Thanks for another thoughtful response. May I ask what your brother-in-law thinks of the mission in Iraq? To answer your question of who to vote for - you could do no better than to ask him - and vote for whoever he suggests. The men serving in Iraq know what is going on far better than what you will find reported in any media outlet anywhere in the world. It is their lives that are on the line. They won't give you political spin.
Ask him = "Is it worth it?" Let HIM be your guide.
IF you are still undecided - perhaps I will spend a few minutes telling you WHY I am wholeheartedly FOR Bush.
And no - I DON'T agree with everything Bush has done. I would have done a lot of things differently - but I was not in position to make the decision and I certainly don't have access to the data he has.
Here are a few of my basic points about war - see if your brother-in-law agrees, and if he doesn't, then use his advice - he knows far better than I.
1) When your country is at war, you really have no choice but to support the administration waging the war, UNLESS you suspect their motives are not right, or that they are incompetent. And then you have no course but to impeach - or vote the administration out. What you do NOT do is obstruct their command authority and undermine the moral of the troops.
2) Second-guessing every military move is not productive. The "fog of war" is not an idle phrase. When in war, mistakes happen and no plan survives the first contact with the enemy.
3) Asking things like - "is this worth 1000 American lives" is intellectually dishonest. This is only a valid question from an avowed pacifist - one who opposes ANY war - one who would rather surrender than fight for ANY cause.
4) Deaths are inevitable in war - each one is a personal tragedy. To make political points using the parents of dead soldiers does a disservice to the honor of the dead soldier who died doing his duty. War is hell.
5) Wars are best fought by relying on the competency of our military professionals. What the president should do is make sure our cause is just. He should outline what the mission is. He should make sure they have everything they need to accomplish the mission. Then he should allow them to do it - in the best way thier experience has taught them to accomplish the mission. And most importantly of all - he should NEVER use their sacrifices for any political agenda - NOR should he allow his political OPPONENTs to do so either.
6) Wars are fought (or should be) for one reason only - to protect the national security of the USA. When war is declared, then the concept of "sensitivity" should remove itself from the debate. In fact, the sooner and more dramatic and more forceful we can be - the better for the war effort.
Now - for the reasons I support Bush and/or oppose Kerry relative to those points:
1 - 5) motive/incompetency - No thinking person can really question Bush's motives for this war. To do so is to relegate oneself into the bottomless pit of mindless hatred dug by Michael Moore, George Soros and the Hollywood weirdos. The fact that Kerry has not chosen to distance himself from these abominable people are a big reason to question his judgement.
You cannot really question the competency of our military forces or the planning that was done. The quick victory over Saddam's forces attests to that far more than any words.
Nor does the mantra = "don't go to war without a plan for the peace" make any sense. This is another favorite canard tossed out by Kerry - and he knows better. I am surprized the media has not asked him to explain it, but all they do is hammer Bush with the question.
My opinion is that you make your strike in a war when you first have a plan that will utterly defeat the enemy. It would be foolish for a president to reason thusly:
"Generals and Admirals of the Armed forces - the plan you have given me assures that we can strike now and defeat Saddam within 20 days with very few casualties. But there are about a 1000 different hypothetical conditions that we have to consider on what to do next. My staff has analyzed the first two hundred of them - the easy ones. But we have 800 left to go and some of them are really complicated. I don't think we will have a 'plan for the peace' that will cover every contingency for another six months or so. Yes - I know that by then, the situation will have changed and we could have different 1000 contingencies to consider, and yes - I know that by then it may take six months to defeat Saddam, and yes - I know that by then we will be fighting in the 130 degree heat of the desert summer. But we really have no choice - you know - I cannot allow you to strike now because we have not considered every contingency of what to do after we win. What if we win in a hurry, and there is chaos in the streets? I cannot allow my political opponents to paint me as not planning for the peace. Just wait. Have some patience. We will get back to you when all the contingencies are planned for."
Perhaps I have exaggerated the numbers, but I think the above is the scenario you would have to be considering if you really believe that "you don't go to war until you have a plan for the peace."
And yes - our military planned for a war in which the enemy actually fought back. In fact they 'overplanned' that portion, but that is military doctrine - to plan for the worst that can happen.
No military man worth is stars would ever submit a plan that said = "I think the enemy will give up, so I don't think we need to plan for supplying ammo and fuel to the front lines. I don't think that they will use their WMD's so we won't bother with the HazMat suits. I think that the best thing to do is just run our HumVees into Baghdad and make sure we protect the museum from looters. Any Questions? No? Then go to it."
Yes - we did suffer "catastrophic success." Our advancing troops did outrun their supply lines. We did make an "unplanned" pause in our advance because of our overwhelming success. And yes - the Democrats DID accuse Bush of "incompetency" because he didn't "plan" for this catastrophic success.
2) Second-Guessing - this one speaks for itself. Anyone with a brain knows that any military operation can be criticized in hindsight. But I don't recall the GOP criticizing FDR for the mistakes that were made in the Normandy Invasion, when thousands died in one DAY because of faulty intelligence and tactical mistakes - that were only known AFTER the battle had been fought.
Kerry has based his entire campaign on second-guessing decisions made by those who had to make a decision with imperfect data - and especially without the knowledge of how the decision is going to turn out. Kerry has been really good at AGREEING with ever decision that turned out GOOD, and being OPPOSED to every decision that turned out badly. He makes these announcements AFTER the event has concluded. This is abhorrant in itself, but what is really galling to me is that so many think of him as "wise" in his retrospection.
3 - 4) The worth of a life - This is the lowest form of attack. Everyone's life is precious. Our military VOLUNTEERs have decided to join our armed forces knowing that at some point they may have to put their lives at risk. They train hard. They are led well. But they know some of them will die. They also know that some of them will die "needlessly" because of accidents, tactical mistakes, friendly fire, intelligence failures, or just plain bad luck. They accept that risk, and ask only that we honor their service - regardless of what hand of fate struck them down - and not make a mockery of their sacrifice.
I am appalled at the hypocrisy of any politician who uses this attack line. One might as well ask = "is it worth the life of your child to allow Americans to be allowed to drive automobiles." How do you answer that? If you have children, would you sacrifice your only child for the pleasure of driving automobiles?? It is a nonsense question that ought to be laughed at when asked.
Kerry and his surrogates have asked this question incessantly. They should be ashamed.
6) Why wage war? - to win - as quickly and easily and honorably as possible. Nothing else enters the equation. What others think has no merit.
******
Say what you will about Bush - in his pursuit of the war - he has been steadfast. He has the right plan. He allows none of the pettiness of politics to dissuade him. The only way you can change his course is to vote him out of office.
If you agree with his course of action - vote for him.
If you agree that Kerry has a better plan - vote for him - and God help us all.
Nothing else matters in THIS election.
.
