqi failure to take control of their destiny, or reunify is a critical input that is missing from the algorhithm. These are assumptions, as previously stated, and will lead to nowhere.

Two things are sure: I don't envy the President, and there are no easy solutions to this problem. A political solution is necessary, but in my opinion it's premature.

Withdrawal now, would send a clear signal to terrorists that if they hit hard enough, we'll run away, and the region would descend into further violence, if that's even possible.

We would end up having to return, because we started this mess, but next time, instead of rebooting, we may simply have to pull the plug, repartition the hard drive, and reformat the media just to keep the system bug-free. Even then, the system may still crash.

Jayme Evans

Biography - Jayme Evans

Jayme Evans is a veteran of the United States Navy, a military analyst, conservative opinion columnist, and an advocate for disabled and other veterans. He has served for many years as a Subject Matter Expert specializing in the testing of systems software for numerous major US organizations. He has extensively studied amateur astronomy and metallurgy, as well as military and US history. His brutally honest, in-your-face political commentary has been published in many west coast newspapers, and he is a regular contributing columnist to a multitude of internet sites, including WebCommentary.com, The Conservative Voice, and Conservative Crusader. Mr. Evans has also written guest editorials for Military Magazine, and he has been a frequent guest columnist on WorldNetDaily, writing about legislative and veteran's issues.