Monaco Grand Prix and the Future of F1

Tomorrow is the Monaco Grand Prix - which is always an exciting and engaging race even in a sport commonly criticized for being more about strategy and pit-stops than actual racing.

It'll be a great race in what's turning out to be a great season; this time around, home-spun underdogs Brawn GP are wiping the garage floor with big-budget rivals Ferrari and McLaren.

But it's rather ironic that the most exciting season in years might also be the last.

F1 as we know it is on the brink of collapse, with many teams (including Ferrari, who have been involved in F1 since its very inception) threatening to walk out over new rule changes being touted by the FIA.

At the crux of the crisis is the concept of a budget cap; enforcing a strict $40 million budget on each team. This would, in theory, equalize the sport - removing the advantage teams like Ferrari and McLaren have (they often spend in excess of $200 million a season.)

But unsurprisingly, the big teams in F1 are opposing this measure, which would open up the championship to a whole slew of new entrants and eliminate the advantage their spending power gives them.

However, I can sympathize with the position the FIA is taking. Each and every season, spending increases to unprecedented (and unsustainable) levels. This makes the teams wildly disproportionate - with giants like McLaren always living lavishly, whilst underdogs like Minardi (now Red Bull sponsored Scuderia Toro Rosso) having to scrimp and save just to put a race-worthy car on the track.

The enormous spending also dramatically changes to competition itself - driving the development of motor-racing in new and exciting directions. However, every year it seems like the FIA is undermining each new and exciting technological innovation as soon it appears; all in an effort to keep the sport 'competitive.'

One of the most absurd examples of this used to be the mandatory use of the 'four groove' racing tyres, which eliminated the grip these monstrous racing machines had on the racetrack; essentially the equivalent of having Sebastian Coe run the 1500m in fluffy bunny slippers.( Fortunately, this season 'slicks' have been re-allowed.)

In some ways, a budget cap would level the playing field and help return the pinnacle of motor racing back to what it was always supposed to be - a competition between drivers, not developers. But in other ways, it would destroy the very spirit of the sport - which has always been about pushing the envelope of racing technology.

Many modern automobile innovations stem from racing roots; and more continue to do so. For example, this season's groundbreaking 'regenerative braking' system; which recycles the energy used in high-speed breaking. This race technology will probably find its way to the next generation of street cars and hybrids soon enough.

Reducing budgets would slow these innovations, which are one of the major reasons manufacturers like Renault and Toyota invest in competing in this wildly expensive sport.

Not to mention that 'Formula One' is simply synonymous with excess. It's the most expensive sport in the world - a game played by millionaires, sipping champagne on yachts on the Cote d'Azur. Part of its appeal and mystique has always been the spending of ridiculous sums of money; all for the sake of sending those tiny little cars zooming around the racetrack.

Capping the budgets would, quite frankly, put a limit on the excitment and entertainment.

Besides, the major reason Bernie Eccleston and Max Mosley have given for their crazy budget cap idea is the notion of equalising the teams. Watching the 2009 season - in which Brawn GP are dominating the bigger-budget competition - I think the teams have proven that they can equalise things enough already, without any FIA interference.

F1 continues to be one of the biggest and most successful sports in the world; the FIA would be well advised not to bugger about with its winning formula.

Fighting a War with Pennies

Bob Parkhurst: I want to see how a war is fought... So badly!

Captain Blackadder: Well, you've come to the right place, Bob. A war hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy - high chief of all the Vikings - accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside.

Blackadder Goes Forth, Richard Curtis and Ben Elton.

American politics boggles the mind. Take what's going on in Congress at the moment.

George Bush, realising his final term as President is coming to an end, has decided to try to create a reputation for himself as a fiscal conservative. He's already slashed down an annual $7 billion program to increase the State Children's Health Insurance (extending medical cover to 4 million children who are currently going without) and is now threatening to wield his veto pen if the Democrats insist on another $9 billion to be invested in cancer research and early childhood education.

It's all entirely laughable, however, considering this is the same man who's spent the past six years accumulating massive debt and increasing the American budget deficit to astonishing proportions.

What's worse is Bush lambasting the Democrats for being irresponsible spenders one moment, while then turning around to hold out his hat for $196 billion to pay for the war in Iraq.

Irresponsible Spending

Two things annoy me about President Bush's spending behaviour and the entire attitude of Congress towards the war.

The first is that President Bush is running the country like a irresponsible housewife with a new credit card. He harasses the congress for only seeing problems they "could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it." Then he whacks the $196 billion he wants to spend on foreign loan accounts, increasing America's international debt.

The fact that taxpayers might not see an immediate tax-hike doesn't make it free money. The nation still has to pay for it in the long run... Somehow!

But then there's the entire attitude of congress - Democrats and Republicans - towards the war in Iraq. They're battling for the reins by arguing over budgets. That's no way to run a war!

A War of Two Directions

I should lay my cards on the table.

I was all for the war at first. I didn't buy that Iraq was linked to 9/11, but there was no debating the fact that Saddam Hussein was a sleazy bastard.

I was behind the war in Iraq because I saw the opportunities were there for America and Britain to free people from tyranny and perhaps help the Middle East realise that democracy, peace and Western values were something to aspire to, not detest.

However, when President Bush wheeled the war-machine into Baghdad, nobody (least of all me) seemed to ask him what the long term strategy was. We wound up four years later with a bloody great mess on our hands.

Now we're stuck with the dilemma - do we stay or do we go?

If we pull our troops out of Iraq now, all we will have done is stormed into the country, destroyed the infrastructure and left it a smouldering vacuum to be taken over by the first fundamentalist nutcases who come around - and they're far worse (and more dangerous) than Saddam Hussein ever could have been.

However, if we stay, we need to make a plan, commit to it and then get the job done. I believe Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, when he says that it'll take a 'surge' of allied troops to wipe out the insurgents and make Iraq safe again. That will involve more troops, not less.

Iraq was never a wham-bam-thank-you-Mr-President affair. It was a long term project - and if we leave now, we're leaving the job incomplete and the people of Iraq are likely to hate us for it.

If the opposite of Pro is Con, does that means the opposite of Progress is...?

Instead of gunning one way or another, however, the American political process is forcing a horrifically mangled compromise. Bush's $196 billion has been held off until 2008, to force the President to come up with some new direction and plan for Iraq that will at least show some signs of progress.

In the mean time, the war is going to be won or lost on the floor of congress. A bridge fund, to maintain the troops in Iraq (feed them, water them, pay them) has been requested to fill the months until the $196 billion cash injection can be decided.

Canny Democrats, eager to the get the troops out of Iraq, are trying to hand over as little money as possible to force the generals into retreat.

Republicans, who argue that this bridge fund could pay for improved armour and vehicles for our vulnerable troops, aim to win enough money to keep the troops over in Iraq until next year's payday.

The inevitable compromise will leave the generals with enough money to secure their presence in Iraq, but not enough to invest in the improved vehicles and equipment that might prevent soldiers being killed by Improvised Explosive Devices (the homemade roadside bombs that are currently the biggest cause of fatally for soldiers in Iraq.)

There will be enough money for the troops to stay, so the Democrats will have lost. There won't be enough money for a 'surge' that might settle Iraq, so the Republicans will have lost. And, worst of all, the American troops will be stuck in the middle.

This is why this war is being fought 'so badly,' because the two bickering sides always end up in a compromise, instead of having the bravery to go one way or another and accept defeat or victory.

From this point on, it's possible that every single American troop who dies in Iraq might have been saved if congress and President Bush had been more decisive. The soldiers would have either been taken out of the line of fire or might have been given enough support to survive whatever attack killed them.

We're involved in a WAR here. Wars were never won by careful financial planning. They were won through decisive action and purity of purpose. Either we're in Iraq to win, or we should pack our bags and get the hell out of there.

Right now, I'd happily accept either solution - anything other than letting the bureaucrats fumble through another few months watching troops die purposelessly.