|
God, I never thought there would be such a fierce clash of opinions on TFL. But, then again, the thought of three commercial jets being flown as kamikazie missions into the world's most widely recognized and heavily populated buildings was an abstract at best.
Again, what is an appropriate level of military retaliation? Is there any historical precedent for an action taken to avenge the lives of ten or twenty or more thousand innocents lost in a single act? That's not a rhetorical question. There are those here who are steeped in military history. Is there a formula or ratio to be applied?
Politically--and by that I mean the mood of the body politic, not Repub's vs. Dem's--the public will not be satisfied by the mere transfer of Usama bin Laden and a few of his gang to our custody. Some will feel that the punishment is insufficient; others will feel it's appropriate. Most, however, will not be satisfied unless an at least equal number of the enemy die, and their deaths are broadcast on CNN.
If he does anything less, Bush will be denounced as a weak leader. If he does anything more, his opposition will raise the issue of executions in Texas under his governorship as additional proof that he is bloodthirsty.
Clinton got off easy: launch a couple of cruise missiles and keep his pants up when the cameras were on. Bush faces the greatest domestic and military crisis in sixty years. His actions will directly and likely fatally affect tens of millions of world citizens for decades to come.
That's some heavy baggage for a dumb-as-dirt backwater Texas fratboy.
Anybody else want to make these decisions?
|