As the book of Ecclesiastes says, there is a time for war and a time for peace. Yes, it is always better if you can solve a problem without war, but sometimes you have to speak the language of those with whom you are dealing. There simply is not always a peaceful solution. You have to weigh the costs of not taking action against the costs of taking it. In this case I believe the costs of not taking action were higher.

Mark,

While much of what I said can be garnered by reading past news articles, a good place to start is George Friedman’s book:

http://www.americassecretwar.com/

You stated: “Much of Al’Qaida escaped that attack. Invading Iraq was a strategic necessity in order to pressure the Saudis to cut funding for Al’Qaida. Additionally, I believe that Saddam Hussein was assisting Al’Qaida (though many deny it). There was a real fear that Al’Qaida had nukes or was close to acquiring some after 9/11. While it did put us in a harder place than was expected, Al’Qaida has been greatly weakened because of our efforts there.”

Would be interested to know the basis for your claims on these matters.

‘course…just thinking out loud…I don’t see why the said lobbyists can’t redirect their energies elsewhere to accomplish that goal.

Brian, there are so many ideas about the war, and where it should go, and what we’re really doing with it…but for me, myself, and I (along with my vote and my taxdollars) think that there are more productive ways to bring about change. There’s more ways to get what we want than with guns and force. And, in the end, I’d like to see America admit to a level of personal responsibility (a theme I hold to across many parts of the spectrum of life) instead of always villifying those who don’t do what we want, respond with subservience, or whom strike back. jmho.

Mark, the invasion of Afghanistan was not the success it was made out to be in the press. Much of Al’Qaida escaped that attack. Invading Iraq was a strategic necessity in order to pressure the Saudis to cut funding for Al’Qaida. Additionally, I believe that Saddam Hussein was assisting Al’Qaida (though many deny it). There was a real fear that Al’Qaida had nukes or was close to acquiring some after 9/11. While it did put us in a harder place than was expected, Al’Qaida has been greatly weakened because of our efforts there.

The big disaster would be a lopsided balance of power in the region favoring Iran. Right now we are holding them off (I’m not entirely opposed to military action against Iran either). With patience, things will stabilize in Iraq and we can move out. (even the NYT, a bastion of left-wing anti-war sentiment, has admitted that the troop surge is starting to work).

If you put this war into perspective with wars throughout history, the loss of American life is relatively tiny. Estimates for World War II place American military deaths at 400,000.

I thank your family’s hero veteran for the price paid.

I read recently* that when RR came into office there were less than 500 registered lobbyists in DC. Now, we have over 35,000.

(*read this online at a reputable web site: NYT, WSJ, LATimes … one of those. Don’t remember the exact numbers, but I’m close, and certainly in terms of proportion. Don’t know if the source is correct, however. I could be completely off on this one.)

DRP is going against lots of people who have a vested interest in the status quo.

Not sure how he is going to be able to do that.

You are the most polite blog host.

I’m afraid I’m not as polite myself.

To the tax discussion, although I’ve not seen the video, I am familiar with it. I’ve been looking at our tax structure for years and know that there is no law requiring that we pay taxes. I’ve gone back-and-forth on tax issues, but have come around to the thought that we need a flat tax. You pay X% of your income. Everyone. No exceptions.

Easy.

Income x X% = Tax

No deductions.

One of the greatest benefits of this is that we take away a large, large amount of power from our representatives in Washington (good thing). No more tax breaks for special interest groups. No more special deals for this or that project. No more “incentives” for the senator’s sister’s husband’s friend’s daughter’s land deal (with $90K cash kickbacks in the freezer, of course).

I spent some time on Dr. Paul’s web site early this morning. Some nice statements on his “issues” page — and lots I agreed with, and some that I didn’t — but honestly, I wanted more policy. Realize, however, that at this stage in the process, policy is a detriment to a candidate.

Didn’t see anything on his site about eliminating the income tax. He does talk about lower taxes. As I’ve said, I don’t care about the “lower taxes” rhetoric, I’m more concerned about fairer taxes. If we eliminate the income tax, where will the federal govt get its money? I do believe that there is a legitimate role (somewhat limited) for government to play, and as citizens, we have to provide funds to pay for that. I’ll have to do some research to see what proportion of federal income comes from income taxes vs. other sources.

Brian: I think that everyone in this country, regardless of political affiliation, was all for going after the 9/11 terrorists. Some of us just think that the Iraq misadventure was the wrong way to go about it. If we leave Iraq, YES, we’ll have a huge disaster.

We’ve been there for years and we have one now.

We can stay there for many more years and we will still have a huge disaster.

What are your solutions? I would honestly love to hear them. We aren’t getting any out of Washington.

What is the reality that we are ignoring? I believe that the Middle East is a culture so fundamentally different from our own. I don’t believe that we are going to be able to foment change in the near term. And by the near term I am thinking many decades, not the next election cycle.

“Stay the course” isn’t a solution. We’ve been “staying the course” for years and the only thing that changes is the cost to our nation in blood and money.

And our families — my family — is paying the price. My family has paid the price in blood. I wish I thought that it was worth it.

If Fred doesn’t run, or doesn’t win the primary, who is your next choice? Does his hesitancy to declare intentions bother you at all?

Ron Paul has some interesting ideas. I’m highly in favor of a minimalist government. My main point of difference with him is on the war. While Bush has made some significant blunders (e.g. Harriet Miers, immigration reform, Dubai Ports), I think he’s done the right thing on the war. His administration’s main mistake was not committing enough military resources to the war to begin with.

Mobs have short memories. Shortly after the 9/11 disaster people were united in preparation for an extended war on terror. How soon we forget that. We’re like the children of Israel in the desert who constantly forgot what it was like living in slavery in Egypt. If we pull out of Iraq and ignore reality, we’ll have a huge disaster on our hands.

As for the environment, I think we have a responsibility to take care of our land and our earth, but I also think the left has trumped up bogus “science” (i.e. man-made global warming) in an attempt to scare us into it. I’m far more concerned about pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and that sort of thing than carbon emissions.