The United States government is complicit or actively engaged in the torture of terror suspects. U.S. prosecutors have admitted as much when they dropped several charges against alleged “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla late last month because the testimony supporting those charges had been obtained from informants under torture. The White House admits as much in their vocal opposition to an amendment to the defense bill set to be voted on that would specifically forbid torture by U.S. agents or armed forces. Evidence uncovered that suggests the U.S. government farms out it’s torture needs to third world countries that lack laws against inhumane treatment has yet to be repudiated, lending more credence to the notion that the U.S. condones or actively participates in torture.

At the same time that they advocate for the inclusion of torture as an interrogation tool, the White House is playing a game of semantics, something that Republicans continually roasted the previous administration for doing, by claiming that torture is only torture when it involves organ failure that leads to death or death itself. Anything that falls short of that mark is, according to the Bush Administration, not torture. Conservative pundits fall in line claiming that no written torture policy exists that can be found. They claim that no actual torture cells have been uncovered. They dismiss the systemic abuses at Abu Ghraib as depraved acts of a few bad apples. They go so far as to encourage the use of torture as a legitimate way to glean information from an adversary, especially if that foe is Islamic.

The majority of those most vocally supportive of using torture are from the right side of the aisle- the so-called compassionate conservatives. If ever there was a misnomer, it is this one. These are the people who fight to make sure that every fetus is born while stripping away funding for health and education. These are the people who lock up a harmless pot smoker for twenty years and release a three-time rapist to make room in the jail. These are the folks who loudly claim to follow the teachings of Jesus, a man notoriously described as peaceful in every possible way; a man who himself was tortured by the Roman government and eventually killed. Compassionate is not a word that describes the aspirations of these pundits and politicians.

Most people in America were brought up to believe in the Golden Rule. Do unto others and all that. Surprisingly, torture isn’t one of those things we would like to have done unto us. As such, we instinctively understand that at its root torture is an unjust policy. It is unjust because it goes against the very grain of our human psyche. But in times of external strife, and especially during this ongoing War on Terror, the Golden Rule justification can be manipulated or even completely sidestepped in the face of “imminent danger.”

Imminent Danger is the code word du jour to imply that something bad is about to happen, but we could probably stop it from happening if we take drastic action immediately. American’s now have a better understanding of what our president means when he describes a situation as having imminent danger. He described an attack by Iraq as such. Subsequent evidence has shown us otherwise, but that hasn’t stopped the White House from continuing to use this as a rationale for questionable interrogation tactics. The theory that getting information to reinforce your beginning premise is the goal of all interrogation offers ripe ground for the acceptance of torture. After all, if you aren’t hearing the information that you want or need to hear, by applying torture, one can get a suspect to confirm pretty much anything. And therein lies the first real problem with torture, namely that any information retrieved through torture is automatically suspect and unreliable. Such information, when acted upon, can often serve to exacerbate an already difficult situation, simply because the information was not true. Torture does not guarantee the truth. It only guarantees a confirmation of the torturers questions.

The second big problem with torture is that through its use, we expose our own citizens and service men and women to an increased risk of torture if they are captured or kidnapped by those who are our enemy. One of the hallmarks of America has been her unwavering commitment to human rights, if not in law, than at least in word and deed. America has been held as an example for the world to follow with its tolerant attitude towards other cultures and its more humane approach to the treatment of prisoners, especially prisoners of war. Our government spearheaded many of today’s international treaties that provide for the proper treatment of POW’s and other criminal detainees. By abandoning our legacy in the face of a devious foe, we undermine our own reputation as the “good guy.” America has succeeded in defeating horrendous enemies before without resorting to torture. Surely we can do so again.

For some, the end does justify the means. If a million lives are saved through the information gleaned from one suspect with the aid of torture, isn’t this a good trade off? The answer is not so black and white. Certainly it is good to have saved a million lives from senseless violence or death, but each of those lives is now stained by the act of inflicting torture on another. The truth is that these extreme examples of success are seldom, if ever, the results of torture. Often, suspects are being tortured to corroborate other information gleaned from torture interrogations. In no case that I know of has the use of torture saved the lives of a million people. Indeed, the greatest terror successes since 9-11 have not been stopped or discovered despite the use of torture by the U.S. or its temporary allies.

What about the claim that terror suspects are coached to say that they have been tortured while being interrogated? It would not surprise me if that were true. The enemy is not stupid and understands that the majority of Americans abhor the use of torture and cannot condone it. If the enemy can claim torture with a measure of believability, they can foment some level of sympathy from the general public and repaint their own aggression as an act against repression. Sadly, whether a suspect has actually been tortured is almost a moot issue in some cases, simply because we know that this government has been engaged in or farms out torture in the War on Terror. If we never engaged in the practice, and if we never encouraged our allies to engage in it, such claims would be patently hollow and would not be available for the enemy to use against us.

By using torture ourselves, our government has sullied the good reputation of America as being a country of humanitarian beliefs and humane treatment of all people. By advocating for torture, this government has made the safety of our citizens and our soldiers secondary to their need for information that corresponds to their own pre-ordained formula for the Middle East. And by allowing torture to take place in our name, the Bush Administration has given our sworn enemy ammunition to turn our allies against us and to justify their nefarious cause. Such is the folly of torture.

The first time my dad died I was only two or three years old. In fact, he died several times that day. My father has the misfortune of being born with a congenital heart defect. The aortic valve that he was born with couldn’t quite do the job it was meant to, so at the young age of 23, my father had his first open heart surgery. This was in the early 1970’s and heart valve replacement surgery was still relatively new, as were artificial aortic valves. His first valve lasted for about a year. The second valve didn’t even last that long, which was evidenced by the multiple temporary deaths he experienced. On the day of my dad’s third open-heart surgery, less than three years from the first, his heart stopped beating and was resuscitated three different times. The third operation was ultimately a success and the new aortic valve lasted almost eleven years.

By all rights, I should have been fatherless by the age of four. But for the dedication of some fine surgeons and their high-tech medical devices, I would have been. At the time though, all I knew was that my dad was sick and couldn’t play around as much for a while. I remember visiting the hospital, vaguely, but never did I have a real grasp of what was really going on. Eventually, my dad healed up from the surgery and got back to being his normal self.

Just as I was entering my teen years, the third artificial valve decided to call it a day. This is the second time I almost lost my dad. By the time he made it to the hospital, after feeling rather out of sorts all day, he was at the verge of death. His doctor asked for a helicopter transport to the nearest competent cardiac hospital but couldn’t get one. She told the ambulance that they had 45 minutes to get to their destination. It was a two-lane highway through mountains and rain and about 100 miles away. Somehow, they made it in time and my father’s fourth open-heart surgery was a success. His new valve would last 21 years.

Each time my father underwent a heart operation his life was literally hanging on the edge. Each time, he was saved from certain death because of the dedication and skill of his doctors and nurses. Men and women trained in the best schools, using the finest tools, in the nicest hospitals in the world.

My father has never been a financially wealthy man, and medical bills have been a constant feature in his life. Even with medical insurance, the operation he had 21 years ago cost him over $10,000. He has been on a daily pill regimen for over 30 years, which has probably cost ten’s of thousand’s of dollars. It’s a small price to pay though for your life, for the ability to be a father to your kids, to be a grandfather to their kids.

There are times when I know my father didn’t think he was long for this world. If he had been born twenty or thirty years earlier, he wouldn’t have lived past that first operation. Yet despite the costs, the odds, and the limitations of medical science, my dad is 56 years old. He is still a young man in the eyes of many, including me, but he is a man who has beaten the reaper four times. This last week, he made that five times.

After 21 years, the artificial valve in his heart needed to be replaced. The surgeons did their job as they always do, replacing his tired, old valve with a new and improved model. Once inside, they also noticed severe damage to his aortic bridge (or arch) and had to spend considerable time rebuilding that valuable piece of the circulatory system. They had originally scheduled a bypass to alleviate some arterial blockage too, but with the unexpected work were unable to complete that part of the surgery. They finished the delicate work in about four hours, but for some reason, my father would not stop bleeding and the doctors couldn’t close him back up. After about six hours, the doctor came out and told us that they were having difficulty controlling the hemorrhaging. The had to lower his body temperature, as well as pump special blood agents into his system, but so far, no progress had been made to stop the bleeding. It was looking grim. Another three hours passed and the doctor came back out and told us that they had finally stopped the blood and had finished up the surgery. But because my father was under anesthetics for over nine hours, and because of the lowered body temperature, there was no way to know how he would come out of it. We went to see him for a moment in the ICU, all hooked up to pumps and monitors and tubes. It was an eighteen-hour day and there was nothing more to do. We went to sleep, albeit restlessly.

Needless to say, my father is recovering nicely at this point, regaining strength every day. His doctors and nurses are amazed at his progress, especially after the traumatic surgery experience. This new valve should be the last one he’ll ever need.

The morals of this story, if there are any at all, could be that America still has the best medical care in the world. The doctors that saved my father’s life performed a heart-lung transplant the night before and performed several other heart operations that same week. The hospital was clean and modern. The nurses were caring and patient and knowledgeable, and in most cases very friendly. Even the housekeeping staff was comprised of hardworking people, friendly people. Maybe the moral is that we should be trying to make sure everyone in the world has this kind of care, regardless of income or social status.

Or maybe it is that the world is getting smaller. The staff was a blend of cultures: the young Sudanese man who immigrated here legally, learned English (in addition to his native Sdanka and Arabic), and is studying to learn medicine so he can return to his home someday and help his people; or the young man from Bosnia, who escaped from a life of turmoil and civil war to become a citizen with his family; he is now a nurses aide helping people alleviate their suffering while making his best efforts to assimilate into American life and maintain his cultural identity. My father’s chief surgeon is from India. Is the moral of this ordeal that we can all get along?

Before the operation took place, my father filled out a living will, giving me his power of attorney and directing the conditions he would or would not to continue living in if the operation did not go well. A formality to be sure, and one you don’t think about much. Not until you think you might need to actually follow through. For about three hours, I had to accept the fact that I may have to implement my father’s desire not to be maintained artificially in the face of brain death or irrevocable mental damage. I read the paperwork before the surgery, so I knew the score. And he knew he could count on me to make the hard choice if it had to be made. After the debacle in Florida last year, this is simply common sense. Perhaps the moral is in learning what it means to honor the wishes of another person despite your own emotions.

This surgery will cost a good deal more than my father has, but because he has Medicare, he’ll only be out of pocket about twenty per cent. He’s not any wealthier today than he was twenty years ago, living on a disability income and a small union pension, so this medical bill will really pack a punch. Like the other times before, he’ll find a way to make it work. Is the moral an allusion to the need to find a way to control the costs of health care? I know when I see the itemized bill I’ll find some very expensive boxes of Kleenex.

Or is the moral much simpler? We never know when our time has come, or whether we have many second chances. We should always try to remember that we must not stop living just to keep living on.

The long holiday weekend was blissfully spent avoiding any real news beyond learning that the turkey was indeed done. Returning to a mound of newspapers to be read quickly brought me up to speed on some of the more noticed comings and goings in the world. Some reflect positive steps by governments to improve the lives of everyday people, while others serve as shining examples of bad policy and behavior. And a few items aren’t so easily categorized.

Two Steps Forward The government of Great Britain has passed a law ending mandatory closing hours for liquor serving establishments. Declaring that it’s “Time for adults to be treated as adults,” government officials blamed an increase in binge drinking and early morning accidents or violence on closing hours at pubs. By removing the mandated service hours, officials hope that people won’t get quite so hammered since there won’t be a need to get in “one last drink.” Sounds like good common sense policy to me. Arbitrary laws that encourage bad behavior should be eliminated. And the savings from not having to enforce, prosecute, and punish needless crimes can help address budget shortfalls in other areas. We could use some of that rationality in our Congress over here.

Canada appropriated $4.3 billion towards helping native populations climb out of poverty by improving access to health care and education, as well as helping people buy property off reserves. It is long past the time when the U.S. needs to address our long-standing maltreatment of our own native populations. See the previous post (Two Sides To Every Story) for more thoughts on this topic.

Five Steps Back A Federal judge has the Federal No Child Left Behind act that was being challenged by several states for not adequately funding the mandates it proscribes. Saying that Congress can, in effect, demand that certain conditions be met before doling out federal dollars, the judge in the case rejected the case as having no merit. Funny, but I thought that the tax dollars held by the federal government belonged to the people. Isn’t that Bush told us when he cut taxes time and time again? The federal government should allocate education dollars equally among the states with few strings attached and fewer mandates, acting instead only as a clearinghouse and equalizer of funds. And while we should demand that all graduates have a competency in reading, writing, mathematics, and other essential skills, we should leave it to the states to figure out how to impart them without having the federal government demand certain tests that may or may not show real progress.

Use of torture has weakened the case against terror suspect Jose Padilla, at least according to the government’s own reasoning for reducing the charges it has finally leveled against him. Realizing that most of their evidence against Padilla in the bombing plots was gleaned from men under torture interrogation, government prosecutors lost any information that may have been credible. The result will be that a self-avowed Jihadist in America will receive a reduced sentence, possible putting him back on our streets sooner rather than later or never. Tell me again why torture is such a good idea…

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to hear a clemency plea from lawyers of convicted killer and Crips gang founder Tookie Williams, who is set to be executed in mid December for four killings in the late 70’s. Evidence at the trial, including Williams own braggart confessions revealed on the stand clearly show that the man was not wrongly convicted. His jury was not all white. Witnesses against him included some of his own acquaintances. Williams, savagely gunned down a convenience store clerk and then brutally killed three members of a family at their hotel for what amounted to $100 in the till. After 24 years of appeals being denied, it is time for this killer to be put out of our misery. Why do we continue to waste precious tax dollars keeping murderers alive? Maybe Arnold is just trying to placate some segment of society and is just going through the motions, but there is nothing to gain from commuting this sentence except further waste of tax dollars that could be better spent on society.

On the religious front, a Christian television network is suing Orange County over its lost bid to acquire the local public broadcasting station. Shed by the community college because of costs, the local PBS station went up for bid, but was awarded to a PBS foundation for a lower initial cash payment than the religious group ponied up. The religious network is decrying the process because state law allows a public sale to the highest “up-front cash” bidder, which they claim to have been. But the word “allows” is not the same as the word “must” so when local citizens banded together to save their local station from being overrun by religious programming, guess who didn’t turn the other cheek?

Finally, proving once again why America is will be her own demise, hundreds of citizens battled it out, in some cases literally, for the honor of shelling out $300-400 bucks for the new Xbox gaming system. Let’s see…poor schools…expensive energy and medical care…war as far as the eye can see…yeah, I can see how getting one of those over-rated imagination killers is high on the list of things to fight over. Way to go Consumerism!

Three to the Side Palestinians finally received control of the border between Gaza and Egypt, offering the first real tangible on their path to independence. Israel is also planning to normalize more cross border trade at this port and is allowing Palestinians to build and operate a permanent seaport. Now it is up to the Palestinian government to insure that violence doesn’t destroy these gains. They must match each step towards freedom with the application of the rule of law and as a society condemn and turn out those who will use violence to make a point. It is a tentative step in the right direction, taken in a mine field.

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has announced his intention to gain nuclear power for his county and wants to work with other South American nations to achieve his goal. While this could be the latest in a round of saber rattling between Venezuela and the U.S. one wonders why an oil-rich country with no real history of conservation or environmentalism would need nuclear energy. And with relations already frayed and the Bush Administration’s proclivity towards labeling all nuclear wanting people as enemies and terrorists, this could turn out to be a dangerous development in the politics of the America’s as well as the larger “War on Terror.” Or maybe it is a not-so-subtle repudiation of the entire Bush style of swagger and punch. Time will tell.

Last but not least was the major capitulation from the Bush Administration on troop reductions in Iraq. Curiously timed to coincide with the mid-term elections, it will be hard for people to pick at this planned reduction since it is what they have been clamoring for. But this may just be another classic bait-and-switch by this administration. The key is what starting point they use to measure “reductions” against. Troop strength has grown fro 138,000 this past summer to over 160,000 by years end. The planned reductions in ’06 should be measurably smaller than the summer numbers to truly be reductions of any meaningful size. Further, reductions are still only going to happen when certain nebulous conditions are met. Without a stricter timetable, Iraqi’s may decide to let us keep dying for them, since it is easier than dying for themselves. There is little incentive for them to take control as long as we are there indefinitely. Again, we’ll see how they spin this come next summer in the heart of the congressional campaign season.

Thanksgiving is one of our oldest national holidays, and is purely American in its origins. Ostensibly, we are honoring the European settlers who managed to carve out a living in a strange and not altogether hospitable new land. They began this holiday themselves, to rejoice at their good fortune for staying alive against the odds. Legend tells us that they enjoyed their feast with members of a local native Indian tribe, who had helped them survive by teaching them about their new world. It was a bountiful feast, filled with camaraderie and laughter and food. At least that’s the version we learn as children.

The first feast was such a success that it became an annual event, and eventually a national holiday. Today it is celebrated with a feast of similar proportions, a gathering of family and friends, and even some actual thankfulness at our own state of fortune.

Sadly, those early collaborations between the native people and the newcomers did not last. When they first arrived and began to die off at alarming rates, the colonists accepted the help of the natives knowing that to not do so would mean failure and death. They wanted to succeed, so despite their feelings of superiority over the “primitive” Indians, the colonists found some humility and paid attention. But once they learned how to manipulate their new lands, and learned about native animals and plants from the Indian people, the colonists reverted to their natural state of superiority and the spirit of that first Thanksgiving faded fast.

The centuries that followed turned ugly for Native American populations. White settlers drove them from traditional hunting and living grounds. White settlers changed the landscape to suit themselves, without regard for the natural cycle that nourished the Indian way of life for thousands of years. White settlers tried to force their religion and their lifestyle on the native people, who couldn’t understand the point and didn’t want to emulate these strange ways. White settlers eventually declared open war on all Native Americans, killing entire tribes and forcing the rest into lives of squalor and poverty on reservations. The conquest of America was an absolute success for the European settlers. We remember their success with Thanksgiving. The conquest of America was an absolute disaster for Native Americans. We have yet to own up to that.

American Indians are among the poorest people in America. Those who have managed to hold on to their tribal status and have secured land for themselves through the reservation system are in better condition than those whose tribes were officially disbanded by the federal government. Decades of corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs have rendered that department useless in solving any lingering animosity or debauchery on the part of the government and their corporate benefactors. Even as some tribes reclaim a chance at prosperity through casino and hotel establishments, the vast majority of native people live apart from the modern world. Their reality is a legacy to the deliberate actions of all American administrations from the beginning to today. Those actions include displacement, imprisonment, malnourishment, abandonment and genocide. We celebrate Thanksgiving and its tacit acceptance of how we came to rule this land. What do the Indians celebrate?

History can’t be undone, and reparations are not always the answer to every historical wrong. Sometimes, the only choice is to acknowledge what has happened and agree to move forward together. Even today as reservation councils make efforts to modernize their homes and towns, a spirit of adversity permeates relations between white descendants and Native Americans. Rightly wary of all government promises or negotiations, Indian tribes are increasing their separation as a people even as they lure whites to their casinos. The result is a continuation of their own poverty and an exacerbation of our own reticence to change the status quo.

The answer to reconciliation is one that requires an honest effort to put aside the wrongs committed in the past, compensating more fairly for some of those transgressions, accepting responsibility for the rest. Both cultures exacted harsh punishments on the other, but the Indians certainly got the worst end of the deal. Strangely though, as our species outgrows the resources of the world, we may actually benefit from a resumption of the original relationship between Native Americans and the colonists. The truth is that when we work together without trying to conquer each other we all flourish.

There may be more important issues happening in the world today than the state of American-Indian affairs. We suffer from a federal government that is at war with its own citizens as well as with other nations. We live in the shadow of a murky enemy who wants to destroy the freedom of our democracy. We wither under the weight of our own apathy as we watch our way of life grow more uncertain. Welcome to the world of the American Indian, who has lived with these problems for far too long. So while other issues are more pressing or urgent or vocal, it is never to soon to repair the rift between white America and Native Americans.

Maybe, if we really set our minds to it, we can soon celebrate a Thanksgiving that actually resembles the first one- a feast among friends who have worked together to stave off failure and death. It is time for a gathering of all Americans, regardless of ancestry.

In the midst of an expensive war, spiraling deficits, hurricane disaster expenses, rising energy prices, and ongoing tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and corporations, Congress had the courage Friday to extend themselves a $3,100 annual pay raise, bringing the salary for a U.S. Congressperson to $165,200 a year. I don’t know about you, but I am glad to see that our elected officials have their priorities in good order. After all, if we don’t keep increasing the wages paid to lawmakers, how can they ever get all those tax breaks they are passing out?

Seriously though, who do these people think they are? As an average hard working American citizen, I can’t say that many of the people in my neighborhood make $165,000 a year. Neither do the people I work with or the parents of my daughter’s schoolmates. In fact, aside from business leaders and CEO’s that I come across from time to time, I don’t really have among my group of peers anyone who brings home that kind of cash.

$165,200 a year. That doesn’t include the other benefits afforded our elected representatives in Congress. They also have medical care under FEHBP, which covers up to 75% of the premiums and all but about 15% of major medical costs. Of course, the uncovered portion is deducted from the congresspersons pay, but since it all originates from the tax receipts anyhow, congress people aren’t really paying their share at all. A similar situation occurs with the FERS retirement plan that covers Congress. Granted, you’re not really vested until you’ve served several terms, but hit that marker, and you’re looking at a pretty sweet deal.

$165,200 a year. That also doesn’t include the professional perks of being chosen to represent the people of your district. A major biggie is the practice known as ‘franking’ or the free use of the U.S. Postal Service. What amounts to free political advertising is often used by incumbents around election time, basically forcing opponents to spend a fortune competing with this kind of advertising. These costs are ultimately borne by the taxpayer in the form of increased postal costs down the road. Other professional freebies include a fully paid office staff, usually in multiple locations, again at taxpayer expense. All this adds up to millions each year.

$165,200 a year. That seems just about high enough to take advantage of the continuing tax cuts too. Those in addition to exemptions they have already created for themselves. While the bulk of America is struggling with stagnant incomes and rising costs, our honest, elected representatives are helping themselves to a bigger piece of the pie.

Although the Republican Party controls the Congress, this disgusting show of avarice is a bipartisan effort, one of the only ones you’ll find lately. And while the total increase in salary costs is just around $1.35 million, a mere drop in the federal budget, the sheer audacity of the act is what is most troubling. It is hard to believe that this raise is necessary for our officials to keep up with the cost of living. It is harder to argue that the raise is deserved for exceptional work. The current salary is miles above that of the average working person in this country, and that’s without all the goodies thrown in.
So despite all the rhetoric and name calling and political posturing, the fact that Congress managed to calm down long enough to give themselves a raise before heading back to the playground of politics should speak volumes about the real priorities of the current crop of politicians. Apparently it is okay to slash military pay and equip soldiers on the cheap. And it is also fine to slash taxes for the richest Americans while the middle class slowly fades away as jobs are exported. Better to turn a blind eye to the hundreds of American companies that all share a building in the Cayman Islands as their corporate headquarters and avoid their share of taxes while enjoying profits in the billions of dollars. Cut funding for social programs, education, even veterans services; no one will really notice. Deficits? Fugiddaboudit! As long as Congress gets their extra cash, all is right in the world. Right?

Think about it for a minute. Think about whether the people representing you are really worth 3 or 4 or 5 times as much as you are. Look at the policies that have come from our halls of government. Look at the high costs of health care and the declining quality of our educational system. Been to the gas pump lately? How about that first winter heating bill? I bet you barely get a ‘cost of living’ raise this year. But even if you got the 3-5% that supposedly makes that even, your annual total was probably just breaking even to begin with. I don’t know about you, but at $165,000 a year, it doesn’t seem like we’re getting our money’s worth. If we’re going to be stuck paying this much, why don’t we at least get some people who have integrity and are willing to break out of the party mold. We need people with fresh ideas who aren’t beholden to the system.

So…anybody looking for a good paying job?

(Some information used to support this article can be found here: http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343  Salary information is taken from an AP report printed 11-19-05.)

Waging War on Americans

According to the FBI’s latest annual uniform crime report, the Bush Administration is doing a spectacular job in combating what is surely this nation’s number one problem- marijuana users. In fact, more people were arrested for marijuana offenses last year than at any time in this country’s history. Over 770,000 people were cited for marijuana related violations in 2004, but nearly 90% of them were charged only with possession. I don’t know about you, but I feel much safer knowing that the supply of sandwich baggies will now surely increase with these people off the streets.

When are Americans going to stand up and say enough already? According to those same reports, over 96 million Americans have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetime. That represents nearly a third of all people in this country. Of the 19.1 million regular users of illegal drugs, over 75% of those users choose marijuana as their drug of choice. Medical marijuana users notwithstanding (but currently prime targets for the Bush Justice Department), it would seem that marijuana is the drug of choice for a vast majority of people who would rather not drink alcohol for their weekend high. The simple fact of such widespread acceptance of what is basically a harmless intoxicant flies in the face of governmental attempts to eliminate the drug, which have been only marginally successful at best. In fact, studies show only a small decrease in usage among high school students since the beginning of the “Just Say No” and D.A.R.E. programs.

I have previously written about the drug war, its lunacy and wastefulness of people and tax dollars in my essay Ending the War on Drugs, but it bears repeating again. The War on Drugs is nothing more than a War on the American People, and not just those who use pot, but on all of us. Much of this increased enforcement is being done at the behest of the White House. It seems that tracking down pot smokers is of higher importance than tracking down terrorists like Osama bin Laden.

In study after study, marijuana has been shown to be less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and even many legal prescription drugs. In fact, the FDA has approved prescription medication that has as its main ingredients a simulated form of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. The obvious hypocrisy of allowing those things to be legal while outlawing marijuana itself isn’t lost on most Americans either, who would rather see use decriminalized and treated than have smokers locked up. This war on pot serves only to create a criminal class where none should exist. It ties up precious tax dollars. It destroys honest, hard working people.

Legislators, for their part, are nothing more than cowards to allow this to continue unchecked. I have yet to hear of a single elected federal official even broach the subject of decriminalizing marijuana. Instead, they skirt the issue or march lockstep with the propaganda, claiming to fight for and protect Americans while allowing the feds to hunt down and lock up average, otherwise law abiding citizens.

The War on Drugs, especially the wrath against marijuana is a waste at so many levels it boggles the mind. Is this really the biggest problem we face today? If it isn’t, why are we wasting so much time and money to eradicate it? Decriminalization would save money and save lives. It would eliminate the black market trade, the gang turf wars, the illegal smuggling, overcrowded prisons; the list goes on and on.

Pro-Life or Pro-Birth?

It’s time to stop allowing the opponents of abortion to label themselves as pro-life. What they really are is pro-birth. They spend their time fighting over the rights of the unborn, the frozen embryo, and the sanctity of life inside the womb, yet turn around and gut social programs that would actually improve the lives of the very people they say they are fighting for. Talk about another case of speaking out of ones rear end.

Pro-birth advocates use religion as the main basis in their arguments against abortion, but when religion is turned back on them regarding the social responsibilities of society in general, they balk at the chance to be consistent in their beliefs. Pro-birth advocates are less about saving and improving the quality of life than they are interested in controlling the behavior of everyone with a penis or vagina. Their aim is not to protect and increase the quality of life, something that the term “Pro-Life” alludes to, but instead they seek to force a religious point of view, specifically their own, on to the rest of the world around them. Curiously enough, abortion statistics show that those of faith are just a likely to have an abortion as those without faith, and Catholics, who are staunchly anti-abortion (at least according to official doctrine) receive over 30% of abortions in a given year.

A true Pro-Life stance would include promoting a social atmosphere that provided accurate information about the cause of pregnancy without all the scare tactics of abstinence only programs. A Pro-Life stance would seek to make access to health care and education more important than punishing a poor, single woman and an unborn child to a lifetime of poverty for an error in judgment or poor planning. Pro-Life should mean working to improve quality of life for the living, defending the freedom of the living, and promoting the welfare of the living. Pro-Birth, on the other hand, cares only about making sure people are born and cares nothing for the circumstances they may be born into.

How many conservative “Pro-Lifers” are taking in the children who would otherwise be aborted? How many abortion protestors are offering to adopt and pay for the pre-natal care of young pregnant women? The answer is few, very few. Instead, these Pro-Birth advocates seek to make it more difficult for people to prevent pregnancy in the first place, as is evidenced by the this administrations refusal to let the FDA pass the Plan B morning after pill that could preclude any need for abortions at all. They go so far as to bemoan the recently discovered vaccine that prevents cervical cancer at a rate of 100% because it will diminish their arsenal in their abstinence only endeavors. (Abstinence only classes are quite the joke anyhow. Telling people with raging hormones not to have sex at any cost while they live in a society that is agog with sexual innuendo and imagery is like throwing a dead horse in a hungry lion’s cage and telling him not to eat. Guess what happens?)

For all their talk of activist judges and the rule of law, the conservative anti-abortion foes can’t accept the fact the abortion freedom IS the law of the land and has been for over 25 years. The fact that they continually seek to have these laws overturned shows again their own hypocrisy, since it is now them who seek to install activist judges who would re-legislate from the bench. For more thoughts on this, read my previous post, The Abortion Debate.

Like the War on Drugs, the abortion debate is nothing more than a smokescreen devised to demonize portions of the population while distracting the American people from the fact the their government is corrupt, uncaring, and unequal to the promise of freedom and democracy.

For over 200 years, Americans from all walks of life have answered their country’s call to arms during times of war. They have sacrificed their security, their future, and their lives to defend this country and our way of life. They march, sail, and fly into battle at the behest of our leaders with a single thought: protect American freedom and lives. They endure hardships and experience horrors most of us can never really comprehend, and they do it without thinking twice. America has been engaged in many wars over the course of our history, some of them righteous, others less so. But no matter the reason for conflict, when the military is ordered into action they go. It is this unwavering devotion to duty that makes our military among the finest in the world.

As we remember those who have fallen and those who are still fighting on this Veteran’s Day, we must try to separate the conflict from the men and women who go off to fight it. We must remember that these people did not create the wars they are sent to fight. They do not decide what weapons to use, what enemy to target, what building to destroy. They operate on orders from our civilian leaders, funneled through the military command. They just do what they are told to the best of their ability. They do it because they have to. They do it out of honor. They do it for us.

We must always remember that regardless of how we may feel about a particular conflict, we can never allow our feelings about war to denigrate those who would stand and fight for us. In the 1960’s and 70’s, American soldiers were demonized by average citizens because of widespread discontent with the war in Vietnam. No matter how wrong American policy may have been at that time, it was not the soldiers who deserved condemnation.

The war in Iraq has been drawing comparisons to the Vietnam conflict almost since it began two years ago. Some of those comparisons may be dead on, others a bit off the mark. But if average Americans learned anything in the years following Vietnam it was that our soldiers are not our enemy. There will always be atrocities in war and there will always be people in and out of uniform who betray the cause by acting in ways that bring shame to themselves and to our military. Prime examples of this include the horror of My Lai and the despicable actions at Abu Ghraib. But we must strive to remember that as a whole, our men and women in uniform work hard to live up to the high expectations we have of them. Americans no longer blame the military en masse for the acts of a few bad apples. We know that those who would fight for us deserve better than to be painted with such a wide brush.

On this Veteran’s Day, I hope that you will take a moment to honor those who have fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Honor those who have fallen in the wars of yesterday. If you have a veteran in your family, offer them thanks. If you see a veteran on the street, shake their hand, buy them a cup of coffee, throw a few dollars in their tin cup. Take time today to remember the service they have given in your name and the sacrifice they have made for all of us.

Fighting the battles of war is the job of the military. Fighting the politics of war is our duty. Tomorrow will bring another day of fighting and death abroad. Tomorrow will give another chance to confront the political machinations that have brought this war upon us. But for just one day, today, let’s forget about the politics of war and remember the warriors.

“Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.” –King Whitney Jr.-1967

I began writing for Common Sense almost a year ago as a place to formalize my own political and social beliefs. It was important for me, as an individual, to really examine the issues of the day and come to some sort of conclusion about how I felt about them. But as I wrote each essay for myself, it became apparent that I needed to share my thoughts with other people, partly to get some feedback from people I didn’t know and partly because the act of writing solely for oneself can lead to abandoning the project entirely. I didn’t want to stop writing, so I began the blog. I thought that if people began to read what I wrote, and offer comments and their own ideas, then I would have the momentum to complete what has become, for lack of a better term, my political platform. Surprisingly, it worked out pretty well. And to each and every one of my readers, I offer my thanks.

I always knew that a day would come when the underlying political philosophy that I was developing would be completed and I would have to decide what I would do next. Somewhere along the line, I decided to try and turn these essays into an actual book, with the hope that I could find a publisher who could help launch my thoughts for reform to a larger audience. In that vein, I have been diligently compiling essays, putting them into manuscript form, preparing proposals and researching agents and publishers. There is still some work to do, but if all goes well, I should be ready to begin shopping Common Sense around within the next few weeks. I have no idea how far I will get, but if the comments from readers are any indication, there is not only a market for these ideas, there is a desire for reform that is not being met by the political masters of the day.

But as I come to the conclusion of this particular project, I am left asking myself “What next?” Writing for the blog, and conversing with all of you through the comment sections, has been as enjoyable as it has been energizing. But I think that all my writings about reform and change could become little more than hollow meanderings if I simply let it stop here. With that in mind, the answer to my question became clear. It is time to move from simply writing about change to actually working for change.

What does that mean? Well, for starters, I have begun a project with some other political bloggers who also sense a need for political reform. This project is still in its infancy, but our goal is to create a vocal presence in communities across the country, in an effort to stoke the embers of reform. There is growing unrest among average citizens about the direction of our government, but little being talked about with regards to reform. The Republican Party is awash with scandal and corruption and has become little more than a PR firm for ultra-religious conservatism or corporate hegemony. The policies of the ruling political party is not leading America to a better place, but only serving to divide us for their own power-hungry aims. But the Democrats seem to have fallen down on the job too, failing to offer any kind of rebuttal to the Republicans. They are cruising on a wave of old ideas and little else, and of course, are also corrupted by the hordes of special interest money that comes their way. America needs a new voice, a voice of reform and hope that seeks to give the people what they deserve- a government that truly works for them. We are hoping to begin in earnest with our planning and goals soon, and when that day comes, you’ll be able to hear about it here. At some point soon, you’ll even have an opportunity to join us in our cause, an opportunity I hope you’ll take advantage of.

Secondly, I am toying with the idea of becoming a political candidate in 2006. As an independent, there are many barriers erected to keep people like you and me out of the political realm. These barriers include higher signature thresholds for ballot qualification and a lack of financial support, among other things. I’m not one to let barriers stop me though, and will make a final determination sometime during the upcoming holidays. If I do indeed decide to throw my hat in a ring somewhere, you can be sure that I will go all out to succeed. If I decide not to actually run though, I will likely throw my support and my time behind a candidate who I can believe in, thus becoming more politically active in that regard.

What will this mean for this blog called Common Sense? Well, a couple of things. The biggest difference to you the reader and me the writer will be a changed course for future posts. Up to now, my essays have been longer than most other blog entries, in large part because I wanted to fully enunciate my thoughts for reform. My posts have also tended to focus on the bigger picture, as a political platform should do. But having completed, to a large extent, this part of my entry into political discourse, I can now turn my attention to the topical issues of the day, framing them in ways that illustrate the positions I have formed over the last year. There is so much to address specifically, and from here on out, Common Sense essays will likely be shorter and more targeted towards a current topic or problem. For those with a short attention span, these newer, shorter posts will hopefully draw more voices into the discussion. I don’t want Common Sense to become a “cut and paste” online newspaper so much as I want to interject my own views on current issues. As always, your comments will be valued and answered, so please keep them coming. Hopefully, the shorter format will allow me to post more frequently, but with the other avenues I’m exploring, it may not change my posting schedule much at all. However, there will likely be more to talk about than ever before.

I look forward to this next phase of Common Sense and the peripheral projects I mentioned above. I hope you’ll stay along for the ride.

Support for the war in Iraq seems to be dwindling by the week as the general public loses faith in the administration and it’s reasoning for going to war in the first place. Forgetting the most vocal minorities at either side of the political battle, average citizens are beginning to seriously question why we are fighting in Iraq, what we are supposed to be achieving, and how we are getting the job done. Answers to these questions are important, but what we are being told does not match up to what we see and hear. As the death toll rises abroad, our economy and freedoms here at home are taking damage too. For many now, the questions of why and what are less important than the question of when we will bring the troops home. This is a question to which the American people can get no satisfactory answer. The administration is locked into their “We’ll stay until the job is finished!” mantra. The Democrat’s solution is to “Bring everyone home now!” Neither solution reflects the realities in place, and we are, in effect, left with no solution at all as the madness continues. To answer the latter question, we must first be honest about the former questions, because the solution to ending the war depends a great deal on accepting the realities of the situation as they exist now.

To end this conflict we must first come clean about why we went in to Iraq and what we hoped to achieve. Without honestly enunciated goals, how can we be sure we are making progress? If we look at the situation on the ground, the results of the war could lead us to believe that our goals were (a) to destroy infrastructure and create profitable rebuilding contracts for American multi-national corporations; (b) to establish a pro-western government; (c) to renew access to oil reserves; (d) to distract the American public from the fact that their own freedoms were being abridged as their government sought to consolidate power and wealth for themselves and their benefactors.
If these were the goals, then success is still only partially won. We have shoveled tons of tax dollars into multi-nationals like Halliburton, and we have been distracted from all sorts of domestic trickery. But we certainly don’t have better access to oil, at least not in any way that affects the consumer. And the new Iraqi Constitution is hardly a document that embraces the West. But I don’t remember hearing any of this used as rationale for war. I do remember talk of imminent danger from WMD’s. I recall claims of collaboration with the terrorists who actually did attack America on multiple occasions. I even think I heard “spreading democracy” as a justification for war, an opportunity to help release an oppressed people from the iron grip of a dictator. So how are we doing there? Well, still no real evidence of WMD’s, no solid ties between the government of Saddam and al-Qaeda, and not quite the democracy we’d hoped for. Democracy based in Islamic law? That will be interesting to see.

If there were ever any noble purpose attached to this war, it would be that we went to remove a sadistic dictator from power in the hopes of freeing a pleading people and giving them a chance at self-determination. Even if our objectives for starting this war were far darker than this, even if our government lied and stole from us to get and fund their war, the only acceptable way to end the conflict is to give the people of Iraq a chance to live safely amongst themselves and their neighbors, with a government of their making, and a relationship with other nations, including America, that is mutually beneficial to the people of those countries and not just their leadership.

We need our government to stand up and tell the people of Iraq, “ We were wrong to bring the war to your doorstep, but we hated Saddam as much as you did and found a convenient time to take him out. We thought we were being helpful. We now realize that sometimes our helpfulness is a bit overdone, so we’ll try to make some amends. We really do want to get to your oil too, but it’s your oil and we’re going to have to do this the fair way, through trade agreements. We hoped you’d take to our system of governing, at least the system we like to talk about, but if you want an Islamic government, so be it. We’ll have to figure out how to peacefully coexist. And we’d really like to be able to help you out with your security problem so that your people can have normal lives again, but you need to really step up to the plate and take the lead. Our folks are getting anxious back home. They don’t want us here any more than you seem to. So here’s our plan and we think it will help end this conflict.”

Step one is the rotation of all National Guard troops back to the United States and to release them from active duty status. The National Guard was designed to protect the homeland and assist in times of disaster or unrest. Their absence from home was all too evident in Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Furthermore, these citizen-soldiers occupy an important place in our communities in their jobs as teachers and firemen and nurses and restaurant chefs and every other walk of life. They are not trained to be full time warriors, and their lack of comprehensive training results in higher numbers of casualties on all sides of the conflict. Without significantly reducing the numbers initially, Guard troops can be replaced with active duty personnel at a slowly diminishing rate. The impact of this move would be to assure American citizens that the pull out has begun. It would also serve to let Iraqi’s know that they would soon be responsible for their own security, but would be trained and assisted by professional soldiers who could be expected to adhere to the highest standards.

Step two is to establish a firm time line of no more than one year for the final withdrawal of American battle forces. The administration and its hawks have rejected this idea out of hand, saying that the terrorists and insurgents would simply bide their time until we left to unleash full terror on the Iraqi public. In reality, they may do that, but in the meantime, it could also reduce the number of senseless deaths that occur in the continuing daily warfare as insurgents continue the fight with American troops, killing many more civilians than they do soldiers. In that time span, we would need to stress the importance to Iraqi’s that the security of their country would soon be in their hands, and that responsibility for putting down the violence would soon be theirs too. We should be willing to provide logistical, material, and human support if they continue to request it, but only in a support role once our official withdrawal has occurred. Our withdrawal should be total, except for those requested as support.

Step three is to officially recognize whatever form of government the general public of Iraq elects to install without trying to mold it into an American clone. If that government develops and appears to include provisions which support oppression of certain citizens because of religion or gender, we should insist on a period of expatriation for those citizens who choose not to live under such a government, and provide them with opportunities to relocate to a country of their choosing. If a majority of Iraqi citizens then elect to subject themselves to strict religious doctrine, who are we to say they can’t? If we don’t like it that much, we can always politely refuse to do business with them.

Step four would be to remove all American corporations from Iraq and turn over the reconstruction to the Iraqi people. While accepting the blame for the massive destruction, we will still need to continue to pay a large percentage of the costs for this, but the money is already being funneled to our greedy corporations. We could probably rebuild the place for a fraction of the cost if locals were doing the work. Their investment in time and materials would also prove to be an incentive for them to combat the destructive insurgents in their midst. Such cooperation would reinforce the notion that the future of Iraq lay in the hands of Iraqi people, not just a bunch of greedy capitalist conquerors. Further, this would save untold billions of taxpayer dollars that should be returned to domestic issues for the American people.

Step five would be to return to the actual business of hunting down terrorists instead of wrecking societies at random, which coincidentally, is what the terrorists do. We should lead the way in the formation of an international anti-terrorist force that is comprised of troops and resources from all nations that support the fight against radical religious terror. The war on terror, though greater in scope than other violent acts, is still primarily a task of hunting down small groups and removing them much as a doctor excises a tumor. In the rare case where another government actively harbors and supports terrorist activities, this force could be increased in size and scope to marginalize and isolate that country until the threat was removed. Such a force could only be successful if a consistent definition of terrorist is agreed upon, say one that focuses on the actions rather than the ideology behind them. For starters, any act that targets a large group of civilians for no reason other than to make a political point would be an obvious act to include in that definition.

This plan is by no means perfect, but it has the effect of ending this war in Iraq while providing Iraqi’s with the responsibility to reshape their own country in their own way. It offers a way for America to regain her integrity among the world’s nations by ending an increasingly ugly situation and returning to a stance of multilateral cooperation. It would not be tantamount to surrender in any sense of the word. Indeed, ending the war in Iraq is essential if we are ever to truly confront the radical terrorists who want to destroy our way of life. It frees up our resources to narrow the battle to those areas and people who want to fight while leaving out those who would be caught in the middle. It reduces the financial strain on the American economy, a measure that would greatly be appreciated here at home, but around the world as well. It is even likely that by giving Iraqi’s the responsibility for themselves, with a little help if they want it, we may actually gain a true ally, albeit one with a decidedly different world view, but an ally all the same.

It’s time for the words “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to really mean something.

War, when it occurs, is mostly the result of failed diplomacy or aggressive intentions. In a democracy, discerning the underlying motive for military action is vital for providing a defensible justification for using military force. And a justifiable reason for going to war is essential to maintain public support for actions that result in the loss of lives, the destruction of property, and the diversion of public funds.

Most people view war with disdain. The average human being does not relish the thought of armed conflict or widespread destruction for the simple reason that they do not want to be killed, nor do they want to see their families, friends, and neighbors killed either. Conversely, most people do not long to be killers, especially not to advance a cause that in itself furthers the aims of a corrupt government. The number of armed conflicts, seemingly teeming with faithful warriors, may seem to invalidate the idea of man as peaceful, but the truth could possibly be different than the picture that is presented by a world at war.

To defend the concept of armed conflict is to accept the notion that humanity is incapable of solving its differences through compromise and honesty. Indeed, there are times when rational discussion cannot occur, simply because the intransigence of one or more of the arguing parties forbids them from even coming to the bargaining table. Sometimes this reluctance is based on humanitarian principals, such as the Allies refusal to accept anything less than unconditional surrender from the Axis powers at the conclusion of WWII. Sometimes religion is the catalyst for fighting to the last man, such as the Crusades of the Middle Ages and their quest to eradicate “infidels” from traditional sacred lands. Whatever the reason, the failure to avoid armed conflict always marks the beginning of dark times for all parties involved. At best, the only defense for armed conflict between nations is that of the nation (or by treaty, another nation or group of nations who are sworn to each others mutual defense) who is defending herself from the aggression of another, that aggression itself being of a military nature. So while it takes two to argue, the real blame for armed conflict lies with the one who strikes first.

It is easy to justify to a general public the validity of fighting an enemy who has attacked you first. Not only is the average person angered by an offensive assault on their country and countrymen, they are often eager to exact retribution to those who attacked them. What is less easy to do is justify an armed conflict that began not as defensive actions, but rather as an offensive or preventive action. To satisfy a reticent public about the need to fight, government must paint a picture that illustrates the cause of the tensions between nations as well as providing details of the efforts taken to mitigate the problems. They must then establish that the conflict is one of national importance, with our very way of life at stake in the outcome. They must demonstrate that the government has bent over backwards to reach some kind of equitable solution, and that the only way to protect ourselves now is through a first strike military action. And then they must back up their claims with irrefutable evidence of their veracity.

Unfortunately, the information government’s offer for war justification (other than clear cut defensive reasons) is anything but clear and reasoned and often inconsistent with other governmental claims or policies. Shifting reasoning for military action is a sure sign that something is amiss, for if the fight is indeed a just and right cause, there should never be a change in the rationale for the war. Any change in rationale belies the fact that either the public was not told the truth initially, or that the real reasons for the war are in no way acceptable to the public. People may be willing to die for their freedom. They may be willing to die for someone else’s right to freedom. But how many are willing to die over a political sleight, or to enrich multinational corporations who always maximize their profits during wartime? How many are willing to die for half-truths or outright lies?

The onus of telling the truth is on the government, but to get honest information, we first need leaders with integrity and who trust the American people to support whatever action is needed. The burden of making sure the public learns the truth lies with the media. They exist for one thing, and despite their insistence that they are just here to make a profit, media has a responsibility to find the truth and share the truth with the public. Sadly, the ability to separate truth from propaganda has become difficult at best.

If defending war with another nation is an arduous task, justifying a war against an ideology is even more difficult to do, especially without reverting to baseless racial or religious claims as moral authority for conflict. The fact that an army of ideologues could be scattered around the world is itself an impediment to warfare as usual, meaning a near infinite front, a constantly shifting battlefield, and a continually targeted civilian population. Ideological warfare tends to create an arena where surrender is impossible, simply because to do so would be to admit that ones beliefs were less viable than another cultures beliefs. But success is often impossible too, for the exact same reason.

Clearly, there are a few valid reasons for engaging in military conflict, among them the defense of ones own national lands, resources, and people from an armed invasion force; as part of a coalition of national militaries mutually bound to defend another under attack or invasion for no cause; or, in a limited attempt to quell genocidal conflicts and restore civil order. Outside of these reasons, precipitous armed actions should be avoided at all times. The cost of committing ones troops to armed conflict is too high to pay.

The War on Terror began with some semblance of clarity, at least among the general public. We had a good idea who attacked us, where they were, and we went after them. With near unanimous support among the citizenry and around the world, our act of war in Afghanistan was as justified as war ever can be. Sadly, this conflict came at a time when the leadership in place had not the temerity to finish the initial task and end the conflict. Instead, the current crop of political leaders chose to deflect the momentum and turn their sights towards another foe, one that was despicable, but at best only tangentially connected with the other, ongoing war. Iraq presented a diplomatic problem, a humanitarian problem, and a political problem that threatened the reputation of the mighty U.S. of A. For reasons best described as greed, revenge, and control of resources, Iraq was portrayed as a player in the attack on the U.S. They were portrayed as an imminent military threat, not only eager but capable of sending heinous weapons to our shores. We now know that these rationales are false, were false, and will always be false. That Iraq was in need of a new form of government, for the benefit of its citizens and its neighbors, is of no real dispute. Tyrannies are never acceptable to those who love freedom and long for peace. But just as war in Afghanistan was fought for a declared purpose, and almost achieved its stated goal before ramping down efforts, the war in Iraq is just the opposite. The goal is ever changing, the reasons ever morphing, the evidence increasingly underwhelming and even fabricated. The truth is starting to show through, and the reasons offered aren’t holding up so well anymore.

Fighting a foe that subscribes to a fanatical worldview is indeed a life and death struggle, especially when those doing the killing are elusive, eager, and relentless. It requires a level of honest assessment when developing a plan of action and a clear enunciation of what the aims are, what the measure of success will be, and how the conflict will end if your side is the victor. It requires a leadership that is more concerned with ending the menace of terrorism and extremism than it is with lining the pockets of favored national corporations. It requires a stronger vision than that of the religious ideologues who fight against us, a vision that comes not from an opposing version of God but rather from a human wisdom of compromise or disengagement. And it requires an acknowledgment that the act of war is itself a horrible thing, not an end in itself, not even a means to an end, just a continuation of humanity’s inability to live with itself in peace.