The Tenuous Tenuousness of the Tenuous Case for Patience

This came up in my diavlog debate on Iraq with Jon Chait, but I find it striking how much the non-demagogic arguments in favor of staying in Iraq sound like arguments in favor of leaving. You get things like Anthony Cordesman's much-discussed tenuous case for strategic patience in Iraq which presents what is, I think, an excellent analysis of the situation followed by what struck me as the slightly bizarre conclusion that we ought to basically just hold on or hope for the best. Or here, Fred Kaplan describes a conversation with "Stephen Biddle, a military analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a key proponent of the patchwork-quilt strategy." What does Biddle think? Well:

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years—and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

Kaplan gets at some of this, but if your analysis is that we should accept a "long-shot gamble" that entails 100,000 American troop serving in Iraq until 2027 then you owe us some kind of explanation of what the payoff is supposed to be. The cost of doing what Biddle's analysis suggests is necessary would be enormous. The benefits, meanwhile, don't seem especially high even if you ignore the "long-shot" nature of the odds. Plug the odds in, and the whole proposition looks ridiculous.

I respect Biddle enormously, and think his argument against a middle path in Iraq is absolutely solid. His analysis of what staying would entail also seems solid. I just can't understand why he doesn't see that the obvious upshot of his analysis is that we should leave. To conclude anything else it seems to me you'd need to put a near-infinite value on the prospect of salvaging something to label "success" in Iraq.

Comments

At APSA last weekend, biddle indicated that his personal view was that we should leave. But for Very Serious reasons, he feels he should maintain that the surge is an intellectually serious longshot (with a 10% chance of success he hazards) for those who think the costs of leaving are unbearable. More fairly, he also wants to cut the ground out from under the middle options, in the hopes that people will draw your obvious conclusion

Posted by brendan green | September 7, 2007 11:28 AM

Obviously, you do not support the troops.

Posted by Eric | September 7, 2007 11:30 AM

What the media analysts are trying to "salvage" are their paychecks.

The lives of fellow American citizens -- well, those are expendable.

Posted by Don Williams | September 7, 2007 11:41 AM

I believe that within 40 or 50 years the British should be able to reduce their colonial forces in Kenya Colony, assuming that their continued success in surging against the 'Mau Mau' continues.

Posted by El Cid | September 7, 2007 11:42 AM

Same goes for the "foreign policy community"

As with streetwalkers, they are called "professionals" for a reason.

Posted by Don Williams | September 7, 2007 11:43 AM

I was rather disappointed with your response to Chait, Matt. When Chait was defending his "let's put Saddam back in power" column, the question that should occur to any war opponent is: how are we to unpack the "let's do x"? This has been your strength since you saw through the pro-war position - understanding that fantasy is not a plan. The proper question to ask is always: is there any mechanism for doing this? Or are we projecting fantasy solutions, without any sense of the real mechanisms to get them done, on a country that we apparently still know little about? As Tim Weiner's recent history of the CIA shows, the overthrow of a government by the U.S and its replacement by another government is inherently difficult, even given the best of conditions. When the CIA did this to Arbenz in Guatamala in 1956, they almost failed by underestimating the patriotism of the Guatamalan army. And that was an instance in which the U.S. held all the cards.

So, the project of keeping 100,000 troops in Iraq would, it seems, be subordinate to what exactly we think those troops can do. Or any troops. In my view, the U.S. became politically irrelevant in Iraq after Najaf, in 2004, and remain relevant only as a tool to accomplish sectarian ends that we don't understand - for instance, it would have been much more difficult for the Shi'ite militias to kill or cause to flee most of the Sunnis in Baghdad if they hadn't been given solid cover by U.S. troops.

In Iraq, the U.S. holds so little that we are now advertising our surrender to Sunni insurgents in Anbar province - people who were killing us in 2004 - as a victory. The press, of course, playing the usual propaganda role, has carefully avoided any question of what are Sunni allies thought of Saddam Hussein. Otherwise, we would have to explain how the war took a U Turn - we went in to eliminate Saddam Hussein and we are winning because we are now arming Ba'athists who supported Saddam Hussein.

Of course, the Democrats are plunging down this U Turn with the abandon of ganderene swine. So that they can proudly say they were for it before they were against it before they were for it. That worked out so well before!

Posted by roger | September 7, 2007 11:45 AM

The benefits, meanwhile, don't seem especially high even if you ignore the "long-shot" nature of the odds

That's hard to say if you don't know the hoped-for payoff.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 7, 2007 11:47 AM

We are all Leninists now.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | September 7, 2007 11:51 AM

What do we win when we win in Iraq?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 7, 2007 11:55 AM

Do you really not understand why the "serious" types all want to stay?

Posted by mq | September 7, 2007 12:05 PM

"Do you really not understand why the "serious" types all want to stay?"

They're scared of having their "Washington Insider Decoder Ring" taken away?

Posted by David in NY | September 7, 2007 12:30 PM

The Unbearable Tenuousness of Being Unbearable ?

Posted by Douglas Watts | September 7, 2007 12:30 PM

Re Driscoll's comment "We are all Leninists now."
----------
As in "The purpose of terror is to terrorize"??

Posted by Don Williams | September 7, 2007 12:33 PM

This is not such a great mystery. As you may recall, back when Matthew Yglesias was yelling Sis Boom Bah, Rah Rah Rah for the war, us DFH's were saying that the real motive for the invasion was to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq.

We were right. The reason for staying is not to "win" or achieve "success" in Iraq. The reason for staying is to stay. Which was the whole point in the first place. And the metareason for staying? To "project power" into the Middle East, i.e. to have a base from which to dominate the region militarily. What does that mean? What it always meant, from the beginning: next stop, Iran. Or maybe Syria. In no particular order.

Posted by cervantes | September 7, 2007 12:33 PM

The reason for staying is to stay. Which was the whole point in the first place.

Yep. And maybe in another 10 years, that inescapable fact won't be dismissed as crazy talk. But for the time being, we're going to have lots and lots of smart, sincere people like Matthew scratching their heads and saying "Geez...it's almost as if they don't want to get our troops out of Iraq...but that can't be!"

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | September 7, 2007 12:39 PM

As long as we stay in Iraq and are careful to avoid defining "success" with any precision, it will always be theoretically possible that, at some point in the future, something will transpire that can be referred to as "success." And as long as that possibility exists, nobody has to admit failure. War is expensive, but ego is priceless.

Posted by Gator90 | September 7, 2007 12:40 PM

I'm sorry, but INTELLECTUAL arguments about what we should do in Iraq, which is a POLITICAL issue, strike me as an exercise in futility.

If we leave now, very bad things will happen in the short term, for which someone will have to be blamed, loudly and soon. It is much more likely that, if you are one of the people that successfully advocates leaving, you will be the one blamed. That is even MORE likely if you are a Democrat, because the Republicans are so good, and so practiced, at (1) blaming others for their mistakes, and (2) accusing Democrats of being traitorous wimps.

The converse, however, is that if we do not leave now, much less bad things will happen over the medium term, for which there will be a little bit of blame, mostly in the form of disgruntlement, and mostly directed at the Republicans.

Now it is true that, by "kicking the can," we simply postpone the inevitable, horrible finale, and in the meantime we cause the pointless deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis, and the pointless expenditure of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. But those are consequences that will only become apparent in the long run, and only to historians. The political blowback will be minimal, and certainly will not be directed, except in retrospect, at TODAY's politicians, who are the ones making the decisions.

In short, leaving incurs big, near-term political consequences for Democrats, while not leaving does not, and even has the added benefit of corroding support for the Republicans. I really think that's all there is to it.

And before we get into an orgy of blaming spineless Democratic politicians, let us not forget whose reactions they are gauging...

Posted by bleh | September 7, 2007 12:40 PM

The converse, however, is that if we do not leave now, much less bad things will happen over the medium term

I don't think that argument holds water anymore.

The purge of Sunnis from Baghdad moving forward right under the noses of the expanded American force. The neighborhoods of the capital and most of the towns in Iraq are ruled by the militias. The police and military include death squads. The central government is completely corrupt and ineffectual. And our biggest "success" has been giving arms to groups that were shooting at Americans just a few months ago.

For an idea of what the country would look like after a withdrawal, look at Basra, which the British have virtually abandoned. Things are bad. But no worse than anywhere else in the country.

Posted by Jinchi | September 7, 2007 12:52 PM

So what's the lifetime expectancy on those Iraqi oil reserves? 30 years?

So if you keep your eye on the prize, stretching out the estimates now for 20 years doesn't seem all that far fetched.

Posted by Tom - Daai Tou Laam | September 7, 2007 12:53 PM

The payoff you are talking about: Two words.

oi il.

Posted by mardam | September 7, 2007 12:54 PM

Bleh, I see no political evidence for your position. When the Dem congress shut down funding the Vietnam war, did they get shut down themselves, in the elections? No. As a matter of fact, they increased their congressional majorities. Was that due to Watergate? Well, it was in 1976 that the first presidential election was held post the fall of Saigon. Jimmy Carter won. Did the Dems then lose when they came out against funding the Nicaraguan contras? Well, Reagan won the presidency, but the Dems firmly took Congress and increased their numbers in 1986. The meme that the stab in the back narrative is a political killer just isn't true - except in so far as it has a disproportionate effect on the voting of white, middle class and upper middle class males. Since the Democratic Party's elite is composed largely of white, upper middle class males, what effects that section of the demographic has a tendency to be grossly exaggerated, thus giving the Democratic politicians a false parameter with which to triangulate. It is not in the interests of the Dems to support policies that are displeasing to their base, but it is not in the interests of the demographic that controls the Democratic party to put out policies that displease their networks (largely composed of Fred Hiatt types): hence the permanent cognitive dissonance in the Democratic party.

Posted by roger | September 7, 2007 12:55 PM

Kaplan gets at some of this, but if your analysis is that we should accept a "long-shot gamble" that entails 100,000 American troop serving in Iraq until 2027 then you owe us some kind of explanation of what the payoff is supposed to be. The cost of doing what Biddle's analysis suggests is necessary would be enormous. The benefits, meanwhile, don't seem especially high even if you ignore the "long-shot" nature of the odds. Plug the odds in, and the whole proposition looks ridiculous.

But...but...right-wingers are supposed to be TEH AWESOME when it comes to hard-nosed cost/benefit analysis!!!

Posted by liberal | September 7, 2007 12:57 PM

bleh wrote, In short, leaving incurs big, near-term political consequences for Democrats, while not leaving does not, and even has the added benefit of corroding support for the Republicans. I really think that's all there is to it.

I actually somewhat agree with this analysis.

The way to deal with it, however, isn't to punt. Rather, it's to give the American people a history lesson and point out that (a) nation building rarely succeeds, (b) the situation in Iraq isn't fertile ground for successful nation building, and (c) it ain't worth it from a cost/benefit viewpoint.

I love the Schiller quote Against stupidity/The gods themselves/Contend in vain. Which, among other things, does make it somewhat challenging to work against "stabbed in the back" propaganda. But, Christ, political leaders are supposed to lead. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Posted by liberal | September 7, 2007 1:03 PM

The reason for staying is to stay. Which was the whole point in the first place. And the metareason for staying? To "project power" into the Middle East, i.e. to have a base from which to dominate the region militarily.

Well, but that obviously won't work. If the idea is to use elements of the garrison in Iraq to "project power" in the region, then we can only use those elements of the garrison which are surplus to maintaining control over Iraq. If we have 160,000 troops in Iraq, and we need 100,000 to keep Iraq under control, then we have only 60,000 available for power projection. But of course, 160,000 is unsustainable for 20 more years, or even 20 more months.

In fact, if we need 100,000 to maintain order in Iraq, there are going to be darn few troops left over for power projection anywhere, on any terms

Posted by rea | September 7, 2007 1:07 PM

brendan:
"But for Very Serious reasons, he feels he should maintain that the surge is an intellectually serious longshot (with a 10% chance of success he hazards) for those who think the costs of leaving are unbearable."

That is it exactly. The benefits of "success" are rarely discussed any more (other than vague city-on-the-hill rhetoric from Bush), because while nice, they are clearly not worth the price we have paid and are paying. The argument in favor of continuing is entirely based on the premise that things will be infinitely bad if we leave (with no consideration of whether they'll be any better if we stay, of course), so it's automatically worth any cost to have the slightest chance of preventing that.

I won't speculate about the motivations of any non-ideologue who would actually give deference to such a ludicrous argument, but it certainly fits in with the pattern that for some time now, every argument for staying is an even stronger argument for never having gone in the first place.

Posted by Redshift | September 7, 2007 1:10 PM

Yes, the problem is that it's difficult to extricate a brigade or two in order to "project power" when you're still busy with counterinsurgency ops in your power projection base.

The princple problem is that the presence of US troops in Iraq is a guarantee of violence for as long as they remain. If there is a US withdrawl, there will be, in the short term, violence, perhaps increased violence as whatever damper on the Civil War the US is providing is removed.

But the Civil War will resolve itself, which it can't do at this time due to US presence.

Posted by Actual Patriot | September 7, 2007 1:17 PM

Another great benefit to staying that long is
that Preznit Jenna Bush, in 2027, can stand there
on the 3D-HD-TeeVee in a pantsuit with the front
pockets pulled out and say "we have to cancel
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Welfare
cuz the cowardly Dimmicraps bankrupted our government. How'd they do that you ask? By not
stopping My Daddy (who's hanging with Pinochet
Jr in Paraguay in leisurely $trillion retirement)
when they had the chance...so It's All Their Fault".

This will be the greatest transfer of wealth from We The People to the Plutocrats in world history. They make money losing 190000 AK47s, they make money on bombs and bullets and drones and Stealths. Then when the coffers are empty they'll violate the social contract to take away the whole Safety Net because we can No Longer Afford It So We're ALL (well, not us, YOU) Going To Have To Sacrifice!!!

But hey, we'd be screwed either way at this point. We could've probably have dealt with Saddam, we already placated Bin Laden by leaving Saudi, and the oil would've flowed for 30 more yrs (and we could've spent the $trillion we are on Iraq and
shoveling into the gaping, insatiable maws of GoOPers on ways to ween ourselves off Foreign Oil), but that would've been No Fun, resulted
in No Dead Brown People, and wouldn't have resulted in enriching the Already Rich.

Posted by Bigby | September 7, 2007 1:17 PM

Well sure Rhea, the projecting power thing hasn't worked out very well -- au contraire, the Iraq adventure has only strengthened the position of Iran. But the 25,000 or so combat troops driving around getting blown up are just window dressing. We have those massive, permanent military bases, even though nobody in the U.S. pays any attention to them. It is from Iraq, in fact, that we do most of the bombing of Afghanistan. (Surprise!)

Does the military domination of the Middle East thing make any sense? No, the whole thing doesn't make sense. But they aren't doing this because they're as smart as you are, they're doing it because they are believers.

Posted by cervantes | September 7, 2007 1:19 PM

Jeez, roger, I dunno. Vietnam, and national security generally, have been used -- effectively -- against Democrats for decades, and I think that's in large part because the party became identified with the antiwar movement. True, the antiwar movement had its excesses, and it was conflated with other cultural issues, but conversely, that war was much more evident, and costly, to the average American, so the benefits of the antiwar position were -- or should have been -- correspondingly greater. But they weren't; opposition to the war became a losing political issue, in both the short and the long run. Democrats were blamed politically for "losing" Vietnam, when in fact it was pretty much historically inevitable.

I would even go so far as to say that, if it hadn't been for Watergate, Nixonian Republicanism probably would have continued uninterrupted, right into the militant, revanchist, anti-Soviet Reagan era -- which political meme itself, by the way, was only strengthened by the stab-in-the-back legend.

As to Iran-Contra, I'm sorry, but that's so far down in the weeds that it's not comparable. Vietnam and Iraq are generational issues; Iran-Contra is something that probably fewer than 5% of Americans could even identify.

Posted by bleh | September 7, 2007 1:19 PM

That's hard to say if you don't know the hoped-for payoff.

The payoff for conservatives is domestic: you can't pay for social programs if you're dumping money into an idiotic occupation.

Posted by Righteous Bubba | September 7, 2007 1:20 PM

liberal --- that Schiller quote is one of my favorites. It's on my office wall:

"Mit der Dummheit kämpfen die Götter selbst vergebens."

Posted by Mark Wise | September 7, 2007 1:23 PM

Biddle also said (again, expressing his personal view) that the strategy in Iraq would require the presence of roughly 100,000 American troops for 20 years—and that, even so, it would be a "long-shot gamble."

in other words, let's kill thousands more and piss away another trillion dollars, and maybe we'll find a pony in 20 years.

Seriously.

Posted by r€nato | September 7, 2007 1:26 PM

Bleh-

The fact that you think "funding for the contras" refers to the Iran-contra scandal (which as just a small piece of it) suggests you weren't following politics in the 1980s.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | September 7, 2007 1:37 PM

Bleh, I really don't know where you get the counterfactual from. While conventional Beltway wisdom has claimed that the anti-military thing was hung around the Dems neck and that they lost, if you look at, well, the data, there is no backup for it. If you look at the data, in fact, you see that the Dems really lost because they got us into Vietnam. Do you think Johnson would have lost in 1968 if it hadn't been for the war? I can play at counterfactuals as well as the next guy.

And what did Johnson say to subordinates to support his election losing war? That if he didn't do it, he would seem soft to the Republicans. As I say, the Dems have a neuroses on this, not a rational fear. And like all neuroses, the sufferer is adverse to looking at reality, rather than projecting a dangerous world that the neurotic thinks is the real reality. Johnson' fear came from Joe McCarthy. But - on the other side - there is the real desire to be tough. Proxies for masculinity are always popular with the Peter Beinart set. Which is why he looks so oddly like Jonah Goldberg's twin in those excrutiating TNR videos.

Posted by roger | September 7, 2007 1:43 PM

Obviously the "benefit" is to keep Israel's Lobby happy. No matter how much we have to spend or how many of our kids die, the goal is the preservation of the Israeli apartheid state, and that's a worthy goal because The Lobby says so.

Of course this can't be spoken of publicly, so we're left with policies which make no sense on their face.

Posted by Racer X | September 7, 2007 1:51 PM

So they would gamble the lives of our soldiers for a 10% chance of success in 20 years? That doesn't seem like it would fly very well with the American people. I don't even care what they claim the outcome would be - free gas for the rest of our lives - which we would need because the cost of this to our economy would be enormous.

Posted by Julene | September 7, 2007 1:53 PM

1,000 dead american kids, every year for 20 years. Hey, Iraq IS like Vietnam!

Posted by daver9 | September 7, 2007 1:54 PM

It's just too bad for the "serious people" that Americans are such wimps about empire. Maybe the thought is that a generation is about what it'll take to get us used to imperial servitude.

Posted by Shrike58 | September 7, 2007 1:56 PM

I think bleh is right. If we draw down troops now, it will be less of an issue come election time next year. Republicans defending Iraq troop levels in the fall of 2008 can only help Dems chances at winning seats.

That's not to say morally, we should get our troops out sooner rather then later, but politically, Dems have an advantage the longer the troops remain in Iraq.

Posted by bbbminus | September 7, 2007 2:09 PM

Man, another 40 Friedman Units? I thought time only increased in one F.U.s or two F.U.s at a time. I guess we are on internet speed now...

-

Posted by Hank Essay | September 7, 2007 2:15 PM

"Do you really not understand why the "serious" types all want to stay?"

They're scared of having their "Washington Insider Decoder Ring" taken away?

See Cervantes at 12:33. The point of staying is to stay. That was always the point.

Posted by mq | September 7, 2007 2:38 PM

We're trying to prevent ourselves from being demoted from superpower to great power, and the Iranians from being promoted from regional power to great power. And I'm not entirely sold that that's not worth it.

Posted by Senescent | September 7, 2007 2:56 PM

To prevent the smoking gun from becoming a mushroom cloud, to "get" Saddam, to "spread democracy"...

...none of those lies are necessary any more. In fact, they're not even trying now. They just have to claim it would be "worse" if we leave.

And the corpse of Ronnie Raygun rolls over to ask the Iraqis, "Are you better off now than you were 5 years ago?"

Posted by melior | September 7, 2007 3:14 PM

If we leave now, very bad things will happen in the short term, for which someone will have to be blamed, loudly and soon. It is much more likely that, if you are one of the people that successfully advocates leaving, you will be the one blamed.

I'm sure the Soviets were saying pretty much the same thing as they were bleeding money and bodies out in Afghanistan.

Posted by darrelplant | September 7, 2007 4:10 PM

Dude, does anyone else remember that Yglesias, much to my disappointment, supported the War? Maybe I missed it, but when did he disown or apologize or explain how wrong he was.....? Just asking.

Posted by jim | September 7, 2007 4:31 PM

Dude, does anyone else remember that Yglesias, much to my disappointment, supported the War? Maybe I missed it, but when did he disown or apologize or explain how wrong he was.....? Just asking.

Yes, I remember, and yes, he had his mea culpa moment. It wasn't particularly cathartic to read, as I recall, but it was better than nothing. I assume it's in his archives somewhere.

Still, I subscribe to the notion that anyone who got Iraq wrong really should reconsider whether they're actually qualified to punditize for money in public . . .

Posted by Fishbone McGonigle | September 7, 2007 5:00 PM

2027? Iraq should be out of oil by then and we can come home.

Posted by Terp | September 7, 2007 5:01 PM

More monkey reasoning.

Hey, let's make a MISTAKE! THEN, let's make MORE MISTAKES to correct the FIRST MISTAKE!

Then, let's limit our discussions to the SUBSEQUENT MISTAKES so we NEVER have to admit we made the FIRST MISTAKE!

And let's also make sure we call anyone who points out our FIRST MISTAKE a "Not Serious Person", or a "conspiracy theorist", or a "traitor" or "immoral", or, hell, let's throw in "anti-Semite" while we're at it!

Meanwhile, let's plan our NEXT MISTAKE!

Typical human thought processes.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 7, 2007 5:14 PM

"In fact, if we need 100,000 to maintain order in Iraq, there are going to be darn few troops left over for power projection anywhere, on any terms"

We can't keep order with 160,000 troops. What in hell is sensible or 'serious' about leaving 100,000 troops. The place is being ethnic cleansed right under our noses and we CAN'T stop it.

The middle course or whatever it may be called is just plain nuts. For what purpose and what to accomplish.

Posted by cal1942 | September 7, 2007 7:48 PM

"We're trying to prevent ourselves from being demoted from superpower to great power, and the Iranians from being promoted from regional power to great power. And I'm not entirely sold that that's not worth it.

Posted by Senescent"

Follow that course and we'll find ourselves a second rate power in hock up to our ears to our 'trading partners', looking like absolute fools to the rest of the world, with the rest of the world forming combinations and alliances in opposition to us with an impoverished American public ready to revolt.

Trying to hold 'the crown' will be our undoing. It is the rankest kind of hubris.

Posted by cal1942 | September 7, 2007 8:01 PM

The meme that the stab in the back narrative is a political killer just isn't true - except in so far as it has a disproportionate effect on the voting of white, middle class and upper middle class males.

Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have been pushing this meme for weeks.

Posted by Steve J. | September 7, 2007 8:23 PM

Not to mention that the Iranians are so far from being a "great power" that it's a joke.

I mean, these guys aren't exactly the Russians or Chinese - or even Great Britain or France or Germany.

They're more like Turkey - and not even that yet.

They're a generation or two away from being even dominant in the Middle East, let alone noticeable in the world.

Their only influence right now is that they're the only country in the Middle East willing to stick the finger up to Bush and Israel. That's it for their influence.

"Great power"? Oh, please...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 7, 2007 8:27 PM

If we leave now, very bad things will happen in the short term,

Please! VERY bad things HAVE been happening for years. There are +2 million external refugees, +2 million internal refugees, ethnic cleansing is still going on, southern Iraq is run by Shiite mafioso-like militias, 70% of the people don't have clean water (there are cholera outbreaks as a result), etcetera....

Posted by Steve J. | September 7, 2007 8:57 PM

Man, another 40 Friedman Units? I thought time only increased in one F.U.s or two F.U.s at a time. I guess we are on internet speed now...

Patreus says we'll need to stay 9-10 years. Call it 10, just for neatness. Thus we find:

1 FU = 1/20 PU* or conversely, 1 PU = 20 FU.

*Patreus Unit.

Posted by DrBB | September 8, 2007 7:57 AM