Shared perspectives

There has never been much doubt in my mind that we ALL agree that the effort in Afghanistan and Iraq must reach a successful conclusion, regardless of the issues that brought about the conflicts. We don't even seem to disagree about what the requirements of that "successful conclusion" are... representative democratic regimes with fundamental human rights as their foundations and viable defense forces for their protection.

In the past, I have been seen as "reluctant" to voice criticism of Muslims in general, or too "politically correct" for not advocating a harsher stance on Islam in general... and not only by Ryan. I will agree (in principal) with the first assessment, but I firmly deny the second. Islam as a major religion instills piety and reverence for God, but only through the promoting of intolerance and bigotry within its mainstream society. There is no "redemptive" quality to its message, and its adherents need only follow the precepts by rote, with little or no understanding of its message, to qualify for holiness. Islam's spread, at least since the end of the Crusades, has always been at the expense of other faiths... and too often, society in general.

There is no question that if the US fails in its role as the leader of the effort to fight radical Islamic terror, the US will bear the brunt of the cost... in all its manifestations. THAT is the reason why the US cannot afford to be seen as weak or ineffectual in its efforts AT ANY POINT. We cannot stand up to those who would promote summary use of inhumane policy simply to further a strategic or tactical goal (militarily or otherwise) while doing the same thing ourselves. I understand that the gulf that divides the degrees of extremes between Saddam's use of torture to further his regime's goals and those of the US in employing water-boarding techniques during interrogations... but I still see them only as degrees of the same effort. If the technique in question is illegal under the US Constitution and its established laws, then it has no place in our effort to fight and win the war on terror.

Simply having the means to follow a proscribed course of action doesn't mean that the action itself is the right course. The use of nuclear weapons against Japan is an excellent example. We could have simply dropped the bombs on targets that would have eliminated the governmental structure of Japan to bring the nation to a point where they were unable to continue to effort of fighting... but instead, the use was debated long and hard, and in the end, we even warned the Japanese that the bombs were coming... both times!

This kind of conscientious debate and consideration make the effort the obvious result of careful and thoughtful consideration for all future generations of both the world... and the US. Sure, you still have the fringe element calling the Truman Administration "war criminals" (like Rev. Wright)... but you will always have the fringe arguing the obvious. It doesn't change the objective, rational view of history that has determined that no other course of action would have furthered the stated goals of the Allies in their efforts to end the war.

While I have admitted that I have seen the results of simply releasing detainees from GITMO in recent posts, this should be understood to mean that the release of those prisoners should ONLY be to states and authorities that will prosecute those detained for the crimes they are accused of. If that isn't something that will happen, the the men should be prosecuted here in the US for their crimes, and if they have taken up arms against US troops or assisted in the killing of US personnel abroad, then they can be tried for those crimes. I am no longer going to suggest that they be released as "free" men... we have seen the fruits of that policy. Their detainment at GITMO has been declared "constitutional" by the highest Court in the land... so I won't continue to harp on the issue.

Let me use the following for an example of my position on "water-boarding":

The Rummy/Wolfowitz plan of minimum personnel with maximum effect might eventually have won the effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US is certainly capable of winning a protracted, attrition battlefield effort... if the US is willing to accept a 15 year effort with a cost in dead and wounded of 60,000 Americans. However, the original recommendation of 480,000 US ground troops would have dramatically changed the environment behind our advancing forces, as we have seen since the "surge" went into effect. So, we see that there were (at least) TWO avenues of planning that the US could follow to achieve the goals it had stated it wanted to reach. One assured a fast removal of the Saddam regime with minimum exposure of US personnel to death and danger by reduced numbers in the field, the other a fast removal of the Saddam regime by overwhelming force with the risk of greater exposure to larger number of US personnel. History has shown which path gave the best results. I simply feel that the current Administration took the riskier plan in the hopes of keeping the effect on the "home front" to a minimum.

This analogy breaks down quickly when we take it to extremes in regards to interrogation techniques... but following the riskier plan (risky in that it flies in the face of legality here in the US) has inherent risks, and if those risks outweigh the benefits, then they should be abandoned for a more acceptable course of policy.

Most proponents of the techniques in question would scream that there are no risks... but what greater risk is there in WAR than divisive dissent on the homefront? How much more successful could we expect our efforts to be if we could have maintained the level of unification of purpose and drive that we saw when the President spoke from Ground Zero immediately after 9/11? Back when only 53 US legislators from both Houses thought they had enough balls to vote AGAINST the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Baddboy called for leadership to win the effort and the war, as did Ryan in his response. Leadership means making tough decisions about HOW a war is conducted, not just IF a war is conducted. No one here is arguing that we are at war... we are simply debating how best that war should be prosecuted to a successful conclusion.