Can't

I have several issues that I intend to ramble about we'll see what actually comes pouring out through my fingers to the keyboard. But we're going to start with the word can't ... or cannot to be grammatically correct. People often missuse this poor word to mean won't or will not ... they will say that they 'can't' do something even though there is nothing actually preventing them from doing so ... or that the only thing preventing them from doing it is their own laziness or lack of desire to do it.

This brings me to our former First Lady, New York Senator, and Presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, and her statements that Iraq is a war that we "cannot win".

Now I will say that in some ways, she is right, but not in the way that she means. She means of course that we won't win because she (and many in this country) don't have the will to do what is needed to win. We CAN succeed in Iraq (and in the middle east as a whole) if we are willing to and have the desire to ... if we have a commander that is willing to accept what must be done and do it regardless of the political landscape ... saddly I don't see one of those lining up for the job.

How is she right? Well for one, we can't win because we already did. The 'war' in Iraq is over and has been for years ... we are currently in a police and reconstruction effort not a war. Does that mean that the fighting is over? No, not at all. The people we are fighting now, however, are not the Iraqi government ... and in many cases are not even Iraqi people, but rather insurgents and radicals from other middle eastern countries inciting various radical elements against the fledgeling Iraqi government.

Secondly ... in regard to the 'War on Terror' again ... we can't win and in that she is also correct; but this isn't how she meant her remarks. We can't win a war against terror because we can never 'defeat' an amorphous opponent that can dissappear for 5, 10 or 20 years until we lower our guard and then return just as unfathomable, insane, and dangerous as ever.

Over the weekend I listened to an Audio Drama of the book World War Z (Great story, very well done and the voice acting was outstanding) in which humanity is faced with annihilation by zombies (see the democrats really do take over!) and is essentially faced with the same situation - a single surviving zombie, or even a fresh outbreak unrelated to the original infection, can start the whole thing over ... they can never be positive that it's really over for good.

So, yes, in some ways we "can't" win the war. That does not mean, however, that we need to give up, that we need to withdraw our troops or our support in the region. We are no longer 'invaders' over there, but rather there at the request of the young Iraqi Government. If we withdraw now what message are we sending to those people ... what message are we sending to the terrorists ... to the world?

I've also came across a comment on another site to the effect of 'America needs to return to the 'speak softly and carry a big stick' attitude' and yet I'd be willing to bet that the person that made it is also in favor of drastic reductions in military spending, and has no concept of what that phrase means in global politics.

First off the 'big stick' in question would be the strongest most capable military on the planet. A military capable of striking a decisive blow anywhere in the world at a moments notice in order to protect american interests. And I don't mean air strikes and missles ... I'm talking conventional assault and invasion to isolate and eleminate the threat.

Some people seem to think that the phrase is some sort of isolationist ideal ... that we shouldn't meddle with other countries ... but look at it again. That's not what it's about ... it's about diplomacy and specifically how diplomacy is best applied ... speak softly (try diplomacy first) but carry a big stick (but be prepared to kick some tail if and when diplomacy fails.)

The key thing in diplomacy is, of course, that you not only have to have a 'big stick' ... you've also got to have the will to use it. It doesn't matter if you've got the biggest stick in the world; if you don't swing it at the dog rushing you you're still going to get bitten. We're no longer dealing with a world in which it takes our enemies weeks or even months to strike at us. With easy world wide travel and communications (phone, video, internet) we can not rely on having any warning or indication that a strike is coming ... in such a world if you wait for the dog to start charging you you may find that you've been bitten long before you could swing your stick.

Of course I'm not saying that we should run out and attack anyone and everyone that disagrees with us, but a known enemy who has weapons of mass destruction (and Iraq had them and had used them in the past, and had provided no proof that he had destroyed them as mandated by the UN treaty), who had gassed their own people, supported (verbally and monitarily) terrorist organizations, defied international (UN) mandates and threatened international peace can be deemed a rabid dog that can, for the sake of safety and peace, be put down.

The fact is that we can argue until the end of time about 'should we have gone in' and 'was it the 'right' thing' ... it's one of the great things about this country that we can have such discussions and arguments ... At this point, however, we are there and we need to do everything in our power to see that the new government in Iraq flourishes and becomes a strong ally in the region; free to make it's own decisions and mistakes, whose people are free to live their lives with their own rights, privledges and the responsibilities that freedom affords.

There were some other issues I had wanted to cover in regards to the economy that I had planned on covering as well, but I think that this article has rambled on longer than is good for it so I'll leave the other stuff for an entry later tonight, or maybe tomorrow.