The near-daily grim news of US casualties in Iraq has inspired some audacious responses - most notably what has been labelled the "flypaper theory", pungently summarised by the conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan. "Being based in Iraq helps us not only because of actual bases, but because the American presence diverts terrorist attention away from elsewhere," he argued on his website.
Even General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of the coalition's ground forces in Iraq, appeared to subscribe to this theory, conceding that Iraq was "a terrorist magnet" but adding: "This is exactly where we want to fight them."
Here's an alternative (censored in deference to moderator);
The 'Pile of Sh*t' theory
If you take a garden - not yours, but someone else's, preferably a little way away - and dump piles of sh*t on it, for sure you will see more flies. For a while, you may see less flies near your garden, too.
So is this a clever plan?
Or have you worked out that
1) you'll really, really piss off the people who live(d) in that house, and all their neighbours too. And if you keep dumping shi*t in and around their backyards, they may well be less likely to go out and clear up.
2) flies breed in sh*t.
3) flies fly.
4) flies are likely, sooner or later, to locate and move to the source of the sh*t. (even if it's some asshole...)
I think this analogy works well ;-)
One point of failure it shares with the original...
5) Terrorists have a tad more cunning, determination and planning capability than flies.
ts@biology201.com |
