Every day we are barraged with polls showing that "The Man in the Street" no longer supports the president in this or that.
Specifically, his support is below 50% on his handling of The War on Terror. What I wonder about, and have never seen, are any poll data that says the reason why folks may be disatisfied. My question is perhaps many folks do not think we're being aggressive enough? I wonder what the numbers would be if the question were asked in a different way?
The media seems to give the impression that we do not support the war on terror. I don't believe that. Somehow, I have the feeling that the question is skewed to give that impression. But, I wonder. The lesson of Vietnam, which is always bandied about, but never verbalized, was that if you find war necessary, then you see it through with a terrible focus. This is the lesson: You conquer the enemy, unequivically. You have mercy and rehabilitate him after you have conquered him. It ain't pretty, but it is the only way to do it.
THe president seems to be at a point where he has lost his fire. One party controls the presidency, the house and senate, yet struggles more with trying to be nice to the opposition rather than doing what they were elected to do. The economy is fairly steady and growing in places. It's struggling in others, such as in Michigan where I live. Our manufacturing, especially in autos, is slipping away. Manufacturing in general is going overseas. I wonder whether this will ever change. Gas prices well...that's obvious, China and India etc are bidding the price up because they can. When your people are slaves and the your industry is state owned or owned by ruling families, you can easily pay more for energy to run the infrastructure. We have a poltical mandate to be able to move forward, but it seems that it is being squandered.
(One question that legitimately begs being asked regarding the middle east is this.
If it's all about oil (energy) then why bother with the middle east in the first place? Leave them to their own devices and redirect the hundreds of billions of dollars toward North and South America to develop our own hemisphere's energy bounty. With that amount of money it would be more worthwhile to override the ecological wackos and carefully exploit the resources available in our hemisphere, and pull up the cultures to the south of us at the same time. That may stabilize our manufacturing problems if we had open borders in the West. Better to lay some constitutional republicanism and capitalism on our hemisphere than wallowing in the tribalism of the East. Who says our kids and posterity could not go South to seek their fortune? The trouble with that is how then do we deal with the fanatical tribalists that will still not be content with our exisistance? Do we ignore them in these times of wmd's, or do we destroy them? That is a worthwhile discussion imho.
Go back and read some history about Alexander the Great and you will find the most difficult people that he dealt with were the tribes in the area of Afghanistan. They were the only people he ever actually feared because of their culture of death. "...(their) religion is fatalism. They worship freedom and death. The language they understand is terror. To prevail, one must be more terrible than they. This takes some going, as these clansmen, like all rude and insular races, perceive each person outside their blood sphere not as a human being but as a beast or devil. You cannot negotiate with such foes; they are proof against all blandishment or subornation and are animated by warrior pride alone. They would rather die than submit. They are vain, greedy, cunning, vicious, mean, cowardly, gallant, generous, stubborn, and corrupt. They ar capable of endurance beyond all human measure and bear such suffering, of both flesh and spirit, as would break a block of stone." "The Virtues of War, Steven Pressfield, The marches of Alexander. Does this not sound a lot like the feudal tribalism of Wahhabist Islam? Wahhabism is merely a tool that promulgates the tribalism that has always existed in the East)
While I'm on the subject, I have great difficulty with people who say that they support the troops, but oppose the war. That is hypocracy imho. Our warriors are carrying out the war, they believe in their mission, they are volunteers. So how can one support the people who are willingly carrying out the mission? Why don't those folks just be honest and say that they don't like our culture, do not agree with what is necessary to protect it, and are opposed to everyone and everything connected with doing so. That's why I have such a problem with those on the left. They do not have a core value they are willing to defend without trying to soften it with bs in order to make themselves feel good. If we're going to have an argument about our direction, then base it in honesty and honor.
I heard a guy on the radio yesterday that said he opposes the war and the troops.
While I vehemently disagree with his position, at least he had the courage to finally admit to the truth of his position. He may be wrong, but at least he had the honor to be honest. That is why I can't respect the opinion of a hypocrite, he's not even being honest with himself.
End Of Rant
