This is only my opinion, and not the representation of Saintel Daily, LLC.
I have asked myself this question probably a hundred times in my life, but have never been able to come up with an answer. And that question is whether or not I think war is ever justified. On one hand there is the idea that you have to go to battle to fight for what you believe in. But on the other hand, there is the pacifist concept of being a bigger person and turning the other cheek. I think there are times in our lives that we fight battles for ourselves, or on the behalf of others. We march and protest when we don’t agree with something. We speak up when other’s don’t have the strength or the ability to. Especially when they have been wronged. So if I look at it from that perspective, then yes, there are times that it can be justified.
While I am not a pacifist necessarily, I wonder if we can look at a violent type of war and still think that it’s justified? Many protests are non-violent, or they at least start out that way. Does anyone ever go into a situation and think that it will turn into a battle? Or even a fight for that matter? I do think that there is something to be said about turning the other cheek. It’s a very hard thing to do as most of us think we are right. Or that our actions are defensible. But that doesn’t mean you need to be intentionally malicious. Or hurt someone because you’re hurting. Turning the other cheek takes a big person. A person with integrity. A person who knows exactly what they stand for.
Why am I analyzing the merits of battle? I am trying to understand how I feel about the latest news related to ISIS and Afghanistan. I don’t want to get into the weeds around politics and policy. And I also want it to be known that I respect and support the military troops and their families. They put their lives at risk every day in order to help those who can’t help themselves. Again, I’m not going to get into that because I think that their job is separate. Their job is to follow orders. It’s the job of the politicians and the General’s to make the bigger, more subjective calls. I hope that none of what I’m going to say minimizes the severity of this entire situation and subsequently offends anyone.
The bomb that was used yesterday in Afghanistan was essentially one step down from a nuclear weapon. I wasn’t around during the Cuban Missile Crisis. But in talking with family who lived through it, it sounded like it was a very intense time. No one knew what was going to happen. And that was the scariest part of it all. Living with the knowledge that you didn’t know what tomorrow would bring, and then having to prepare your family for the worst case scenario. No, I’m not comparing these two situations, but what does this type of weapon lead to? I feel like the Trump Administration is leading with their power hand, so to speak. Which, most fighters would agree isn’t the way to approach a fight. I’m not trying to mix metaphors here, but if you lead with that power hand, what is your next punch going to be?
If I continue with this boxing analogy, if you lead with your power hand, you’re leaving your body exposed for the other fighter to throw a punch back at you. Leading with your less powerful hand forces the other fighter on the defense, and gives you time to work through your strategy. Do you see where I’m going with this? If you’re using your power hand over and over again, you’re going to tire out. And as soon as you do, it’s a quick right cross to the face and you’re down. So why would that be a good strategy in a military sense? I realize that this isn’t necessarily the first strike. And maybe Trump thinks that this will put an end to the war. But, to continue with the cliches, it seems like he’s stirring the hornet’s nest.
Since I’m not privy to the intelligence that the military knows about, I’m not going to make sweeping generalizations. But I still think this was a bit heavy handed. I think that Trump thinks this is a clear message to the terror groups – don’t mess with us. But at the same time, I wonder if he understands that political rules are different than in business. And I would take the argument even further that he doesn’t understand the rules of war. Again, I’m not an expert on these things necessarily, but I’m struggling to understand if there is “method to his madness” so to speak?
I will note that the article I read indicated that the bomb was dropped in a way to minimize civilian causalities. Which leaves me with a tiny sliver of hope in all of this. But unfortunately, it feels like the President is the war path. No pun intended. I will leave you with one last thought. Often times, when we go to the polls to elect the President, or a Senator, we think about the local issues. What affects us in the short term? Or what issues are popping up in my backyard, and what will this person do about that? But what we so often miss is the bigger picture. And the question to ask yourself, is whether or not this person will be able to make sound judgement calls in the face of a crisis.
I once read a book about President Kennedy and it described the Cuban Missile Crisis, essentially as a staring competition. Who was going to be the first one to blink? Do you want your president to blink, or do you want him to stand strong in the face of adversity and bring people together instead of pulling them apart?