Reflecting a bit on why it is I seem to have such a visceral draw to supporting the Bush administration's actions with regard to Iraq, I ask myself, were another leader in place going the easier, pacifist route, would I be as strongly in support of him against his critics? (As an aside, have no doubt, that no matter what route an American leader took, there would be plenty of vocal opposition.) I have to think that the answer is probably, yes. Unless I were very, very sure that the goal or effect of what I was seeing were unequivocally immoral or disastrous - and the odds are fairly slim that that would be the case - I'd probably defer to the people in power. I remember being disgusted with the vicious knee-jerk attacks on Clinton, so that the man couldn't get anything done without it being sabotaged or his motives called into question. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I see the new opposition isn't doing much better than the old.


"No Blood for Oil," "Not In Our Name," "All Life Is Precious," and the thousand other trite expressions parroted by the peaceniks sound nice, but what do they amount to, really? Does anyone have an alternative path? Another plan? One that they can not only articulate, but put into play? The answer is no, they don't.


What nations need are not slogans, but policies. That means comprehensive plans of action that seek to achieve certain goals. These are plans that must not only take into account real life conditions, that is, they must be externally practical, but the infrastructure must be there to make them happen, that is, they must also be internally practical. In the case of our government, that means that it has be a course of action that the government in power can and is willing to put into place. That means giving the Bush administration our backing, not nit-picking every last policy goal. It becomes a bit childish after awhile doesn't it? The opposition didn't get what it wanted by getting their man in (although, according to Ken Pollack, Gore was one of the Clinton hawks on Iraq), so now all they do is seek to stifle. Half-enacted policies can be worse than no policy at all - and no policy at all just isn't going to happen.


When confronted with the question of how they'd handle things if they had the power, it's amazing how devoid of content the opposition is. The UN certainly has no long-term answer. They're content to have the US and UK stay ad-infinitum in the north and south of Iraq, as the sanctions slip into meaninglessness and our standing with the people of the region and the world suffers a slow war of attrition as we're blamed for being simple bullies. There is no exit strategy offered by these people.


Cutesy sayings reminding us of America's checkered foreign policy past are nice if you're a college student or professor who needs to do nothing but criticize, but the folks who's decisions actually matter don't have that luxury. So the USA overthrew the Allende government. Sorry, but...so? That means what, exactly? We wring our hands, tear up the Constitution, tear down the halls of government and proclaim the USA a failed experiment? Of course not, and it doesn't do our elected leaders one bit of good to consider doing so.


Look at the past so as not to repeat its mistakes, but then move on. You don't wallow in them forever. No good leader would ever do so, and no good leader would ever constrain his or her people's push into the future by being obsessed with these errors. Either articulate a plan or get out of the way.


I am anxious to give my support to a leader who seems to be looking to the future, who has a comprehensive policy...and right now, Bush is the "Man with a Plan."