ource problems they don’t want to deal with, and the U.S. can do that, too. We could even consider outsourcing Iraq to Syria but that would be my second choice (where’s Idi Amin when you need him?).

If you are still not satisfied with these options to solving the Iraq problem there is always the old standby – we could hire a consultant. You know, an organization that claims to have experience solving all types of problems, while in reality all they have ever done is talk about them. A corporate consultancy like Mitchell-Madison comes to mind here, but they are not big enough for this problem. We need a really big ineffective consultant for this job and who better than the United Nations? Of course, the only problem with bringing in a consultant it that only delays the reality and we would still end up with the problem in our laps.

But, there is one solution that I am confident will work and that is the tried and true joint-venture. While this might be difficult to implement, it could do the trick, because corporations in the past when

Now that the Iraq study group headed by former Secretary of States James Baker III has delivered its blistering report on the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraqi War, we’ve all been waiting for the wondrous solutions that either the lame-duck administration or our new leaders in Congress will propose.

Well, I’m tired of waiting!

Everyone says we can’t get out. We can’t win. We can’t achieve victory. But what I’m really concerned about is that the Democrats are still hung over from their victory and are struggling to find a solution to the Iraqi problem. I don’t’ want to see a lot of bickering going on; I don’t want to see our new leaders become discouraged, particularly around this holiday season.

So what I’d like to do is offer a number of options to resolve the Iraqi crisis. (Or at least some that will allow us to wash our hands of the problem, and walk away!) The solutions proposed here are not some off the wall untested academic theories, but rather they come straight out of corporate handbook for business success.

First, some background. The most challenging problem in Iraq is an almost total lack of control, direction and focus. We’ve got various factions fighting each other just as though they were business divisions that can’t come up with a specific business plan. Ironically, just a few years ago Iraq was a totally unified and focused country. Whether it be to destroy Iran one day, Israel the next or to spread international terrorism, at least they had focus and a mission.

Of course Iraq began to lose focus when their leader Saddam Hussein was overthrown jailed and convicted. And now everyone is waiting to see him hanged, as Iraq collapses around them.

But, there is a better course of action and its right out of the latest in white collar sentencing handbook. There is an excellent opportunity to bring back stability to Iraq by sentencing Saddam Hussein to serve 10 years of house arrest and community service. As part of his community service we should put him back in charge, and let him run the country like he did before we got involved.

Remember, when Saddam ran things? We didn’t have bombings, insurrections or all these religious wackos running around kidnapping and killing people to please God. That’s because Saddam had the ability to control his business like a true corporate leader. He’s proven that he has the ability to dominate and oppress a diverse organization. Put Saddam in charge again he’ll get control of that country in a hurry and we won’t have to be there.

This is not a strategy in a vacuum. Remember Colonel Qaddafi of Libya? When he was doing things we didn’t like, we didn’t attempt a hostile takeover to get rid of him and put him on trial like Saddam Hussein. We just put him under supervised house arrest. We surrounded his house and checked where he was at all times. We said, “Look, you can keep doing what you are doing, but you have to keep doing it within your own house.” Qaddafi has become a model citizen and when was the last time you even heard about Libya in the media? All this without having a single American in Libya.

If this solution is not tolerable for some people, then possibly we could implement another accepted business technique that many companies use in an attempt to solve their problems and that’s none other than our old friend “outsourcing.”

We have a country that is very close to Iraq that has demonstrated a strong ability to control its destiny. I think we should consider outsourcing the management of Iraq to Iran. That’s right, hire Iran to manage Iraq. (What is really scary is that the Baker group is actually proposing this approach!) With Iran in charge of Iraq, providing us with their business plan and weekly reports, we could clean our hands of the whole mess. Moreover, sine outsourcing is viewed as more efficient and economical than our actually doing the work we should be able to retain Iran for a lot less than the $500 billion it’s costing us to run a losing war. Maybe an “arms for management” agreement with Iran or some nuclear technology in a type of barter exchange would get the job done.

Keep in mind this is exactly what corporations do. They outsource problems they don’t want to deal with, and the U.S. can do that, too. We could even consider outsourcing Iraq to Syria but that would be my second choice (where’s Idi Amin when you need him?).

If you are still not satisfied with these options to solving the Iraq problem there is always the old standby – we could hire a consultant. You know, an organization that claims to have experience solving all types of problems, while in reality all they have ever done is talk about them. A corporate consultancy like Mitchell-Madison comes to mind here, but they are not big enough for this problem. We need a really big ineffective consultant for this job and who better than the United Nations? Of course, the only problem with bringing in a consultant it that only delays the reality and we would still end up with the problem in our laps.

But, there is one solution that I am confident will work and that is the tried and true joint-venture. While this might be difficult to implement, it could do the trick, because corporations in the past when c

First, some background. The most challenging problem in Iraq is an almost total lack of control, direction and focus. We’ve got various factions fighting each other just as though they were business divisions that can’t come up with a specific business plan. Ironically, just a few years ago Iraq was a totally unified and focused country. Whether it be to destroy Iran one day, Israel the next or to spread international terrorism, at least they had focus and a mission.

Of course Iraq began to lose focus when their leader Saddam Hussein was overthrown jailed and convicted. And now everyone is waiting to see him hanged, as Iraq collapses around them.

But, there is a better course of action and its right out of the latest in white collar sentencing handbook. There is an excellent opportunity to bring back stability to Iraq by sentencing Saddam Hussein to serve 10 years of house arrest and community service. As part of his community service we should put him back in charge, and let him run the country like he did before we got involved.

Remember, when Saddam ran things? We didn’t have bombings, insurrections or all these religious wackos running around kidnapping and killing people to please God. That’s because Saddam had the ability to control his business like a true corporate leader. He’s proven that he has the ability to dominate and oppress a diverse organization. Put Saddam in charge again he’ll get control of that country in a hurry and we won’t have to be there.

This is not a strategy in a vacuum. Remember Colonel Qaddafi of Libya? When he was doing things we didn’t like, we didn’t attempt a hostile takeover to get rid of him and put him on trial like Saddam Hussein. We just put him under supervised house arrest. We surrounded his house and checked where he was at all times. We said, “Look, you can keep doing what you are doing, but you have to keep doing it within your own house.” Qaddafi has become a model citizen and when was the last time you even heard about Libya in the media? All this without having a single American in Libya.

If this solution is not tolerable for some people, then possibly we could implement another accepted business technique that many companies use in an attempt to solve their problems and that’s none other than our old friend “outsourcing.”

We have a country that is very close to Iraq that has demonstrated a strong ability to control its destiny. I think we should consider outsourcing the management of Iraq to Iran. That’s right, hire Iran to manage Iraq. (What is really scary is that the Baker group is actually proposing this approach!) With Iran in charge of Iraq, providing us with their business plan and weekly reports, we could clean our hands of the whole mess. Moreover, sine outsourcing is viewed as more efficient and economical than our actually doing the work we should be able to retain Iran for a lot less than the $500 billion it’s costing us to run a losing war. Maybe an “arms for management” agreement with Iran or some nuclear technology in a type of barter exchange would get the job done.

Keep in mind this is exactly what corporations do. They outsource problems they don’t want to deal with, and the U.S. can do that, too. We could even consider outsourcing Iraq to Syria but that would be my second choice (where’s Idi Amin when you need him?).

If you are still not satisfied with these options to solving the Iraq problem there is always the old standby – we could hire a consultant. You know, an organization that claims to have experience solving all types of problems, while in reality all they have ever done is talk about them. A corporate consultancy like Mitchell-Madison comes to mind here, but they are not big enough for this problem. We need a really big ineffective consultant for this job and who better than the United Nations? Of course, the only problem with bringing in a consultant it that only delays the reality and we would still end up with the problem in our laps.

But, there is one solution that I am confident will work and that is the tried and true joint-venture. While this might be difficult to implement, it could do the trick, because corporations in the past when

p>

Remember, when Saddam ran things? We didn’t have bombings, insurrections or all these religious wackos running around kidnapping and killing people to please God. That’s because Saddam had the ability to control his business like a true corporate leader. He’s proven that he has the ability to dominate and oppress a diverse organization. Put Saddam in charge again he’ll get control of that country in a hurry and we won’t have to be there.

This is not a strategy in a vacuum. Remember Colonel Qaddafi of Libya? When he was doing things we didn’t like, we didn’t attempt a hostile takeover to get rid of him and put him on trial like Saddam Hussein. We just put him under supervised house arrest. We surrounded his house and checked where he was at all times. We said, “Look, you can keep doing what you are doing, but you have to keep doing it within your own house.” Qaddafi has become a model citizen and when was the last time you even heard about Libya in the media? All this without having a single American in Libya.

If this solution is not tolerable for some people, then possibly we could implement another accepted business technique that many companies use in an attempt to solve their problems and that’s none other than our old friend “outsourcing.”

We have a country that is very close to Iraq that has demonstrated a strong ability to control its destiny. I think we should consider outsourcing the management of Iraq to Iran. That’s right, hire Iran to manage Iraq. (What is really scary is that the Baker group is actually proposing this approach!) With Iran in charge of Iraq, providing us with their business plan and weekly reports, we could clean our hands of the whole mess. Moreover, sine outsourcing is viewed as more efficient and economical than our actually doing the work we should be able to retain Iran for a lot less than the $500 billion it’s costing us to run a losing war. Maybe an “arms for management” agreement with Iran or some nuclear technology in a type of barter exchange would get the job done.

Keep in mind this is exactly what corporations do. They outsource problems they don’t want to deal with, and the U.S. can do that, too. We could even consider outsourcing Iraq to Syria but that would be my second choice (where’s Idi Amin when you need him?).

If you are still not satisfied with these options to solving the Iraq problem there is always the old standby – we could hire a consultant. You know, an organization that claims to have experience solving all types of problems, while in reality all they have ever done is talk about them. A corporate consultancy like Mitchell-Madison comes to mind here, but they are not big enough for this problem. We need a really big ineffective consultant for this job and who better than the United Nations? Of course, the only problem with bringing in a consultant it that only delays the reality and we would still end up with the problem in our laps.

But, there is one solution that I am confident will work and that is the tried and true joint-venture. While this might be difficult to implement, it could do the trick, because corporations in the past when

t tolerable for some people, then possibly we could implement another accepted business technique that many companies use in an attempt to solve their problems and that’s none other than our old friend “outsourcing.”

We have a country that is very close to Iraq that has demonstrated a strong ability to control its destiny. I think we should consider outsourcing the management of Iraq to Iran. That’s right, hire Iran to manage Iraq. (What is really scary is that the Baker group is actually proposing this approach!) With Iran in charge of Iraq, providing us with their business plan and weekly reports, we could clean our hands of the whole mess. Moreover, sine outsourcing is viewed as more efficient and economical than our actually doing the work we should be able to retain Iran for a lot less than the $500 billion it’s costing us to run a losing war. Maybe an “arms for management” agreement with Iran or some nuclear technology in a type of barter exchange would get the job done.

Keep in mind this is exactly what corporations do. They outsource problems they don’t want to deal with, and the U.S. can do that, too. We could even consider outsourcing Iraq to Syria but that would be my second choice (where’s Idi Amin when you need him?).

If you are still not satisfied with these options to solving the Iraq problem there is always the old standby – we could hire a consultant. You know, an organization that claims to have experience solving all types of problems, while in reality all they have ever done is talk about them. A corporate consultancy like Mitchell-Madison comes to mind here, but they are not big enough for this problem. We need a really big ineffective consultant for this job and who better than the United Nations? Of course, the only problem with bringing in a consultant it that only delays the reality and we would still end up with the problem in our laps.

But, there is one solution that I am confident will work and that is the tried and true joint-venture. While this might be difficult to implement, it could do the trick, because corporations in the past when

ource problems they don’t want to deal with, and the U.S. can do that, too. We could even consider outsourcing Iraq to Syria but that would be my second choice (where’s Idi Amin when you need him?).

If you are still not satisfied with these options to solving the Iraq problem there is always the old standby – we could hire a consultant. You know, an organization that claims to have experience solving all types of problems, while in reality all they have ever done is talk about them. A corporate consultancy like Mitchell-Madison comes to mind here, but they are not big enough for this problem. We need a really big ineffective consultant for this job and who better than the United Nations? Of course, the only problem with bringing in a consultant it that only delays the reality and we would still end up with the problem in our laps.

But, there is one solution that I am confident will work and that is the tried and true joint-venture. While this might be difficult to implement, it could do the trick, because corporations in the past when corporations have been faced with issues and problems beyond the scope of their ability to resolve, they have sought to join forces in a joint venture. Admittedly, this has made for some strange corporate bedfellows. (Or to be PC, bedpeoples.)

In the case of Iraq, we could do a joint venture with Al-Qaeda to manage Iraq. This gives us an opportunity to bring in a management team that has a demonstrated ability to organize and control and even suppress vast numbers of peoples. Moreover, it also gives us the opportunity to get to sit down and talk with Al-Qaeda’s top management and get to know them better. Who knows where it could lead if we joint venture the management of Iraq with Al-Qaeda? It could open up a whole new world of strategies we can use to manage crises that break out anywhere in the world.

Let’s say we get upset with what the people in Sweden are doing. We could send Al-Qaeda into Sweden and control those people if they ever get on our wrong side. This approach opens up endless opportunities for us to be involved without ever actually having to do anything our selves. And of course that fits almost as well with our Congress as it does with many corporate executives.

Now, any one of these three strategies can work. And if we play our cards right, we can be out of Iraq soon after the start of the new year so we can move on to other more mundane issues such as the national debt, health care, education and people trying to sneak into our country to take our stuff.