Rich Casebolt

Comment over at blackfive that I thought was worth saving here.

Comment below written by: Rich Casebolt

Skyview ...

I honestly think you can peg the Republican loss to one statement alone: Cheney's assertion that a vote for the Democrats sends the message to the terrorists that America doesn't have the stomach for the fight. It's an overt and explicit insult to any American giving thoughtful consideration to who to vote for.

In the light of what the Democratic leaders have been saying since 2003 ... and the statements of several terrorist/totalitarian leaders ... Cheney's statement is also awfully close to the truth.

I don't think, however, that he insulted that many people. I think that the questions you list:

Voters swung blue this cycle because they were not reassured about some elemental questions regarding the war: Weren't we supposed to have won by now? How long is this going to last? What is it going to take to win?

were more of a factor, along with ... why Iraq?

These questions also make a statement ... regarding our judgment as citizens.

We seem to think that the justifcation for war must be based upon specific evidence of specific acts (documented in a manner reminiscent of CSI) ... and that our response must be limited to resolving those specific acts ... else we risk waging an unjustified war.

The rational justification for this war, however, is far, far simpler than that ... even simpler than WMD ... but the American people are uncomfortable with accepting that justification -- for "we the people" have also been conditioned over the last 50 years or so to make the prevention of American mistakes our highest priority ...

... even over the prevention of enemy intent.

OTOH, the specifics-based justification above is what was the driving force behind Desert Storm ... and the limits associated with those specifics is what left Saddam in power afterwards.

Desert Storm ... which can now be shown to have ended prematurely, due to media and diplomatic pressure against our government ... also reinforced the conventional wisdom that only wars that can be quickly and "neatly" won are worth fighting.

That leaves the American people looking for two choices ... win quickly ... or just leave; after all, it probably wasn't that big of a threat to us, anyway.

However, what if the right choice ... is another choice altogether?

What if we can't win quickly ... or we can, but it means the deaths of millions in all-out, indiscriminate, nation-on-nation warfare ...

... yet the threat, while limited in its reach today, can leverage technology and freedom-of-movement to expand its reach to the point it severely disrupts civilization itself -- with the plausible potential of growing into an existential threat against our civilization?

Do we have the wisdom to discern the course that resolves what I have described in the last two paragraphs ... without unleashing a full-blown World War?

WWII-style sacrifice is not what is needed now; in fact, it would be counterproductive to the war effort.

The answer lies in the application of two items:

One, precision-guided ruthlessness ... where the difference between actions that lead us to watch your back, and actions that lead us to end your life, is very narrow and sharp. The Administration has not made this difference sharp enough ... to its discredit.

Two ... RESOLVE.

We need to quit asking "how long" ... accept the truth about the "how" ... and accurately discern the "why", by spending less time in self-flagellation and more time examining the need to flog this clearly-evident enemy.

Or, we will lose, not just this war, but some ... perhaps, a lot ... of our ability to live free and pursue happiness.

How "American" is that?