Mercy! Mercy! That Dang Nabed PERCY!

Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

Shoot First and Ask Questions Later

I heard the debates the other night… A question was asked about a preemptive strike on Iran to take out their nuclear capability. That seems to be a popular foreign affairs question.

Gingrich, Santorum and Romney took a hard line…. “Nuclear weapons for Iran are not acceptable…” they declared and rattled the sabre… I guess they want to sound like they have the toughness to be Presidential or maybe get the Jewish vote. Paul was the only sensible one on the panel.

Now you would think that since Gingrich taught history he would realize that that the term “Preemptive Strike” is a euphemism for starting a war. History has not been kind in recent years with those who start wars. Pearl Harbor was a Preemptive Strike and look what it got the Japanese….Hitler attacked Russia as a Preemptive Strike and look what tit got him… Saddam Hussein attacked in Kuwait and it led to his downfall, Osama Bin Laden preempted on 9/11… not a good outcome for him, Bush preempted on Iraq and is still wondering where those weapons of mass destruction went and now Israel and our presidential candidates (less Paul) want to blow the hell out of Iran.

Let me offer that… Shooting first and asking questions later is not a good National Policy. Wars suck, as anyone who has ever been in one can tell you… They suck for the soldiers who fight them and the civilians who have to stand around and watch not to mention what it costs in human lives and treasure that could be put to better use.

People remember who fires the first shot. When I think about the Civil War the first image isn't about State's Rights, or Slavery, or the Gettysberg Address, it's about a bunch of hot head South Carolinians shooting a cannon at Fort Sumpter. We forget the retoric but remember who shot first. There is no justification for being the trigger man…. even if it means taking one on the chin first. Actually taking one on the chin first is not such a bad idea….Then everybody knows who the aggressor is and you aren't starting a war based upon an assumption. The nation will get behind a president who defends the people. There is even a name for that… “A Moral War.” If you can swallow the contradiction in terms.

Taking one on the chin pragmatically translates into “an act of aggression that kills more than 3000 people…” Less than that just doesn’t seem to carry the moment or hold people's attention. Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were in that range and seemed enough to get the ball rolling and sustain it for awhile.

Someone needs to tell these ”Presidential Hopefuls” that they don’t want to be remembered as the dumb ass who started WW3 over a "What if."