Let me think, the thug on the right or the left?

"An Oxford International poll taken in February for ABC News and several networks from other countries found a higher level of optimism than more recent polling taken after months of bombings and other violence. Still, only a quarter of those polled by Oxford said they had confidence in coalition forces to meet their needs, far behind Iraqi religious leaders, police, and soldiers. "

I think if I were an Iraqi, I would also have to side with the group of people that hasn't had a history of coming into the country and kicking my ass. I think when I would go through my checklist of people I chose to protect me, I would look seriously at their history of bombing me. Whatever may be said about the Iraqi religious leaders, police, and soldiers, I don't think the Iraqi have fear of them blockading their own country (Not only has the US blockaded Iraq, but it has chosen to blockade itself in the past!)

Give me a break. Who thought the results would be different? I think a more competitive question is whether or not the average Iraqi trusts the Baath party more than the coalition. If I were an Iraqi I would be torn between which group of people should lead when both have already proven it can kill many people.

If we want the average Iraqi to support the US intervention, we need to merit that support. Recent events do not show that merit. How many have died already for this new democratic government that does not yet exist let alone the fact that it has yet to help anyone? What happens when Iraq's democrcy is no more successful than the democracies of the poor Latin American countries? Ok fine fine, not all these countries have a significant source of export. But let's take Venzuela, because these have oil too. Are they doing all that well? Don't they have a democracy?

The US doesn't have all the answers and it is arrogant to think that we do, just because things are going well for us.

Pat Tillman - friendly fire

Pat Tillman - the true war hero and one of those who fight for freedom. Here's a man who walked away from a 3.6 million dollar contract and was paid less than $20,000 for his life. This man believed in the good in the United States.

He was killed by another American. By so called blue on blue or friendly fire. I learned something today. Friendly fire has accounted for 30 percent of all American losses throughout history.

"Retired Navy Admiral Winston Copeland told KCBS reporter Matt Bigler that historically thirty percent of U.S. military losses can be attributed to friendly fire.

Most Americans sadly don't realize the number is that high, but if you go back to World War II and wars gone by, it has been that high, Copeland said."

Holy crap. When the US goes to war, the army suffers about 1/3 of its losses due to people that they are standing next to. Can there be a more frightening statistic that testifies to the weakness of the human/American in "action"?

And the worst part is that there probably is no true fix for this type of problem, except to end all war. People get into the heat of battle and they just start firing their weapons. What a ridiculous state of affairs! ... the _glory_ of battle ...

Legacy?

Why does history favor some people and not others? Surely, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. And the same is said of history - the victors rewrite history. But how does one know if they've won?

Let's take Ronald Reagan for example. Sure he contributed to our history. But why do we give him so much praise (take for example all those visiting his casket)? Why has history smiled on this man? At what point did we conclude that his contributions were more positive than negative?

Let's take some negatives. He was divorced, he sided with the conservatives during the period of McCarthyism and the "Red Scare" of the 50s, his black/white view of the world led to suspect decisions in supporting religious fundamentalism in an effort to overthrow Communism. We are certainly feeling the backlash of these political decisions. His economic decisions, Reaganomics, are questioned by few today because of the positive results - but on paper they do not look so nice. In a time of need, he cut taxes in order to give money to the rich.

Let's take some of the positives. Since I brought up the divorce I should mention his marriage to Nancy lasted over 50 years, his unwavering anticommunism helped support the success of democracy in the world (for which he does not deserve full credit - please! This does not stop the many conservative pundits from saying so... it's a little silly to think that Communism failed because of Reagan). His economic decisions did reinvigorate the US economy - fine.

Granted he wasn't a bad president. But I have to say that never during his administration did I feel inspired by the guy. There is nothing that he did that I felt proud of. But that's just me. I'm willing to admit the validity of other's opinions.

I just wonder why people suggest that his face should be carved along side of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. There is no comparison to the founders of our nation, or the man who led our nation through the civil war, and the nobel peace prize laureate!

Certainly these comments may be judged as poorly timed criticisms. And I do think that we should honor any former president of our nation appropriately. For this service I am grateful to him. I only intend to draw attention to the fickle nature of history, and the uncertainties of public opinion.

US Military "Might"

Let's face it folks - the world has changed from 100 years ago. Back then the international struggles were won and lost by military might. What we have today is a demonstration of the impotence of military might. No one cares that we can destroy the world hundreds of times over. There are plenty of other nations with the same capabilities. Wars will be won or lost from now on through political power.

Take the war against terrorism or the war against drugs for example. These are wars that America is losing because we do not have the political power necessary to win them. It's difficult to justify saving people who are not all that interested in being saved! And this is what both wars have degenerated into. People are dying and things are not getting better.

We need to get buy in from the people we are trying to save that they in fact do want us to save them. For the war on drugs, we need people to stop buying the drugs, this alone would be sufficient to eliminate the problem. This is a minimum requirement! People who are addicted cannot help themselves, no can they really allow us to help them (because they support the organizations that we are trying to stop)

I'm not trying to really compare Iraqis to people with addiction. I don't think Iraqis are addicted to terrorism. But I do think that they are not really helping us out in our efforts to give them democracy. They need to acknowledge our help, or we need to go away.

As far as democracy goes, they can take or leave it as far as I am concerned. I want them to be happy either way. But you cannot "liberate" the unwilling! It is really as simple as that. I don't really want to walk out of Iraq and leave it in a mess, so I think that this means that we need to come to better agreements about what they want from us - and we should not try to dictate what form of government they need.

Certainly, the news organizations and the political propaganda is attempting to say that this is indeed occurring. But I have no proof. The media talk about the June 30th handoff in positive language. "We are giving Iraq a gift" they say.

I do not buy this prediction. It is way too simple minded. My gut tells me that Iraq does not want democracy, and they will collapse catastrophically in the future near or far. And when this collapse occurs, the US will be blamed without exception. I do not believe the UN will take any responsibility - why should they? They did not want us to invade in the first place. We have the responsibility to make Iraq suceed, and in order to face up to that responsibility we should allow them to have what they want.

Of course, I make blanket statements and it is difficult to determine how to put this into practice. Some will think that the current US policy is the best way to achieving Iraq future success. But be that as it may, we do not have consensus because we have not discussed these issues. For example, the Shiites and the Kurds and the Sunnis are not exactly the type of bunch that gets along with each other nicely. Why should we expect that they would get along in a democracy? A monarchy maybe, but why would they put aside their differences to work together in a democratic fashion. This is too optimistic.

One possibile solution is to split Iraq into smaller nations. With smaller nations, there can be more hegemony and harmony among the people. I suspect that his solution would have a better opportunity for success. But certainly, this is not the only way nor is it a simple solution. There may be problems in splitting the resources fairly among the smaller nations.

What other ways can we create this nation(s) so that the Iraqi people have future success? Certainly the possibilities are not exhausted by suggesting we create one democractic government or many. There must be other ways!

Intolerance

I gotta say, I don't know any other evil as powerful as intolerance. 9/11 was intolerance in action. Murders of abortion clinic doctors and nurses is intolerance in action. KKK is intolerance. Nazis were/are intolerant.

I read some tripe on how "Gays" are trying to convert our kids into homosexuals. This comic "tract" basically went on to say that "Gays" are controlled by demons and are going to hell according to the Bible.

How do people fall into this mess? When do they start believing that the world's problems are less important than stopping gay people from marrying each other? Why?

My personal feelings are along these lines, I can be friends with gay people, I can accept them into my home for dinner, I could accept my brother and sisters if they decided they were gay, I could go out and help raise funds for gay awareness intiatives. I could accept myself if I was gay. I don't know how to accept someone who thinks it is their business to tell me or anyone else how I/they must live life.

Diversity is a strength. We are all different people. We all have our own ways. It is important to the strength of our world to root out those differences and expose them, but never to correct them. Simply knowing that people are different from what you expect helps justify exploration of ourselves for difference that we were previously unaware of.

Knowing that we are different from each other is a beginning of sorts. Once you have found these difference, you can try to exploit them for mutual benefit. If this sounds abstract, think of it in terms of what we know. A city is comprised of people with different strengths. Some are good at banking/finance, some are good at construction, some are good at medicine, etc. You get the point. These differences are used for the benefit of the whole. Understanding our differences is an important first step in improving how we interact with each other.

The intolerant do not understand this point of view. They think they know enough to state without reservation that your way of life is not acceptable to them. The only basis they have for such a claim in my mind is on condition that your way of life obstructs theirs. And it is clear that gay people do not obstruct my way of life. If they marry each other, it does not hurt me. If black people live next door, I can invite them over for a beer. If Iraq wants to have a religious government, I can still vote for who will be president in the US. My way of life is only obstructed by the intolerant.

Back to work

I had a fun two weeks in Scotland. Anyone who is considering going there, you can take this to be my recommendation to go. However, I did not have much luck with finding a good travel book. I must have read 4 or 5 books looking for places to stop. The result is that some of the places I planned to stop at were no good, and some of the places I made no prior plans to stop at but did anyway were great.

I saw two movies Saturday. Troy and The Last Samurai. Both movies extol battle and war. I think the concept of war is extremely interesting, although I'm not trying to glorify it in any way.

The first time I was convinced that I would be ok killing someone for my country was when I watched Saving Private Ryan. There's a scene where a German kills an American while his American friend is too scared to defend him. That scene absolutely floored me. Until then, I was troubled by the thought killing someone that I believed had the right to live. A soldier's choice is little more black and white though. They kill and are killed because they are defending their country. But sometimes it simply comes down to defending your friend from your enemy.

It's true that both have a right to live. And it's true that there will always be people on the battlefield who are uncertain about whether or not they believe in the cause. But I think the most compelling reason to do battle, is that you know your friends are going to die and that you might be able to save some of them. I cannot argue with anyone who chooses to kill in order to defend themselves or their friends.

Still the question of why nations go to war is critical. Once they are at war, it is simple to see why they kill each other. But why do they go to war at all? Assuming the nations have equally capable men and arms, the nation that goes to war for the better reason is more likely to be the nation that will win. For example, let's say prior to the war both nations are happy but one wants the other's valuable resources. When they go to war, the reason for one nation is simply to get more resources and the reason for the other is simply to keep what it already has. The more compelling reason lie with the nation that is defending itself. And this resonates with the soldiers on the field of battle.

I believe that leaders of nations need to understand this situation. In order to have the best chance of winning (and the least loss of life), leaders must clearly communicate why they choose to go to war. Any confusion or gray area in the choice will result in loss of life and possibly of the war.

The Spanish American War, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq. These are wars that were chosen for uncertain reasons. These are the wars that leave black marks on the soul of our nation. If this nation is to remain strong, we need to choose our wars more carefully in the future.