Lessons of Lebanon
June 27th, 2006 | by Paul Merda |I never, ever thought I would be posting something about Ronald Reagan. Personally, I thought just about everything he did was not in our best interest. But there is one, one shining example of what Leadership is about. President Reagan “cut and run” from Lebanon. Yes he did. He took advice from the commision he formed and left that country while it was embroiled in Civil War. Yet, here we are today, able to talk about it and no worse for the decision to re-deploy our troops out of that conflict. It’s time the right-wing folks in this country take a lesson from one of their favorite poster boys and get us out of this debacle in Iraq…
2 Responses to “Lessons of Lebanon”
By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
This is about whether the people calling the shots have the ability or willingness to acknowledge that something isn’t working and quit doing it. The argument against “cutting and running” is the same thinking error as when a person who’s losing at poker, or watching his stock portfolio tank, says he can’t pull out now because he’s already put so much into it. It’s called a sunken cost, and it’s a failure to admit that what’s gone is gone. In this case, of course, we’re talking about the lives of our troops and the ability of our military establishment to defend against real threats to our national security.
There are times when cutting one’s losses and withdrawing, as opposed to “running”, is the only sane thing to do. This is one of them. If we were making America more safe by doing what we’re doing, it would be tragic but worthwhile. Instead, we’re making enemies faster than we can kill them and debilitating our military both by tying it down in one place and by using it up. The “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” mantra doesn’t reflect the reality that we’re on the defensive most of the time. Al Qaeda and any other terrorist group can either have their people use us as a training aid in Iraq or move them to other places to attack our interests; we aren’t tying them down at all. Some of our people there are on their fourth and fifth tours, something unprecedented in American military history; we’re sending people back to Iraq that wouldn’t have gone back to combat even in World War II when the U.S. was fighting a war for survival. Equipment, especially vehicles, is being damaged or worn out faster than we’re replacing it. Stockpiles of ammo that took years to build being used up, from cruise missiles to rifle cartridges. Anyone who shoots recreationally, like me, has probably noticed increasing shortages of ammo for guns using the same ammo as some military weapons - small arms ammo manufacturers worldwide are facing emergency rush orders for rifle ammunition to feed this war, and the supply isn’t keeping up with the demand. When I can’t get ammo for some of my rifles, it’s an inconvenience. When the Army and Marine Corps’ stockpiles are depleted, it’s a serious risk to national security.
The way the president’s team are responding to this tells me they’d be lousy poker players; if you could get them on a losing streak, they wouldn’t give up until they’d put everything they had into the pot. Unfortunately, they’re playing with our money and the lives of our military people.
By Paul Merda on Jun 27, 2006 | Reply
Indeed LJ, it’s a whole lot easier losing someone elses money… I like the poker playing analogy too.