Mer reminded me of
another point I'd been thinking through. I'm still not of resolved mind on this
whole impending war thing. The truest comment I've heard on it yet was the other
day on the radio -- might have been Sen. Kyle or someone like that: "I don't think
anyone feels comfortable about their opinion on this, except maybe those at either
extreme." (If it was the Senator, it's about the first thing he's ever said that I
agree with.) I'm pleased to find that people on both sides agree in their support
for the rank-and-file of the military; as Tommy Sands says, "Those who give the
orders, they are not the ones to die." I'd be even happier if I were sure more
people on both sides realized they have this commonality.
About the
situation as a whole, I tried to dissect my opinions into their component beliefs.
These are my beliefs, stripped out and laid completely bare here.
I
believe Saddam Hussein is evil. I do believe the government's premise on this
item. I used to believe all terrorists were evil, but on further reflection I
concluded some may just be thoroughly deluded, brainwashed with "us=good,
them=bad," especially those so embedded in their own beliefs that they are glad to
die for them. I'd like to think I'd have the moral courage to realize that killing
people for my beliefs is a bad thing, but how can I tell? From here in freedom,
anyway? On the other hand, there is no form of life so low as those who recruit
people to kill and die to bolster their own power.
So OK, he's evil.
But is he our problem to deal with? Well, yes. If he's evil and we want to align
ourselves on the side of good, in defiance of the the usual political expediency,
then he is, and we do have to deal with him. My thoughts on this were certainly
influenced by my current reading
material: "In Life's name and for Life's sake, I will set aside fear for
courage and death for life, when it is right to do so..." But just because it's
fiction doesn't mean it doesn't carry truth.
So OK, he's evil and he
is our problem. But how do we fight him? That's where the logic chain stops being
easy to link. We can't leave him alone to torture and brood over a growing weapons
stash. But despite my idealism above, we do have to consider political expediency.
This morning in a
href="http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=1188587">radio
commentary, US Army Col. Mike Turner (Ret.), former policy advisor to the
Joint Chiefs, laid out a very possible -- and very dire -- scenario of what would
happen if we war without allies. It differed from LA's prediction only in being more
detailed. We also, if we want to have any claim to living up to our principles
(and they are idealistic, and that's not a bad thing) need to make sure that we do
not indulge in evil in trying to fight evil. We've done it before, certainly;
that's no excuse for doing it again. Each new decision is an opportunity to make
the right decision (or a right decision) or the wrong one. We must fight, I am
convinced. But do we have to do it in the literal sense, warfare with blood and
death, bullets and bombs and desperation and despair? That I can't say. But if we
do take that irrevocable action, we'd better be damn sure it's the right
one.
And what will I do with my logic? I don't know. If we go to war,
will I speak out? Once war is officially declared, it happens to be illegal to
speak against it: sedition, to be precise. I don't have a particular objection to
breaking a law, if it's a bad law, but this isn't a bad law, in itself. It may be
necessary to avoid a breakdown of morale in a dire situation. We don't typically
enforce that law (as witness protests during Vietnam), but we could. It's on the
books. And I work in a patriotic industry; getting arrested for speaking out
wouldn't do much for my job prospects. But I don't have kids or dependents, Rudder
being well able to care for himself, so it would mostly only hurt me. Should we go
to war? I don't know. What would I need to do if we did? I don't know. Would I do
it? I don't know. I don't know.