A Difference of Opinion

By now, of course, everyone is aware of the capture of Saddam Hussein. Brian and I were at the Hyatt Regency St. Louis this morning, having stayed there last evening after his company's Christmas party.

I was washing my face, and I heard him explain, "Oh, my God." A few moments later I emerged, and the television lower caption told the story before the reporter, who was explaining a tangent of the operation.

I felt immediate relief.

I'm not sure why that was my first reaction, but I've given it a bit of thought, and I think that's because Hussein's capture is tangible. It is a very good thing that we have the man alive and not dead. Alive, perhaps he can save lives. Alive but defeated, and perhaps those who were fearful can move on. Alive but defeated, and perhaps his allies will slowly, one by one, concede defeat.

Unrelated but still today, I went to do my duty for voting for the New Blog Showcase, and I found this post by N.Z. Bear. This week, sponsorship goes to the Liberal Coalition. Having never visited, I did exactly that, and I found some postulating about how democratic contenders might spin Hussein's capture to their advantage. Each point taken alone seems weak. I said as much, and then I ventured to the source of the post.

The weblog is DOHIYI MIR, and this is the first time I've seen it. So I read along a bit. This post seems accurate. And this heartfelt. But here's where my mental brakes screeched. The post is entitled Truth With a Side of Lies. Not the lies thing again, but, alas, yes.

The bad guys attacking our soldiers are not terrorists--they are guerrillas, engaged in an insurgency. Nor are they a direct threat to the American people--or is this an admission that the neo-con's beloved "flypaper strategy" is a failure? I'll further note that we created the current violent environment in Iraq through an illegal invasion and inept occupation.

Regardless, these statements are proof positive that Bush offers only fear to the American people.

And I have this to say. I started to comment on the site, but I believe I lost the top part of the comment, so this is a safer haven for my words. I don't address the "created the current violent environment in Iraq though illegal invasion and inept occupation." I just let that slide. But the post brought out my own thoughts, and they are not in accord with the author's. Seldom do you see me wax political - mostly because there are others who do so much more eloquently and effectively - from both sides of issues. But today - here we are. My response:

Of course it does. The continuation of violence in Iraq going on, that is. How do you stop a suicide bomber? You don't. He or she could be any person in a crowd (or car), willing to sacrifice his or her life to destroy and take the lives of others. We face cowards who are willing to die, kill those whom they do not know and may not begrudge, and give no warning.

I don't think there's any way to "win" against one. Or many.

The violence in Iraq will continue. It will continue long after we are gone, too, likely.

Is all of it senseless? Of course it is. I heard something on the radio today from a former army so and so - tuned in too late to catch who he was. But he made pretty much this same point and that it was highly unlikely that Saddam Hussein was coordinating the attacks himself.

Just a few thoughts. In an earlier post, you say "Truth With a Side of Lies." I hate this approach because everything else I'd read on this blog seemed to include balanced argument. Because person X and person Y disagree, and person Y is in power, person X labels his words as lies.

Take your classification of guerillas. I disagree, and I'll take to the dictionary.

Guerilla - A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids. (from dictionary.com).

Okay - suicide bombings - yeah, it fits either way - terrorist or guerilla. You believe one way, and I believe the opposite? Is one of us lying? No, I don't believe so. It's merely semantics.

You are correct that the people who are attacking our soldiers are not a direct threat to "the American people." Why? Because right now they're in Iraq! We have no way of knowing the outcome and occurrences of the last 8 months had we not engaged in war. Have we done any good in Afghanistan though we have not found bin Laden? Some would say that we have not. My measure is that there have been no follow-up attacks on American soil since September 11, 2001.

Would there have been further terrorist attacks had we quivered in a diplomatic corner - had we tried to merely move on with our lives as if nothing had occurred?

I have no idea. I cannot postulate because these things did not occur. And if I cannot postulate about an alternative reality, then, truly, neither can anyone else.

Pray for peace and stability. As I do.

hln

Posted by: hln at 01:51 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 908 words, total size 6 kb.