Well, I opened up the Yahoo! front page this evening and what didn't I see? A story about the number of people blown up in Iraq by "insurgents".
Was that because:
A) It was an "insurgent" holiday and they were all frolicking by the seashore wearing nothing but their bomb belts?
B) They ran out of cars to pack with explosives?
or, C) The US and Iraqi governments finally figured out the best defense, in this case, is a strong offence?
The long-awaited move against the terrorist elements running amok in Iraq has begun in something approximating earnest. Moqtada al-Sadr, having already, according to reports, fled to Iran, has now apparently ordered his militia to flee, as well. The borders with Iran and Syria are closed so maybe the pricks are finally hemmed in.
The Iraqis also reported wounding the leader of al-Qaida's Iraqi division. Hopefully, Abu Ayyub al-Masri was seriously wounded and left a nice trail of blood. The US has a $5 million bounty on his head so there should be lots of takers if he can be found.
The US administration has also offered its proof that Iran has been active in Iraq, while admitting it's unknown exactly whom in the Iranian government has given orders or provided the means to stock terrorist groups in Iraq with weaponry.
I'm actually willing to believe that such activities have been orchestrated by the very highest levels of the Iranian government. But, then I also believed Iran and Saudi Arabia were far more dangerous and much better targets than Iraq in the first place.
In Iraq, this may be the last good chance to quell a civil war that would turn it into another proxy battleground for the 1,400 year old or so fight between sunnis and shiites. The US can settle this situation to the point where they can withdraw their troops, leaving behind at least a momentarily stable Iraq.
Momentarily is of course the key word because Iraq will probably never be stable in its current form. PJ O'Rourke once wrote that arab nations were "quarrels with borders". We've seen more than enough to know he was right.
In completely unrelated news, it was nice to see the NBA act quickly to sever its contacts with Tim Hardaway, after the retired star said that, "I hate gay people" and assorted other homophobic comments during a radio interview. When given an opportunity to retract the statement, he instead basically confirmed it.
The question came in relation to a recent disclosure by a former NBA player that he was homosexual.
There has still never been an openly gay player in any of the four major professional North American sports (baseball, hockey, football, basketball). A handful have revealed it afterwards. Doubtless, many more have not made that public.
Chances are actually pretty good that some time during his career, Hardaway did have a gay teammate and didn't feel at all uncomfortable because he didn't know.
I wonder how such a teammate would have responded if asked about sharing a locker room with a homophobic jerk?
Later, Hardaway issued the standard apology about how he didn't mean what he said and he was sorry if it offended anyone.
I guess dude should get an anonymous blog like the rest of us...