Those of you who actually read these pieces might have noticed a theme in my recent columns. It's kind of a variation on the general thrust of my political observations of the past three or four years, but perhaps a bit more desperate now than in the past. For me, the operative question in national politics is the one I keep hearing from my son Max: "Why?"

Why should we believe that the "surge" is the plan that will bring peace and harmony to Iraq?

Why should we believe that killing Iraqis (and pals of theirs who signed up for the mother of all jihads) will actually reduce terrorist attacks and make folks in the United States safer?

Why should we believe that there is any way out of Iraq other than a spray of covering fire and one last take-off from the Baghdad airport?

Why should we believe anything the Prez says, period?

If you have an answer to these questions, you're welcome to give it to me. John McCain says more troops are more likely to bring us to victory in Iraq. Three years ago, maybe. Today? Nope.

Charles Krauthammer, as stout a supporter of democracy by the sword as anyone, lately has been advocating a pull-out. I don't agree with all of his logic (in short, he believes that the Iraqis are incompetent and ungrateful and they can just fuck off), but his assessment of the situation as hopeless seems pretty accurate to me.

I've long said "we've got to try and fix this thing" when folks ask me about Iraq, though I've always maintained from the beginning that the best case for a war in Iraq was something slightly short of disaster. At this point I think it is utterly clear that we can't fix Iraq. For that matter, Syria and Iran can't fix Iraq, either. Iraqis are the only folks who can fix Iraq, and they seem to think that the only way to make things right is to split the country in three.

Well, hell, why not? Worked in the former Yugoslavia. There was that somewhat lethal period of adjustment, of course, but in the end partition seems to have worked. I know, the Turks want nothing of an independent Kurdistan, and Syria and Iran aren't exactly thrilled with the idea of independent Sunni and Shia nations, either. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.

The Brits fucked up the Middle East after World War I, using the old imperial imperative as their rationale for drawing borders the way they did. There's no good reason for Iraq to be one nation, since it really wasn't even under the Caliphate. But for reasons I can't comprehend, we're still playing Humpty Dumpty over there.

Yeah, I'm frustrated. Pissed off would be the understatement of the year. We're still killing Iraqis and their pals, our soldiers are dying and there's no good reason for any it. Let the "Yo, Moqtada!" folks have their little piece, the "Saddam rocks!" folks have their little piece and simply let the Kurds do what they've been doing. Hell, I think they've even had real elections that brought semi-competent rule.

I know, no one's perfect. I believe the Kurds themselves have a small civil war of their own to resolve. Happens. But it's time for us to acknowledge that what we've been doing hasn't worked. It's time for everyone (especially the Prez) to find some new ideas. More soldiers and more guns is just more of the same.

I'm tired of that. I'm tired of all of it. I'm tired and I just don't want to think about it any more.

I feel a malaise coming on. I guess all of us are overdue for one.

Jon Worley likes to take quinine (and gin) for malaise.