Rip Rowan has a question that might just be worth some serious debate….
I am watching O’Reilly’s mock interview of John Kerry tonight, and one of his guests just pointed out that John Kerry’s position on war is that “war must be the last option”. I believe this is an accurate statement of Kerry’s views. And it’s is a message with lovely resonance. It just sounds so… reasonable.
But isn’t there always another option? More diplomacy? Sanctions? Blockades? Embargoes? Nonviolent resistance? Do you ever have to go to war?
The open question, especially targeted to Kerry supporters and war opposers, is “when is war really the last option?”
Underlying this question, I sense a hint of sarcasm and the implied belief that Democrats are at heart unprincipled appeasers. I’m going to bypass that, however and take Rip’s question at face value.
I believe that there must be a metaphorical line in the sand. In order for any peaceful resolution to be effected, the threat of war must be in play. Having said that, however, war is NEVER a good first option. In the case of the war in Iraq:
IF we had exhausted all options vis-a-vis the UN inspectors,
IF we had exhausted all viable nonviolent options available to us,
IF we had been able to forge a strong, viable international coalition willing to share the burden (and while I respect Poland and Costa Rica…no, that does not meet the test),
IF our President had been able to articulate the case for war honestly and openly, without relying on faked intelligence, half-truths, and outright lies,
Then perhaps war would have been an appropriate option. The problem, of course, is that none of these conditions existed. War becomes the last option when all available and viable options have been exhausted. It falls on the shoulders of the President to advise the American public when he feels that this is the case. It is, after all, our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, who will be doing the fighting and dying.
Basing your case on lies, half-truths, and false, willfully misinterpreted intelligence is not the way to make a case for sending our sons and daughters to war. Not so very long ago, when Bill Clinton was in office, he would have been brought up before the Senate and faced impeachment. Honestly, if Clinton had engaged in this sort of dishonesty, he would have deserved it. Why, then, does George W. Bush get a free pass?
