Isn't this railing against war something like attacking a straw man? I mean, as soon as this happened our President (the war lord??) was saying things like, "our military is designed to destroy high value targets. That's what they are designed for. But the problem with our new enemy is that the hills of Afhanistan are owned by very, very poor people. The hills are completely devoid of high value targets. Our enemy hides in caves. Literally. We have to flush them out of their holes. We have to get them on the run so we can stop them." Didn't we all hear Bush saying this? Some people think Dubya, the C student, struts into a press conference, and puffed up with metaphorical warnings, proclaims, "Our enemy hids in tunnels! I say we smoke them out!" That's not what I think happens for 2 reasons. 1. Dubya was a "c" student. :) What I mean by that is that a "C" student doesn't come up with metaphors about smoking out his emeny where he hids. That's something an lit major (or Joni fan) comes up with! 2. Dubya has sense and listens when people give him briefings. What I suspect happened, instead, is this. Dubya was in a briefing and someone, using small words, said, "Mister President, the enemy has a complex network of tunnels in the hills of Afganistan. We can't bomb them cause it would NOT accomplish our aims and it would alienate world opinion. We have to make them move so our military intellegence can track them." Then, I suspect, Bush walks out, in front of the TV cameras and says, "Our enemy hids in caves. We must smoke them out." He all but said, "Listen, as long as bin Lauden is in a cave in the hills of Afganistan, he's safe. He might just as well be in a bunker. In fact, a cave is nearly a perfect bunker. We are not going to bomb him out no matter HOW many bombs we use. We learned in the hills of Vietnam and the Soviets learned in Afganistan. We will not repeat the past." Do we really believe that Bush will get us into a war in Afganistan? Does anyone really believe that the US wants to kill the half-starved apolitical Afgans? Plus, just after the attacks, our retired General Schwartzkoff, who ran the Desert Storm campaign, said to Brokaw, "In Desert Storm we risked our OWN materiel and personnel to protect civilians. That's the complete _opposite_ of what these _bastards_ have done." So, I think that clucking about how our military is full of angry, violent, dangerous white men is wrong headed. (The army is not run by the Lt. Callie's of the world. It's run by stategists like Schwartzkoff and Powell.) I think fretting about war is a coping mechanism though and I see everyone doing that. (I've done that myself. The stress is getting to many of us, including me. Normally, I don't argue on jmdl but I was swayed just a little, last week.) No more attacks on our friends, eh guys? Consider that we have lots of work to do and scolding the military _in advance_ while everyone is still building cases, and detaining witnesses, and building alliances, and (probably) buying influence, seems premature. Dubya warned us about not expecting a quick resolution. Lamadoo I didn't vote for Dubya but he's risen to the occasion and hasn't spill any classified information that I'm aware of. As a figurehead, he's done better than okay and that's what I expect now from a president. Simply to carry the title with dignity is a tremendous responsibility.
