
A few years ago I was telling everyone that I was the last person in America to read Dan Brown's
Da Vinci Code. Remember when everyone on the airplane was reading it and everyone in your office, school or social group had read it? Well I finally picked it up and luckily for me I finished it prior to the movie coming out but it was close. Now I think I may have found another distinction that may be unique to me. I have yet to find anyone who shares this unusual set of opinions at the same time.
Last week I wrote a
letter to the editor questioning some of our local elected officials and their jurisdictions. It seems as if they are operating outside of their elected duties and I was wondering why no one was calling them on it. Well, I guess I needed a civics lesson because the very next day in the
Republic there was an article that explained how their actions were lawful and I felt like an imbecile.
So now there is this big debate in Congress about the President's desire to send more troops to Iraq. I was wondering why Congress was debating this issue at all. Isn't this the commander-in-chief's call to make? I don't recall in past conflicts where Congress called into question military decisions. I know there has always people who either support of oppose the war but I can't recall Congress acting as an entire body on an issue that they have no jurisdiction to decide. Then I answered my own question when I realized that what they are debating is not legislation to stop the escalation, they have no power to do so but rather a simple gesture of displeasure. Congress can however reduce funding but the are powerless to prohibit the President's decision. So basically what they are debating is a resolution, a statement of disapproval. That function is only ceremonial. But I am still confused. Hasn't everyone for the past four years been saying that one of the reasons we are struggling so bad is the lack of appropriate troop levels in Iraq? I mean everyone except a small group of the Presidents closest advisers namely Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz believed we should have sent more troops. didn't Shinseki basically get fired for saying so? So now, when the President is acquiescing slightly shouldn't we be supportive of that? I realize that 20K more troops is a drop in the bucket and will make little difference in the overall success of the operation. But 20K is 20K. I mean would all of the people who are against the troop build-up be supportive if the number was more like 70K?
So here is where I believe my opinion is a unique one. I thought this war was a farce from the beginning. I remember yelling BULLSHIT at the TV when Cheeny, Rumsfeld and Rice were making the rounds in the run up to the war. I thought it was an unjust war then, I think we should get out as quickly as possible and I think our presence in Iraq is making the world a more dangerous place. Yet I think it's not a bad idea to send some more troops in there. If you going to do a job get all of the resources you can. I realize that some say we are sending more people into harms way unnecessarily. But I say every little bit can help even if its incremental.
P.S. Maybe the title of this post should have been;
First a golf lesson, then a history lesson, then a writing lesson.