[BlogEntry] So, what is the right time, right war?


On a mailing list from a former employer, someone just posted the following (edited to protect their identity):

My son is over in Iraq. A few weeks ago,
he said to me "I've got my job to do here. Your job is to go
out and help get Kerry elected!"

You might say I have a vested interest
in ousting the man who put my baby in "the wrong war, at the wrong
time", to quote Senator Kerry. I'd feel much better about his
deployment if he were in Afghanistan or Sudan – someplace that makes

I daresay that this same person, and the rest of the Kerry supporters (along with most Bush supporters), had they been asked on September 10, 2001 about going into Afghanistan or Sudan, would have said "wrong war, wrong time." Had we inspected Afghanistan on 9/10/01, we would have found no weapons of mass destruction. By the standards we suddenly find ourselves so attached to, it would have been difficult to justify such an invasion. Yet, that invasion is now justified in most peoples' minds, including Kerry supporters.

Over the course of his eight years in office, Clinton got away with several military maneuvers including Bosnia, Somalia, and even bombing Iraq with 200 cruise missiles over a four-day period! Where were the standards then? What made each of those "the right war at the right time"? Was it just his lack of commitment to actually winning that made it palatable? Or was it just the fact that he was a Democrat?

Had we invaded Afghanistan and captured Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11/01, many people would have objected. However, if we had prevented the attack on the World Trade Center and Washington, D.C., there would have been no way of knowing what disaster had just been averted. Yet, it still would have been the right move. How, then, can people be so damned sure that eradicating the Saddam Hussein regime was the wrong move? Is it possible they are just using that strategic move as an opportunity to bash a political foe?

Hindsight is 20/20. It is so easy to second guess the choices made by someone else after the fact. Candidate Kerry would have us believe his foresight is as keen as his hindsight. But even hindsight does not give you the benefit of seeing what might have been. Hussein had years to develop all kinds of weapons and then conceal or export them. Look how long it took to find Hussein, himself, living in a hole. For all we know, Bush's invasion of Iraq prevented a 9/11-style attack with nerve gas. Or maybe he was too late, and it's still sitting underground in Iraq or hidden in Syria, yet to be deployed.

But it's awfully cheap and easy to just say "wrong war, wrong time" when you have no idea what could have been. There's a reason Saddam Hussein refused to comply for so many years. I'd rather accept Saddam Hussein's evil intentions at face value, consider his unwillingness to comply with the weapons inspectors as the crime it was, and be safe rather than sorry. If you choose to opportunistically use this perfectly valid interpretation against the President who had the nerve to act, even though it was unpopular, I hope you're right, because the cost of being wrong is another 9/11 or worse.

And I don't think Kerry has the nerve or the conviction to do anything unpopular, based purely on principles. So, be an ostrich, if you like. Just hope you're a very lucky ostrich, because these Muslim terrorists are not kidding around. How many more horrific acts must they commit before you are convinced?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge