So, I’ve been negligent on blogging about the presidential elections. I could come up with a spin and say that I have been wisely waiting for some of the turbidity to clear up, but it would be just that, a spin. Truth is that I have been trying to clarify my thoughts and maintain a modicum of fairness. Admittedly, this is very difficult for me, partly due to a few facts….first off; the war on Islamic Jihadists is to me, the most important aspect on which we need to focus. That being said, it is my belief that we need to let loose the dogs of war. We have to quit treating this as a police action and accept that it is a war. War is an ugly thing; it is the point in which our society shows its darkest side. It is also responsible for our freedoms, our success and our safety. Regardless of whether you might feel the war in Iraq was justified or not, I think that what we need to focus on is the fact that we are there and we need to finish it. We need to finish it in such a way that when we leave we never have to come back, and in such a manner that creates a chance that we have a true ally in the area. If we leave prematurely, according to General Petraeus, we will undo everything we have accomplished there. That would not only be unfortunate, not only would it demean the sacrifices of great people like Cpl Jason Dunham, Sgt Rafael Peralta, or many more. It would be catastrophic for us.

Sun Tzu wrote:“So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will fight without danger in battles.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.”We would all agree that if we can utilize diplomacy rather than war, it is better for all. The problem is that in order for there to be diplomacy, there has to be a common ground between the warring factions. That is “soft diplomacy”. “Hard diplomacy” starts with the concept that one never negotiates from a position of weakness. That is to say, you do not engage in diplomacy until you have your foot firmly planted on their throat. I prefer the latter, but accept that there are situations that call for the first type (USSR/USA diplomacy of the 80s). So, going back to the soft diplomacy concept vis-à-vis the war on Jihadists, where is the common ground? Can we find one? Let’s start with the previously mentioned Sun Tzu quote…..our enemy is not Al-Quieda, or the Taliban, or

Iran or Hezbollah or Hamas. Our enemy is all of the above and all other factions that espouse the Jihadist perversion of the Islamic faith. In that version of Islamic faith, the starting point is that all infidels (that’s us) should either be:

a) Killed

b) Enslaved or

c) Enslaved and converted.

That’s it. To them, there is no other choice. That is what is called an impasse in negotiations. From that fundamental stance, there is no opportunity for common ground…unless we are willing to be enslaved or killed by the Jihadists. So, logically, hard diplomacy (if any diplomacy at all) is the way to go. Additionally, looking at the culture of our enemy, tells us that they view talks of treaties and peace as weakness from their enemy. In their mind, it is all or nothing. You can tell this mentality through their tactics (different from strategy). There isn’t a much clearer statement of “all or nothing” mentality than strapping a bomb to your chest. Applying a very basic version of “know your enemy”, tells me that there is little to no room for negotiations. It tells me that one of the biggest mistakes this administration made was not informing our populus of what our enemy was like, and what tangling directly with them meant. If the Administration had explained to the populus and its representatives that tangling directly with Jihadists meant a loooooooooong commitment to action and it required operating from the “take no prisoners” mentality, the Administration would have discovered that we, as a society, lack the stomach to carry this out. Commitment??? Have you checked our divorce rate???

Another fact that makes it difficult for me to maintain an objective viewpoint is the fact that I believe in Democracy and Capitalism. It makes 100% sense to me that given the fact that 97% of us depend on a company or corporation for our employment and income, that if the company or corporation is paying less in taxes they will be able to maintain their doors open and afford to pay us more. I also believe that we, the employee dictate our worth. We do this through our work ethic, our education, our business savvy. I also believe that the government that governs least governs best. It is also obvious to me, that 99% of the programs that the government runs are jacked up beyond belief (Medicare/Medicaid/ Social Security ring a bell?). I believe that lower taxes on both the corporations and the individual promote and stimulate the economy. I believe that increasing taxes on either is detrimental. I believe that hand-outs are bad, as they create and encourage a dependent atmosphere between the people and its government. Let us remember that ours is supposed to be a government Of the People, By the People and For the People. That does not describe a dependant relationship. It describes government is there to serve US, not to CONTROL us.

In short, voting for a candidate that does not understand the difference between strategy and tactic, that does not recognize that the “War on Terror” does not have a geographical border, that socializing anything is the wrong answer, that “the surge” worked, that our Military Strategy has been since after WWII built around the concept of being able to fight a war on two fronts, that there are times to talk and times to just destroy your enemy, is an impossibility for me.