Is It Just War?

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 Shah

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 advice

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.

Strike Too

Rummy

was no dummy,

despite

his slightly

self evident

statement

about unknown

unknowns:

“Reports that say 

that something hasn’t happened 

are always interesting to me, 

because as we know, 

there are known knowns;

there are things we know we know.

We also know

there are known unknowns;

that is to say

we know there are some things

we do not know.

But there are also 

unknown unknowns—

the ones we don’t know

we don’t know.

And if one looks throughout

the history 

of our country

and other free countries,

it is the latter

category

that tends to be

the difficult ones.”

Then “Mission Accomplished”

was declared

and we 

all know

how well 

that fared.

And yet,

the Iranian 

nuclear threat

seemingly contained

for years

diplomatically,

was fantastically

upended

when Israel

descended upon

Iran’s

nuclear sites 

and military

brass;

exquisitely precise

for a military

operation

of decapitation.

Whether you like

a preemptive strike

or not

is not up to Congress

right now.

Trump’s surprise move

may behoove him,

if Iran’s nuclear threat

was obliterated.

But what 

we don’t 

seem to learn

is my very concern:

we don’t know

the unknown

unknowns .

And history

has shown

that home grown

autocracies

don’t easily

or necessarily

become democracies,

so I’m not sure

which mission

has been

accomplished.

The bravery

of diplomacy

and norms

of democracy

must be brought 

back 

to the fore

before

strike three.

There are just

too many

unknown

unknowns

for me

to be 

assured 

of safety.