Continued from Comments on the National Intelligence Estimate Part 1...

But that would ignore the benefits I received. Beyond the improved health and fitness that was an immediate result were the less obvious benefits. My self-discipline was heightened and has helped me every day since graduating the Island. My attention to detail has allowed me to perform my work more efficiently. I have greater self-confidence thus helping me succeed in careers I never thought I would take on, like becoming a successful stockbroker, or working overseas in import-export in Moscow. My determination to excel has lead to me building a business that now comprises several divisions.

Such are the benefits of actions that happened 20 years ago, that an outside observer at the time would imply were negatives.

Such is a similar point made by Senator Bond.

“Your news analysis asks, “Are we safer?” The answer is emphatically yes. Our efforts to combat terrorism worldwide have prevented Al Qaeda from attacking the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and have disrupted known terrorist plots to carry out further attacks on American soil.”

In any path there are hardships and loss. The goal, if worthwhile, is always difficult to attain in the simplest description. But when politics are used to incite emotion, and to interpret results the results will never be the best.

The war on terror has worked. The fact that we have not lost thousands of lived of average citizens proves that. 300 million Americans sleep safer today because of the efforts of our Armed Forces. That is a fact proven not in some flashy ad, or neat accounting numbers, but in the least glamorous ability of waking up and going to work routinely.

Could there have been better decisions? Yes. Could the Iraq and Pakistani governments be more helpful and effective? Absolutely. Is there a danger to the average citizen if we quickly retreat from Iraq?

“It [the NIE] makes clear that the threat from Al Qaeda in Iraq is not just to Iraqis — it’s to the U.S. homeland as well.”

Forget the politics. Don’t think of who will be the next President. The current issue is what we are doing now, and how that will affect us in the future. Rushing headlong into a situation is not an answer. Acting on emotion, whipped up because of one political preference or another, is foolhardy. And in my opinion any that would promote action without thought of consequences is foolhardy, even if they might think their action beneficial.

Without delving for implication, the NIE states there is good and bad in regard to our actions in Iraq. The best course of action is the planning and implementing of actions that improve the bad and continue the good. It may not be good for a soundbite, but it is good for the nation. Partisan politics are a great thing, in peacetime. Effective plans of action are best now.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: al quida, Iraq War, National Intelligence Estimate, New York Times, Senator Kit Bond

I missed a recent news analysis by the New York Times, and the response by Senator Kit Bond. I thank Mr. Keith Burgess-Jackson for his post bringing both to attention. Essentially the subject at hand is the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and what it has found. Depending on the POLITICAL motivation of the reader the NIE says good or bad things.

To say that the New York Times presents a bias in this issue is an understatement. By the second paragraph it is clear that they found the NIE report to be a screaming statement that the United States and our allies have wasted our time, money and the lives of our armed forces. They state that the conclusions they go on to describe, are IMPLIED from the NIE report. My understanding is thus that an implied message may not be the actual one.

“…the threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading Islamic extremism.”

That is the conclusion that the New York Times claimed was implied. This is a good thing to derive if you wish to support and hasten the retreat of American troops from Iraq. There is nothing more powerful than mothers enraged at the deaths, or potential deaths, of their children. Stirring emotions clouds facts and thought, but elicits action faster than most anything else.

I want to interject a memory I had from back in the Marine Corps basic training. After a very trying day, and several trips to the sand pit, Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams took a moment to enlighten is tired, sore, yet dedicated ‘rocks’. He mentioned that moms of America don’t want their sons to sweat in training. They don’t want it to be harsh in learning to be a Marine. That there was a huge list of things that could not be done to us, and that their eyes were all on Paris Island. Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams went on to say,

“The more you sweat in peace, the less you will bleed in war. Boys, I don’t want you to bleed so I will do whatever it takes to make you sweat. Your moms love you but they don’t know. I love you and I do.”

Senior Drill Instructor Sgt. Williams (yes, this is how I always refer to him, out of due respect and fear) had previously lost 2 strips after appearing before Congress and questioned about his training practices, so we were later told. Some would imply that aspects of the training I received was inappropriate, harsh, unnecessary and brutal. Others would focus on the changes in my life and thinking that the training, and my time in the Marines brought about. Some would label these things as negative.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: Keith Burgess-Jackson, Marine Corp, National Intelligence Estimate, New York Times, Senator Kit Bond