<The bottom line is that we're at war with Islamic militantcy and terrorist states and it's time to get "on the train", or at least bite your tongue.. >
Hawk, I understand your reasoning, but I disagree. I like freedom and that means first and foremost freedom to think and freedom to express, followed immediately after by freedom to own and trade property.
When blood lust is up, the old chimpoid tribal fighting rules tend to come to the fore, but keeping the human sentience and reasoning and individual decision making is as valid as any other time.
At any given time, situations are changing and constant reappraisal of decisions previously made is required. In a democracy, that doesn't mean handing a blank cheque to the leader of the day, it means constant reappraisal by everyone interested in proceedings so that if necessary, they can change their minds.
Those wanting a particular train of thought and action will find it annoying to be looking over their shoulders and in the front lines, those involved must have confidence that they are being backed and that they don't have to look over their shoulders. But further back in the thinking and planning department and into the democratic foundations, there must remain constant reappraisal, otherwise, the poor buggers at the front lines might still be in the trenches in Flanders and nobody is thinking, just following a series of leaders who never change their minds.
<It's democracy and freedom when policies are being formulated >
Policies are constantly being formulated, reformulated, abandoned, updated, changed with some zig-zags thrown in just in case. It's an ongoing process requiring constant review by all involved, right back to the electorate who bears the responsibility.
If I was a soldier in Iraq, I would not want to be simply left to the previous plan if things have actually gone very badly and no progress is being made. I would want to think that those sitting comfy at home were super-mindful of my situation and were ensuring that my life was not being put at risk unduly. I would want the democratic process to be humming flat out, with dissenting voices heard, new ideas promoted, all new facts considered, with any decision to make some changes to be made quickly.
I am not saying that things are going badly. Before the war, this is about how I thought it would go. 100 minutes of actual conflict, with the biggest problem being the tanks driving around Baghdad looking for somebody to shoot at. Then, an urban insurrection because I couldn't see any other means for Saddam's forces to fight back and win. Having Al Qaeda and Hamas and anyone else willing to join an Islamic Jihad was certain too.
If anything, I'd say things have gone extremely well and still are going well. I of course prefer to have a NUN, but my Plan B of having King George II Colinize and Condoleezzanize Iraq for some time is okay too. I far prefer having the USA run Iraq rather than Saddam running Iraq. I expect that most Iraqis will be okay with it too, on the assumption that they'll get the place back soon enough and they don't want to be left in chaos with major fratricidal religious civil war.
It's very annoying to have crazies like Lt Gen Gumby claiming to have the true idol on his side, whereas Allah is a fake [which begs the question as to why Gumby's idol hasn't given him the word on the whereabouts of Saddam, Osama and Omar - it seems Allah is in fact doing a better job than Gumby's idol]. It makes me think I should pull the plug on my support. But there are always some wackoes on the good guys side and they need to be found, investigated and eliminated from proceedings and in some instances from life.
Plenty of vicious, criminal, thugs will use conflict as an excuse to indulge their personal insanities. The fog of war provides an excellent smoke-screen if conflict isn't carefully managed. It doesn't take many barbarians to turn the good guys into the evil empire. Those guys should be looking over their shoulders.
Mqurice |
