Of all the billions of words devoted to American involvement in Iraq over the past four years, I am convinced this is beyond a doubt the stupidiest. So much so, that it is actually funny, so I wanted to share:

Total war, total victory

Diana West

This is a how-to column: How to win in Iraq by changing course, dissing Democrats, ignoring the Iraq Study Group and altogether eradicating al Qaeda in Iraq, Iran in Iraq, not to mention Iran in Iran...

If we want to quell global jihad — and we must — it is Iran that should become the target for our military minds, not Iraq. Far from handing jihadists a win, this new course, which would likely rely more on Air Force and Navy than ground troops, would put them on the defensive.

At this point, my conservative friends will remind me that we must destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. And I couldn't agree more. So let's destroy al Qaeda in Iraq — a neat name for an amorphous network — and any other threats including Iranian-supported Iraqi Shi'ite forces...

Presumably, our military could destroy Iraqi terror-towns and strongholds with a well-guided aerial bombing campaign, and thus go a long way toward bringing this whole war to an end; instead, we opt to send our young men to fight precisely as the terrorist wants them to fight — in booby-trapped towns, among duplicitous peoples. Lately, we even argue that these same soldiers should stay in those towns among those peoples to prevent the "bloodletting" to follow an American exit. But for how long? One year? Ten years? Until Iraqis learn to sing "Kumbaya?"

Maybe until we, as a society, learn how to prize total victory over limited war.

I just can't understand why Ms. West has not been appointed to a senior policymaking position where she can implement her strategic vision. No, wait a minute--now I remember why: it's absolute nonsense designed solely to sell newspapers to dupes.

I am just amazed that even a paper with the Washington Times' leaning publishes this stuff.