During Obama’s
presidency
Navy Seals found
Osama’s
residency
and eliminated
the threat.
Met
with praise
and celebration,
we considered
Al Quaeda’s
decapitation
a major victory.
But our history
with Iran,
especially since
the Sha
was gone
(and given
safe haven
here),
has been
of humiliation
with
the hostage
situation
that commenced
with the repressive
revolution,
that sought
the dissolution
of freedom
and western
constitution,
now decades
of our
seeking
a solution
to their
nuclear
threat
and oppression.
In addition,
more than one
proxy militia,
including
the Houthis
and Hezbollah,
directed by
the Ayatollah,
have menaced
the middle
east
and beyond
for decades.
Recently,
the potential
nuclear threat
was met
with surgical
strikes,
diminishing their
capability.
But suddenly,
that threat
was imminent
if you listen to
our current President.
So in coordination
with Israel,
we attacked
Iran
at its most
central
and
therefore
consequential
spot,
and killed
the Ayatollah.
Who knows
what follows?
And that’s
the part
that should be
the start
of any
discussion
of war.
Is it just
an exercise
to exorcise
a demon?
Without advise
or consent
from Congress,
we could be
in a considerable
mess
again.
No question,
when
we get
the bad guys—
Osama,
Sadam,
Qaddafi,
Khamenei-
it’s easy
to rejoice.
But the choice
for
war
is always
more
than
assassination.
By definition,
war is hell,
and yet
we tell
ourselves
it’s glory.
It’s gory,
and a country’s
past
is not erased.
We have faced
this dilemma
many times,
yet despite
history’s
rhymes
and war crimes,
we haven’t
grappled
much with
nuance.
Is it a
just
war?
Or
is it just
regime change
in exchange
for more
of the same,
while Trump
gets his name
attached
to a win?
I’m feeling
queasy
that this won’t
be easy,
and really,
it might
not
be.
We should
discuss
and debate
the fate
of each
nation-state
with great
consideration.
That was
the idea
in our constitution,
because
a single
individual
should not
be responsible
for putting
our service members’
lives
or ours
in danger.