Rant About Iraq - Why Are We Still There?

It is pleasing to read about the dedication with which the Democrats appear to be devoting to their mission to bring back American troops from Iraq. If only our own politicians were as rooted in reality to do the same thing about our troops. Britain would be safer.

The problem with the Iraq War, was that it was America's experiment to illustrate loud and clear, that it was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world. The world's only superpower. The biggest economy. The world's biggest freedom-loving, blah blah blah. Thankfully, the intended result of this colossally misguided adventure, has failed miserably. But what is particularly worrying, is not the American failure, which in hindsight, was not really surprising, but the disturbing trend of intense internal violence. For this, I cannot in anyway blame the Americans. No, this is an Islamic issue. For what kind of society condones the kind of indiscriminate violence that is taking place everyday, often, several times a day, all over the country? Initially, we all thought that it would be a temporary phenomenon, but after four years of such inhumane violence, it has obviously turned out to be anything but a phenomenon. It has in effect become the normal way of life in post-War Iraq. And though it is a real and tragic consequence of America's intrusion, I do not believe that it was their fault, or of their doing.

All that said and done, I didn't agree with the reasons America & Britain went to war in the first place, and now that they have found themselves in a quagmire, I think it would be best for both of them to get the hell out. Or at the very least, Britain. The Americans can choose to do what they want, but I think it would also be in their interest to get out. But don't get me wrong. I don't want us to pull out because it will make our citizens safer if we are seen to be acknowledging the oft-repeated claim that Western aggression and its military presence in Islamic countries inspires the terrorists. No, not at all. I don't think we're safe anywhere in the world, regardless of whether we remain in Iraq or not. And the same goes for Afghanistan and any other country with an Anglo-American presence.

I want our troops pulled out because it is a waste of our taxes. Why should we waste so much money on funding a war that never intended to protect us in the first place? It is silly to continue deluding ourselves that every extra day in Iraq will contribute to its future stability. It is indeed an unfortunate turn of events that our role in Iraq has been reduced to that of ensuring stability, instead of rooting out the terrorists, as originally intended (supposedly). Moreover, if it isn't obvious today that Iraq is NOT the focal point of our threat from global terrorism, then I honestly don't think we will ever solve the problem, and if we do, at a greater cost than should've been necessary. The best thing we can do right now is to get out and let the Iraqis deal with themselves. We will be much better off spending those extra taxes on protecting ourselves at home, and in other constructive ways to fight the War on Terror (whatever that means). In fact, how about pulling the troops back and investing the money on that new National Border Force, that Gordy has talked about. That'd be a good place as any to start making progress, innit?

Contrasting Fortunes of India's Cricketing Superstars

11 years ago, Sourav Ganguly and Rahul Dravid made their Test debut for India in the same match at Lord's. Since then, both have gone on to become the most successful batsmen to have played for India since Sachin Tendulkar, and all three have captained the national team. Dravid is still the captain. The similarities end there because in those 11 years, Ganguly has played 94 Tests and scored only 5637 runs at an average of 40.84, with 13 centuries and 27 half-centuries. Dravid on the other hand, has played 110 Tests and scored 9377 runs at an average of 56.83, with 24 centuries and 47 half-centuries. Only 16 more Tests than Ganguly, yet Dravid has scored nearly 3000 more runs. And as for Sachin, he has played 138 Tests and scored 10975 runs at an average of 55.15, with 37 centuries and 43 half-centuries, since making his debut in 1989. Since that Lord's Test however, Sachin has played 99 Tests and scored 8346 runs at an average of 56.01, with 28 centuries and 30 half-centuries. There is little to choose from between Sachin's post-1996 Lord's record and Dravid's Test record, but the significant gap between their record and Ganguly's is unmistakable. That said, Ganguly is India's most successful Test captain, even if his batting record doesn't compete with two among the three or four best batsmen, India has ever produced (the others being Sunil Gavaskar and Vijay Merchant).

Interestingly, if you had to pick the more successful batsmen between the two that made their debut 11 years ago, chances are you would've plumped for Ganguly. And why not? He scored two centuries in his debut tour, both in his first two Tests, including one in his debut innings in the 2nd Test at Lord's, while Dravid managed only 95 on debut, and an 84 in the 3rd Test. Ganguly scored 48 in the 2nd innings of the 3rd and final Test, Dravid scored 8. Since then, how their fortunes and achievements have changed. (Incidentally, SRT also scored 2 centuries and a 74 in the same series, but India still lost 0-1).

The 2nd Test between England and India at Trent Bridge in Nottingham begins tomorrow, and there are question-marks about Ganguly's fitness. If he does eventually play, he will be under tremendous pressure to score a lot of runs. As it happens, SRT and Dravid will also be under the same kind of pressure. In fact, when they step onto the field tomorrow morning, it will matter less and less what they have accomplished in the past, if they fail again. Let's hope for the sake of an Indian victory, they don't.