Some Follow-Up

In regard to my previous post, "Where to Go?", Nancy said...

ok, 2 questions:

1) Are you saying that the war, even in hindsight, was and is still, a good idea?

Fortunately, as they say, hindsight is always 20/20. This Iraqi war is obviously a mess we might have been better off avoiding, an opinion I can state because I have in my possession the knowledge of what's actually unfolded, and I don't think the whole thing is going according to the original plan. I think that the original intention was a good idea, but it has shown that the "American Way" isn't always the "Best Way." I do believe that the world is much better off without Saddam Hussein in power, and removing him was a choice that our leaders, at least at the time, all thought was a good idea at the time it was initiated. I believe that the national sentiment at the time was in favor of that, because the governmental engine that we elected voted to back that initiative.

If you ask me where I think we messed up, it was that we didn't exactly have a rock-solid plan as to what to do once we did remove Hussein. I think that's only in part because we didn't develop the "exit strategy" we should have, but the situation also stands as testimony to the resolve of a good amount of anti-American factions.

2) What exactly to you think we should do if we are attacked again? Or how do you think we could prevent it? (oh...without killing innocent people, including our troops) I believe that if we are attacked again, and I do believe we will be, somewhere down the line (I just don't possess the power to predict that event, because if I did, believe me, it wouldn't happen), we have to put the decision in the hands of those we elect to make those decisions. What we learned from 9/11 is that 9 or 10 people could accomplish what thousands before them couldn't, and that was to attack us at will on our own soil, and that we don't need to live in fear so much of another military power sinking its teeth into us, but of another "9 or 10" people with evil intentions. But I do believe that the problem is, going forward, the decisions of the people we elect to make those decisions are going to be seriously inhibited. As I said, any sane person is going to be somewhat hesitant to make a decision and go forth with it, because of the level of second-guessing that has developed in this country. But to give a solid answer, I think what I would do is, put my faith in the people I helped elect at that point to make a decision, and then stand by them throughout. I say that because those elected people are going to commit our military to carry out whatever decision they make, and the most important element here, for me, is to let those troops understand that they are risking their lives with the full faith and support of the very people they are out defending.

I've heard the term "unfortunate truth" a lot lately, and I do believe that an unfortunate truth for us as Americans, is that we are not going to be able to completely avoid the loss of "innocent lives" both on our soil and abroad. We're fighting a whole new kind of enemy these days, one that is not a super-power, one that is not organized, one that is not contained by any borders, but one that is apparently a whole lot more fearsome because it doesn't have a face or a name. But I am inherently a "team player" and if I put my faith in a leader by electing him or her, I have to be ready to stand by that leader when the decisions aren't so clear-cut, and when they occasionally don't work out to my benefit. Sometimes, reality sucks, but it doesn't stop being reality just because I don't like it. I have to stand by my elected officials or run against them and make my own policy. I don't think I'm equipped to do that, which is why that article wasn't written to question them so much, but to oppose the ideas of what I called The Armchair Quarterbacks (AQ's as I called them). I don't have the answers, which is why I need to put my faith in those I vote for. They state their case, and I decide whether to vote for them.

I want to borrow from Dennis Miller here a moment. Miller said that he was glad that Bush had the job at the time as opposed to John Kerry, because Kerry is a "chess player" who thinks out every move, and the ramifications of those moves, whereas Bush is a "checker player", and when Bush "comes across an asshole, he jumps him," and that at the time, the world needed the checker player when it came to Saddam Hussein. I very much agree with that sentiment. There are times when we as a country are going to have to make the decision to do tough things, and dealing with Hussein was one of those times. Hussein was an ugly problem that could not be dealt with in a pretty way.

I've yet to hear a Republican NOR a Democrat answer that one to my satisfaction.

Nancy

PS. If you comment here, please email me your reply. Thanks! :)

And hey, here it is, cause, what happens in Stupidsheet stays in Stupidsheet! :)