Shake it and See
One thing we all share here, with regards to conceptions of government, liberty and justice are assumptions born of the Enlightenment. Our country's arguably most important dealings these days are with countries whose leaders have been able, through wealth, brutality, cunning and luck to curb the inevitable progress on which we rest our (mostly) secular 21st century souls. Nothing suggests that the governments of our enemies need persevere, but the fact of their existence in this age prooves at least their stubborn viability.

Let's say that in its essence, since we can't really know what's going to happen, "shake it and see" is a fair characterization of the administration's attitude towards post 9/11 foreign policy (it's sort of a faith-based initiative). Given the costs of war, it would seem unconscionable to conduct hostilies under this direction. But consider the stakes, and how bad some parts of the world are. Countries, entire oil and tyrant-infested regions, are worth shaking up. Is it keeping your hands clean to let someone else spill innocent blood and oppress millions?

It's been heartening to see many paid opinionists consider the possibility that the status quo needs overhaul, death, suffering, risk and all. But I'm glad that what triumphalism we've seen has not come from our executive. I suppose the president's learned that "mission accomplished" is a resonant phrase with the American people. We had our revolution, know to us from history books now, and I hope that what we're seeing is the start of another one. The U.S. is playing its part, but other than our military men and women, Americans are mostly not the ones betting our lives on it. Willingly and not, a lot of people are. To them.
- posted by Anonymous @ Friday, March 04, 2005