With all due respect, I think that there is some irony in a desperate call for robots. Why hasn’t the administration thought of an obvious way to at least impose order all over Iraq : outsource the war to the Chinese military? Doesn’t it look like a straightforward course of action?
• The Chinese army will have no trouble getting 1 million soldiers, maybe more.
• They have a successful track record of clamping on insurgents in foreign lands, namely Tibet .
• Their cost, including logistics, will be a small fraction of U.S. costs.
• Chinese military casualties will be of little interest to mainstream Western media.
• The Chinese government is oil-hungry and may easily accept to be paid with a fraction of the Iraqi oil once the country is secure; with the correct clauses, such an arrangement would give them a powerful incentive to pacify the country quickly; it would also have the advantage, for once, of not burdening the U.S. debt to China .
• The Bush administration has touted the virtues of globalization and outsourcing; it would practice what it preaches.
• Leaving Iraq to the Chinese army would free U.S. forces to mass close to the Iranian border. It is a safe bet that within days of the appearance of Chinese soldiers in Iraq , Iranian president Ahmadinejad would be on the phone with Washington, asking for clarification of the U.S. requests, promising to promptly heed them and begging for some face-saving trick.
• This could be the start of a military teamwork between the USA and China articulated around an invasion/occupation collaboration. Nothing could stop this “beautiful and good alliance,” as gen. De Gaulle termed his French-Soviet collaboration; at a time when the U.S. army’s spectacular failure to control the 2nd class enemy that the Iraqi insurgency is makes it clear that it would be incapable of winning a war against China, the advantages of a strategic alliance between the U.S. and Chinese military machines under U.S. control cannot be underestimated.
Of course, one could wonder why the administration has not even mentioned this common-sense approach to swiftly bring the Iraq war to an indisputably victorious closure:
• Could it be that Michael Moore would be right, and that the administration would want the war to be continuous? The longer it would last, the better?
• Could it be that Robert Greenwald would be right? Would the war’s true goal be to siphon money from the federal treasury to well-connected contractors?
• Is there another, more logical explanation?
Love,

Andy forgot to mention that Hasbro is a subsidiary of Halliburton.

Ah yes, reminds me of Shrubs’ plan for NASA to explore the Sun. When told that the heat would melt any known metals, he responded...That’s the trouble with you pointy head types; you don’t think things through. Just time the landing for night time when the Sun is turned off.
Been solving problems that way all his life.