1.25.2007

Double Down on War

I don't normally take a stridently conservative position in this
space, but all the recent anti-war talk has me itching to post
something on the subject. Probably the thing that the anti-war crowd
is most lathered up about is the rising American body count. The
argument there is that that is way to much US blood to be shed on this
war.

I find this argument incredibly offensive to those who have made the
ultimate sacrifice and to those loved ones who are left behind. These
young men and women were in the prime of their lives when they were
cut down. They are brighter and smarter than John Kerry gives them
credit for. Are we to tell them they risked their lives in vain?

Think also of those who died on the battlefield in previous wars, and
their loved ones. History usually proves out that the wars we
entered, no matter how bloody and messy, were worth the sacrifice.

Consider World War II, which cost our country tens of thousands of
young lives in a shorter period of time. In retrospect, we would deem
this war necessary for preserving freedom in the US and around the
world.

Yet this current war we are waging is in a world that has become more
interconnected and more geopolitically volatile. Our enemy has more
hatred towards us and practices a more insidious form of extremism.
The fact that no one else is putting their men and women on the line
in significant numbers is not proof of our folly but rather of
cowardice and short-sightedness by others. When I consider the
alternative of leaving a powderkeg region half-secured and a war on
terror half-won, I can only think of frightening scenarios.

Don't get me wrong: I have a lot of beef with the implementation of
the president's strategy. But not with the overall intent.

Post a Comment