civil war? who would have predicted it?

just about everyone outside of the Republican party, that's who!

Increasing military deaths from combat, civilians taken hostage and now missing military personnel.

Civil war in Iraq following the fall of Hussein. Who knew? Who could have predicted such consequences?

Many, many people as it turns out. I mentioned it myself about a year ago, at the same time that I predicted that the war (not just the U.S. occupation of Iraq, but real military action) could last for a year or longer. One year down the line, and our combat casualties continue to rise; factional violence is increasing regularly; no reasonably satisfactory government will be available to take over on the "do or die date," June 30 2004, and finally civilians are becoming hostages.

Iran 1979, anyone? How about Vietnam?

In Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran, civilian and government personnel were taken hostage during the Carter administration. The presumptive Reagan administration made a deal with the Devil, so to speak, to get the hostages released on Ray-Gun's inauguration date. Of course they later got even with the Irani government by climbing into bed with a local hothead known as "Saddam Hussein." You can see how well that worked out in the long run.

And the Vietnam comparison can't be ignored. "Domino effect" vs. "Terrorist Threat." Neither of these classic misconceptions was actually applicable to the wars they supposedly justified.

The "Domino Effect" allegedly applied to Vietnam: once Vietnam fell to the Communists, the rest of Southeast Asia (and eventually Australia and New Zealand) along with what remained of non-Communist Asia (Japan, India, Pakistan, etc.) would soon follow into Communism.

This, of course, did not happen.

After the United States finally found the manhood to pull out of Vietnam without achieving the intended "victory," South Vietnam was captured by Communist North Vietnam. The regional consequences? No "Domino Effect," that's for sure. The "Communist wave" was stopped there.

The "Terrorist threat" presented by Iraq was likewise non-existent - until Saddam Hussein was overthrown. Now that he is gone, the artificially created nation (delineated by the British after WWI) - which comprises at least three contentious regions - is an easy place for international terrorists to practice for the Big Time. Iraq may have been an unpleasant place under Saddam, but now random car-bombs and mortar attacks are de rigeur.

Interesting tradeoff. I wonder what the relative native Iraqi body count is, month by month, on a comparative basis? There are those who would also point out that few American soldiers were dying in Iraq under Saddam's rule.

The way I see it, we have few reasonable choices in Iraq other than pulling out as we did from Vietnam.

One thing is plain: the Bush/Cheney administration (and their pet dog Rumsfeld) have no reasonable exit strategy for Iraq. If they are elected in 2004, it matters little how they extract themselves from Iraq. It will be a lame-duck term. Right now, all they need to do is scare the American public long enough to squeeze out an election in November.

The jobless masses will have to wait.

"We've got scarin' and spyin' to do, except for the couple of months each year we go home to relax. Hey, we deserve those vacations; do you have any idea how hard it is to play 'president'? And this war thing - none of us have ever had to deal with it before, 'cept for Colin."

The guys who came into office proclaiming themselves as "grownups" have proven to be clowns.