Friday, January 10, 2014

The Hand You Hold, the Prism You Wear

When you play a game of cards, you play the hand that you are dealt. If you're a sober and rational person, you don't fantasize that lady luck will be on your side to make you win the game even if you're holding a lousy hand. In real life, you try to stay out of trouble when you're down on your luck; and you take chances only if they are small and you see no alternative.

When you have a responsibility to others, you have the duty to be cautious when making a decision that may affect their well-being or their lives. If material possession is involved such as an estate or someone's investment portfolio, we call that a fiduciary duty. You do not “double down” when you have a lousy hand, and the stakes are high. If you do that, you will be considered reckless playing with other people's money (OPM) even if you win.

If elected to office, you have the duty to run the public business the best way you can, but always in accordance with the wishes of your constituents. There comes a time, however, when the public is so divided on an issue, you will find yourself in the difficult position of being the final arbiter that must decide one way or the other. If the public office happens to be the presidency of the United States of America which carries with it the duty of commander-in-chief responsible for deciding on matters of war and peace, you literally hold the lives of people – yours and the enemy's – in the palm of your hands.

With this in mind, read the article written by Con Coughlin under the title: “Obama's Ineptitude in the Mideast” and the subtitle: “The president's fecklessness risks undoing a decade of sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on January 10, 2014. When you have done this, decide for yourself whether Obama has been fickle or that the author, and all those who think and talk like him, are being irresponsible and reckless.

I know what I think which is that President Obama is wearing the right prism through which he can see reality as it is. He is thus aware of the hand he holds; it is one that tells him it would be foolish to double down under the circumstances in the hope of bluffing the opponent and getting him to surrender without a fight. And this is because the opponent that Coughlin is talking about is one who fights on his home turf with volunteer soldiers that will never run out given that they breed faster than they die. This is also an opponent for whom the fight costs very little if anything whereas America has a finite reserve of soldiers and resources to fight with.

Coughlin and those who think of themselves as hawks make one big mistake that engenders a series of other mistakes. They believe that the American people are undecided when it comes to their country's continued involvement in a war that never ends. And so, the hawks call on the President to play the role of final arbiter by persuading the population it will be good for America to double down on George W. Bush's war, and get back into the Anbar Province of Iraq where 1,300 American soldiers backed by a huge army were killed at the hands of an enemy that was then a fraction of what it is today.

The mistake the hawks make is that they fool themselves into believing the American people are split in the middle when it comes to the war. Thus, they fail to see that the people of America are wearing the same prism their President is wearing, and that they see the same hand America is holding.

The people see that going against an enemy – however loathsome he may be – who nevertheless fights to defend his home and his family, is an enemy you cannot bluff, and one you cannot defeat. They do not want their president to play with other people's lives (OPL) because these other people are their sons and daughters or those of their neighbors.

But guess what, my friend; this is an enemy that can defeat you however long it may take. And while there is no way to show that such enemy has been defeated, if you can ever do that – there is a way to show how a superpower can be defeated by the ragtag army of a primitive country.

If you want to see an example of that, look at the footage of America's hasty evacuation of Saigon when it was defeated by the Vietcong. It is a sight you do not want to know can be repeated so that the armchair hawks of today will have their final laugh for proving that the commander-in-chief is indeed inept and has been all along.