Topsy Turvy World
Saturday, September 22nd, 2007 |[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/GxmEGsOkEVc" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Archive for the ‘World Politics’ Category
Syria and Iran Gas Dozens
Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 |From the Jerusalem Post:
Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane’s Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.
According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.
Also see Drudge
Netanyahu Back In Charge
Tuesday, August 14th, 2007 |
From the AP:
JERUSALEM (AP) - Benjamin Netanyahu swept the race to lead Israel’s hardline Likud Party, a party official said, boosting his ambitions to reclaim the country’s premiership.
This is an interesting development for two reasons:
First, Netanyahu lost the favor of his people previously for being hard line against giving up any ground to the Palestinians. He ended up surrendering (for all intents and purposes) Hebron to them.
Hang with me on this, but with Karl Rove out of the White House now, who has the President’s ear the most? Condoleezza Rice. And how does Condi feel about giving up land to the Palestinians in order to “achieve peace”? She’s been chomping at the bit to try and solve that pesky problem for a while now, and has recently urged Israel to show restraint in its actions against Hamas and other militants. She has also suggested in the past that Israel’s willingness to open up the Gaza Strip completely to the Palestinians could be a key concession.
Could it be that with Netanyahu in charge, and Condi with an elevated platform in the administration that we could start seeing some major dealing in Israel? It could be. It could also be that Netanyahu recognizes his mistake, won’t make it again, and this would put us at odds with Israel.
But that could never happen, could it?
That brings me to my second point. Less than a year ago Netanyahu had the following to say about Iran:
“It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs,” Netanyahu told delegates to the annual United Jewish Communities General Assembly, repeating the line several times, like a chorus, during his address. “Believe him and stop him,” the opposition leader said of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “This is what we must do. Everything else pales before this.“
While Condoleezza Rice has maintained that the U.S. is dedicated to economic sanctions, Netanyahu is much more hawkish than previous leader Olmert and might begin drawing up strategies for a preemptive strike against Iran, much like their 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear facilities. Would the U.S. then intervene between the two?
I don’t have any answers, but I firmly believe that Netanyahu’s re-entry on the world stage at this point in history is significant and should be watched closely.
What is a terrorist?
Saturday, August 11th, 2007 |So this should be easy to answer, right? Embarrassingly enough I found myself waffling on how, exactly, to put it into words. I understand the meaning, but I’ve never been asked to define it outright in the common understanding of the word until just a few moments ago.
I was having a conversation with a young lady who has left leaning tendencies, (I should add that I respect this girl and think of her as a member of my own family — proof that you don’t have to hate someone you disagree with on politics) and we were discussing the following phrase:
“Not all Muslims are terrorists,
but almost all terrorists are Muslim.”
Now, to me that seems pretty hard to dispute. But she asked me, “So are terrorists just people who fly planes into buildings?” Of course I answered with “Pffsst. Nooo.” My eyes hadn’t yet completed the first full sarcastic roll around my head before she asked, “Well, then what is a terrorist?”
I knew I was being set up for a fall, but again, I couldn’t come up with a good solid definition. So we both agreed to continue our conversation later (I was saved by a lack of the proper social setting for this type of discussion and the fact that neither of us wanted to be overly confrontational). I returned to my computer and decided to Google “define:terrorist” (Google tip: if you want to know the definition of a word, type “define:” followed by the word and it gives you accurate definitions from reputable/trusted sources across the web). I found the following and thought I should share it here with you:
terrorist:
One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals.
www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htmUse should be restricted specifically to references to people and nongovernmental organizations planning and executing acts of violence against civilian or noncombatant targets.
www.careerjournaleurope.com/columnists/styleandsubstance/glossary.htmla radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwnTerrorism is a controversial and subjective term with multiple definitions. One definition means a violent action targetting [sic] civilians exclusively. Another definition is the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, economic, religious, or ideological goal. …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist
I found the first definition to be quite satisfying. But just in case the “online” dictionaries don’t count here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary has to say:
terrorist
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
That, of course, begs the question “what is terrorism?”
terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
And there you have it. Now that I’m fully educated I intend to continue my conversation and see what other words I end up having to Google…
What Does John Lennon Think of the Live Earth Concerts?
Thursday, July 5th, 2007 |
An interview with Mr. Lennon from 1980 reveals how the Beatles star felt about benefit concerts and trying to save the world through financial injection:
PLAYBOY: Just to finish your favorite subject, what about the suggestion that the four of you put aside your personal feelings and regroup to give a mammoth concert for charity, some sort of giant benefit?
LENNON: I don’t want to have anything to do with benefits. I have been benefited to death.
PLAYBOY: Why?
LENNON: Because they’re always rip-offs. I haven’t performed for personal gain since 1966, when the Beatles last performed. Every concert since then, Yoko and I did for specific charities, except for a Toronto thing that was a rock-’n’-roll revival. Every one of them was a mess or a rip-off. So now we give money to who we want. You’ve heard of tithing?
PLAYBOY: That’s when you give away a fixed percentage of your income.
LENNON: Right. I am just going to do it privately. I am not going to get locked into that business of saving the world on stage. The show is always a mess and the artist always comes off badly.
PLAYBOY: What about the Bangladesh concert, in which George and other people such as Dylan performed?
LENNON: Bangladesh was caca.
PLAYBOY: You mean because of all the questions that were raised about where the money went?
LENNON: Yeah, right. I can’t even talk about it, because it’s still a problem. You’ll have to check with Mother [Yoko], because she knows the ins and outs of it, I don’t. But it’s all a rip-off. So forget about it. All of you who are reading this, don’t bother sending me all that garbage about, “Just come and save the Indians, come and save the blacks, come and save the war veterans,” Anybody I want to save will be helped through our tithing, which is ten percent of whatever we earn.
PLAYBOY: But that doesn’t compare with what one promoter, Sid Bernstein, said you could raise by giving a world-wide televised concert — playing separately, as individuals, or together, as the Beatles. He estimated you could raise over $200,000,000 in one day.
LENNON: That was a commercial for Sid Bernstein written with Jewish schmaltz and showbiz and tears, dropping on one knee. It was Al Jolson. OK. So I don’t buy that. OK.
PLAYBOY: But the fact is, $200,000,000 to a poverty-stricken country in South America—-
LENNON: Where do people get off saying the Beatles should give $200,000,000 to South America? You know, America has poured billions into places like that. It doesn’t mean a d–n thing. After they’ve eaten that meal, then what? It lasts for only a day. After the $200,000,000 is gone, then what?
A Question of Fundamentals
Wednesday, July 4th, 2007 |
Aunt. B. responds to a post from Nathan Moore about fundamentalists in Islam:
We don’t believe that we’re going to change the minds of those dangerous fundamentalists. They are a dangerous annoyance we must kind of tolerate (while enabling the authorities to track them down and arrest them) in order to live how we like living.
We believe that there is, at least, one other group of Muslims–folks who, in general, don’t wish us harm and, in general, like the influence of the West, even as they worry that said influence is moving people away from God and proper Islamic practice.
When we talk about our presence in Iraq breeding terrorists, what we mean is that our continued presence there convinces these wary Muslims that the fundamentalists are right about the West, at least in some regard, and so people who would not otherwise act against us feel pressured by our presence and our behavior while present to act against us.
This is not a mind-set that’s impossible to understand. Any of you with sincerely-held Christian beliefs have probably felt that some of what fundamentalist Christians say makes sense, even if you disagree with the degree to which they take their beliefs.
We need to win those hearts and minds–the devote Muslims who aren’t fully on-board with the fundamentalists, but who are afraid that the fundamentalists might be right, that we are at war with all of Islam.
Here’s the thing about fundamentalists — they’re usually the ones who really understand their religion. They’re called “fundamentalists” because they reject modern spins and accommodations in favor of following the fundamentals of their religion. Once again I feel the need to remind us that words mean something.
Allow me to give an example:
If I call myself a Democrat, but I’m against abortion, I’m anti-tax, I believe in small government and have voted Republican in every election since I registered, what am I? The only Democratic core belief that I share is that we should have universal health care provided by the government — does that make me a Democrat?
By the same token, if I call myself a Christian, but I never attend church, drink heavily and regularly, gamble, curse, and generally tend to disagree with the Bible, am I a Christian? (Don’t laugh — I’ve just described 80% of Bible Belt Christians.) I, of course, believe that I’m “saved”, but I’d rather not think about any requirements on my part to accept that salvation. Am I really a Christian just because I accept (conveniently) one small piece of what being a Christian means?
Of course not. In these instances I’m no more a Democrat, or Christian than a muslim who calls themselves a muslim even though they don’t read the Quran, don’t go to the mosque, don’t espouse 99% of muslim beliefs, and who would defend Islam as a religion of peace. No, Aunt B., I’m not in a war to win their hearts and minds. I couldn’t possibly care less about their hearts and minds because the truth is they don’t even care about Islam enough to follow it closely.
The ones who do live by the scriptures of the Quran:
[4.56] (As for) those who disbelieve in Our communications, We shall make them enter fire; so oft as their skins are thoroughly burned, We will change them for other skins, that they may taste the chastisement; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.”
[22:19-22] But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; And for them are hooked rods of iron. Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.
[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Forgive me if I’m being obtuse, but I’m not going to define Islam by the backsliders and the uncommitted. I’m going to let the fundamentalists define it, because they study it and live it. We would be fools to do anything else.
Appeasement never works
Tuesday, July 3rd, 2007 |When I was in school I remember those kids who thought that if they sucked up enough to the bullies and the jerks that they would be spared from being beat up and picked on. You know — those few who were the “water boys” for the thugs who ran to get their soda, brought them their lunch tray in the cafeteria, and laughed obnoxiously and awkwardly as if everything they said was comic gold. They could usually hang in there for a couple weeks and eventually would be discarded, picked on, and beat up.
The latest example in a long history of liberal appeasement reminded me of that. Oliver Stone wants to make a movie about Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. At first they were warm to the idea, but just released this statement:
“I sent a negative answer by Ahmadinejad to Oliver Stone,” the Fars agency quoted Mehdi Kalhor, media adviser to the president, as saying Sunday. “It is right that this person is considered part of the opposition in the U.S., but opposition in the U.S. is a part of the Great Satan.”
Oops! Sorry, libs. Looks like sucking up to Iran isn’t going to work. You can let them have nuclear power, you can ignore them sending weapons and troops into Iraq, and you can say that we have no business going to war against them if they don’t stop, but it looks like you’re still going to get your head cut off, too.
Reagan (once again) sums it up best:
To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last - but eat you he will.
National Association of Evangelicals Condemns Torture Tactics
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 |From UK’s Guardian Online:
The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), which represents about 45,000 churches across America, endorsed a declaration against torture drafted by 17 evangelical scholars. The authors, who call themselves Evangelicals for Human Rights and campaign for “zero tolerance” on torture, say that the US administration has crossed “boundaries of what is legally and morally permissible” in the treatment of detainees.
The NAE claims to represent some 33 million evangelicals. I can tell you, as an “evangelical” (although I hate this term in a political sense), that this group may have 33 million quasi-members, but fails to accurately represent them.
And it has nothing to do with this issue necessarily.
Example: For most of 2005 the NAE was working in the evangelical community to shore up support for a statement on global warming. Most evangelical leaders wanted nothing to do with it and in January of 2006 the group issued a statement that said “global warming is not a consensus issue.” James Dobson, Chuck Colson, and a host of other leaders signed this statement in agreement.
The NAE effectively did a re-do on the issue earlier this year, however, and released a statement calling for “urgent changes in values, lifestyles and public policies to avert disastrous changes in climate”. This has caused a large rift among the leadership (official and non) of the NAE, pitting conservative stalwarts like Dobson against the hipster-pastors such as Rick Warren. (Which should you listen to? Hint: trust the one that’s the head of Focus on the Family, not the one who closed up shop with his Purpose-Driven venture to spend time with Syria’s president.)
The real issue is bigger than one post on torture. What is at the root of it all is not to torture or not to torture, to warm or not to warm. The issue at hand is the watering down of moral resolve by supposed religious leaders. It’s certainly nothing new, but never before have these deceivers of the masses been more capable of spreading their messages.
I have a lot more to say on the overall subject, but to finish on this specific issue let me just say this: the NAE has bigger fish to fry than playing political games with the likes of Warren and crew. The organization says that its purpose “is to extend the kingdom of God through a fellowship”. If that statement is true, then I would ask, “What, pray tell, does torture or global warming have to do with extending the kingdom of God through a fellowship?”
People who lose elections to George W. Bush love Global Warming
Wednesday, March 14th, 2007 |John Kerry kicked off his 10-city global warming book tour yesterday for his book, This Moment on Earth: Today’s New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future.
Man, John Kerry can’t even make a book about a hot-button topic sound interesting. Asked about the book Kerry said:
“Teresa and I are writing this book because we share a sense of urgency about the need to reinvigorate grassroots action which takes these concerns into the ballot box…”
…and then the reporter fell asleep.
Available in bookstores and insomnia treatment centers everywhere now.
This Old House:
Why We Need the Surge
Friday, February 16th, 2007 |
A couple sets out to build their dream home. They’re inexperienced but know exactly what they want. They’ve planned everything carefully, and if they can stay within the budget and on schedule they can be in their new home just in time for their new baby’s arrival 8 months from now. They select a contractor to oversee the project, they have to work after all, and give him his deposit and access to the bank account where they’ve placed their construction loan money.
Every week or so they check in on the progress and can see things really zipping along. Within a few days the footers are dug. A few days later there’s a nice foundation. Just a week or so later they see the walls getting framed up. At this rate they’ll be in their new home before they know it. A couple weeks later trusses are going up for the roof.
And then the inevitable happens — they hit a snag. During the night there’s a terrific storm that blows the insulation off the outside of the home and causes some of the trusses to fall in. This is a huge set back for the couple’s carefully planned budget. It also sets off a huge and costly chain of events.
Because they have to take extra time to fix the problems their schedule is thrown off so badly that they lose deposits made on the brick layers, electricians, and landscapers. Suddenly they’re paying people for not working. Months pass with no progress. The couple’s home is still salvageable but it has been so mismanaged that it won’t meet the budget or the time line by a long shot.
It’s not hard to see the parallels between this situation and Iraq. We had a plan. We had a budget. We had contractor. We saw significant progress happening quickly in the first months. But now it’s different. The contractor has made some mistakes. There have been situations out of our control that have cost us money, lives, and time — resources that become harder and harder to come by as the job stretches out.
So here we sit with this house, Iraq, only partially finished.
There’s a foundation — a (semi) unity government with a constitution in place. A deposed dictatorship and regime. There are walls and trusses and it’s starting to look like a house. There are obvious problems, however. There are holes and gaps and unfinished edges. There are angry homeowners that just want it to be finished. And there are subcontractors who are so tired of messing with it that they want to cut their losses and leave the house unfinished.
Those subcontractors, our representatives in the capitol, say things like “Well, we tried” or “It’s not our fault, it’s the general contractor’s fault. His administration mismanaged this project until we simply cannot finish” or “The homeowners don’t even want the house. And if they don’t want it, why should we die building it?”
The problem is that someone has to live in the house whether we finish it or not.
Yes, it’s getting expensive. Yes, it’s costing us more than just money. Yes, it has been severely mismanaged. But to leave the house unfinished isn’t an option. The Iraqis have to live in it, and we’re the co-signers. In the global neighborhood, we all live on the same street and that property affects ours. Those neighbors better be happy in their house or they’re going to eventually cause problems for their neighbors.
If we want to talk about the women and children and civilians and all those who have been negatively affected by the war, fine. But don’t exclude talk of them from the conversation we’re having about forcing them to live in a half-finished home.
If you want to talk about pride getting in the way of progress, fine. But don’t be so prideful yourself that you start calling a country or a people a lost cause.
If you want to talk about mismanagement, fine. But don’t spend so much time talking about it that you neglect to take the opportunity to manage it yourself.
Simply put, denying resources isn’t leadership and it doesn’t build the house.
Tell me you have some blueprints. Tell me who the bricklayer is going to be. But don’t tell me that you refuse to build because if we don’t build it, the Iraqis will get a new contractor like the Iranians, or the militant Shiites, or Al Qaeda, or God only knows who. And then, when it’s truly too late, we’ll find ourselves wishing we had finished it ourselves.
And that’s not a house I want to live in.
Minority Report, anyone?
Friday, February 9th, 2007 |
From the UK paper The Guardian (via Drudge):
A team of world-leading neuroscientists has developed a powerful technique that allows them to look deep inside a person’s brain and read their intentions before they act.
The research breaks controversial new ground in scientists’ ability to probe people’s minds and eavesdrop on their thoughts, and raises serious ethical issues over how brain-reading technology may be used in the future.
I don’t even know where to begin on this one. You know what? Just watch the movie.
Mentally ill “win”
right to die
Thursday, February 8th, 2007 |
WHOO HOO! It’s almost like winning the lottery, except in this lottery someone kills you. And you’re a nut job.
From MSNBC:
LAUSANNE, Switzerland - A ruling by Switzerland’s highest court released Friday has opened up the possibility that people with serious mental illnesses could be helped by doctors to take their own lives.
Now, that sounds like I’m being mean, but I’m not. Follow my logic here — in this country mental illness is a justifiable excuse for nearly any crime allowing the defendent to go free. In this country we don’t allow many of the mentally ill to drive vehicles, act (in many cases) as their own guardian, or be treated as an adult in pretty much any regard. Why? Because they don’t have the proper mental capacity and can’t be trusted with those decisions.
So tell me then how we can say that the same person is capable of making a decision about ending their own life? This case has centered around a 58 year old bipolar patient. If you read the case it seems logical enough, but then you have to ask yourself about the other interesting angles. See, it’s not about this 58 year old bipolar patient. What about the lady with schizophrenia who has 2 different personalities? One wants euthanasia, the other wants to live. What about someone with extreme paranoia? Perhaps they feel that the only way to escape the swirling conspiracies around them is to kill themselves.
We must think about this rationally before we start opening up doors that can never be closed again. What might seem like a nice thought for this 58 year old man opens the door for guardians of the mentally ill to essentially have post-birth abortions, and for those who are incapable of weighty decisions to choose death in their haste and confusion.
If you want to debate the “right to life” and the “right to death” let’s not open up the conversation by using the broken, the helpless, and the ill as our banner argument. Let’s discuss the issue in the frame of rational thought and people in their right minds and then apply a just and fair law to all, regardless of mental capacity, age, or infirmity.
War with Iran?
Tuesday, January 30th, 2007 |There’s an interesting story on MSNBC.com asking “Is war with Iran next?“. (The story is born from an even more interesting website, HOTSOUP.com. I’d never heard of it, and still haven’t explored it all, but it seems to be a hot bed, or “soup”, of these types of questions and conversations. I digress.) From the article:
The online buzz about Iran stems from President Bush declaring Monday that the United States “will respond firmly” if Iran escalates military action in Iraq and endangers American forces.
Insisting that he has no intention of invading Iran, the president also acknowledged skepticism concerning U.S. intelligence about Iran, because Washington was wrong in accusing Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. “I’m like a lot of Americans that say, ‘Well, if it wasn’t right in Iraq, how do you know it’s right in Iran,’” the president said.
I have a few reactions to this thought. Foremost being that we should absolutely respond firmly to Iran escalating military action. If Iran continues to stick its nose in Iraq then we have every right and responsibility to respond. However, this doesn’t/shouldn’t mean feet on the ground in Iran. I feel strongly that a response to Iran that results in a ground invasion first would not only fail, but weaken the U.S. in a way that would make Iraq failures pale by comparison.
The problem is this — we have the most powerful military in the world, but we also have the most powerful restrictions in the world. We put more restrictions on our military than any other country on the planet. Is the enemy wearing blue on a Thursday? Can’t touch him. Was that building used in the past 50 years to store schoolbooks for children? Can’t blow it up.
Okay, those examples are hyperbole but here’s one that isn’t: Is the guy that’s holding a gun in your face Iranian? You couldn’t shoot him up until last week. JUST LAST WEEK we said, “Okay, you can shoot the enemy if he’s Iranian.” This is craziness.
It’s because of these laws and restrictions and the level of watchdogging we put our ground troops through that I say that a ground operation would be dismal.
So here’s my question: why would we go to war with Iran? Why can’t we just do a series of surgical strikes, taking a cue from the Israelis. I never cease to be amazed at how the Israeli government, living in the belly of the beast, has managed to not be completely annihilated. I won’t go so far as to say they’re perfect militarily — far from it — but they certainly know how to get a job done.
I’ll refer to the video below for an example (warning: it’s about 45 minutes long and the audio gets a smidge out of sync). This is the History Channel’s account of the Israeli air strike, Operation Opera, on Iraq’s nuclear reactor back in 1981. Did it stop Iraq from trying to get nukes? Nope. Did it slow them down significantly? Absolutely.
[gv data=”svzzrvN92Pg”][/gv]
Why do we have to think of Iran as an “all or nothing” confrontation? With the world’s strongest military at our disposal, and some of the most advanced weapons systems in the world, why don’t we let our technology take the first blow? I’m not talking shock and awe here. I’m talking about surgical strikes on key locations with the power and force necessary — no restrictions — to take the threat away.
We can debate whether Iraq was a true threat all day long (my feeling is that Iraq was/is a tactical maneuver more than a threat neutralization). However, I would challenge anyone to deny the threat that the Iranians pose to us as a country, and the world as a whole. There is absolutely no doubt that, left unchecked, Iran will try to destroy the U.S. through whatever means necessary. Sure, if we do a surgical strike it probably means war. But if we do it right then the gravest threats should be neutralized and then we can try to fight the war on our terms rather than from a defensive posture on the outset.
12 out of 49?
Wednesday, January 3rd, 2007 |From Robert Novak comes this bit of information on President Bush’s plans to increase troop levels:
President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the party’s 2008 presidential nomination, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 of the 49 Republican senators when pressing for a surge of 30,000 troops. “It’s Alice in Wonderland,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposal. “I’m absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.”
I’m reminded of our original party theme for Iraq of “Shock and Awe”. The idea was to present such an overwhelming show of force that our enemies would come running and cowering before us. This worked great against the Iraqi troops. Of course throwing melted ice cream in their general direction would have done the trick, too, as those guys really like surrendering.
Our real problems have come from those in surrounding countries who are using Iraq as a place to fight a war their countries are afraid to declare officially. See, we prepared “Shock and Awe” specifically for the French military style of the Iraqis, but not the fierce tenaciousness of the neighboring terrorists, so we fell short.
I bring all this up because my fear is that if we go half-hearted into troop increases we’re going to face the same problem. If we send less than what we need to fight the real problem then we’ll simply end up with “Shock and Awe II”, where it looked great on paper, fell short in practice, and added to the body count.
If only 12 Republicans are on board there will be those who smell the blood in the water and will negotiate down the amount of troops in order to please the general public. Of course, if we were less focused on public perception in the beginning and more intensely dedicated to winning we may have been discussing the NFL playoffs in this post, with our boys back home.
My hope is that McCain (and when did he become the “front-runner”?) will use the same strong-arm technique he used to submarine the filibuster issue to get others on board for this increase to make sure we don’t keep repeating the mistakes of the past. It would be an excellent chance for him to show that he can use his leadership to accomplish something meaningful for a change that would be in the best interest of the country, even if unpopular for a few months.
UPDATE: A.C. Kleinheider has a post on another blog’s report that Hagel won’t be running for president or re-election to the senate. This is interesting for two reasons: 1.) It could be that he’s being broadsided by his anti-war stance and statements like the one above; and 2.) Whenever a politician retires we get an unusual glimpse at the belly of the beast because they’re no longer beholden to those they are seeking political favors from or for. It’ll be interesting to see how this pans out…
