Life is full of choices, isn't it? Every day, from start to finish, we all make choices in the form of decisions made and actions taken, conscious or not. Sometimes the choices made are difficult, take a little pondering. Sometimes the choice is an easy one and leaps out at you with very little thought.
Yesterday, for lunch, my husband found a little place serving Vietnamese food. He tried it and enjoyed it, mostly because tripe was on the menu. To me, that is a disgusting choice of food. He, on the other hand, enjoys it from time to time. As a frequent world traveler, it behooves him to be an adventurous eater.
My husband is a person who has never met a stranger in his life. He enjoys striking up a conversation with whomever is sitting next to him, anyone within polite conversing range. Yesterday at this little lunch place he was seated next to a table of three men. Turns out one of the men was a soldier, about to be re-deployed to Afghanistan. When it was time to pay the bill for the table, my husband voiced a desire to buy the soldier his lunch. He politely thanked him and refused the offer. His friends had it taken care of, in one bill for the table combined. He was surprised my husband wanted to buy a stranger's lunch. My husband told the soldier it was the very least he could do for someone traveling across the globe for his family, a second time. The very least.
Some news continues of the travels of failed former president, Jimma Carter. Seems he's been in Ireland, trolling for funds for his foundation. He scored an agreement from the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs to provide $600,000 euros over the next three years to support "election monitoring and democratic reform." To secure the financial windfall, Carter was happy to bash our country abroad, again. While still at war, Carter resorted to the bad choice of claiming the U.S. has lost its leadership in human rights post 9/11. This from the man who brought about our current predicament in the war on terror by his poor choices while in the oval office.
He bashed the Bush administration who is showing support for Fatah in Palestine over Hamas. He supports Hamas. This is a difficult choice for our country but the lesser of two evils. That is what some difficult decisions amount to in life. Sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Carter, as usual, chose wrong. Again.
Hamas is a terrorist organization, as is Fatah. Hamas, however, boldly continues to state that the party will never, never recognize Israel and will continue to hold the destruction of Israel as its mission. The U.S. is left to offer help to Fatah, and President Abbas, in order to help protect Israel. The choice was helped along, certainly, as stories of the brutality of the Hamas thugs filtered out in the media. The thugs were, among other actions, forcing boys as young as 12 to the roof of a multi-story building with bound hands and taped mouths and pushing them to death. They are not troubled by killing their own fellow Palestinians. It's all about their blood thirsty quest for taking over the territory and then destroying Israel, with the help of their partners in Syria and Iran.
The choice becomes quite easy if Israel is threatened next.
I listened to two different experts in foreign affairs last night. Both said basically the same thing. One was a former terrorist now living in the U.S. and writing about the issue of peace in the region. The other was an Israeli diplomat. The conclusion both came to in these separate interviews was the same. Sometimes the enemy of freedom must be killed. As with the new offensive in Iraq, the enemy must be killed, no longer just pushed out of the area of conflict. Just killed. It's harsh to our ears, I know, but it is war and we must fight to win. Anything less is a waste of blood and treasure. We must let the soldiers do their job. Get out of their way and let them go. All the politically correct waging of war is costing too many lives.
Michael Yon has a new post up on his site. Still embedded in Iraq, he knew of the current new campaign in Iraq to kill al-Queda in the outlying areas of Baghdad before it began. He was given a heads up, if you will. He chose to honor his professional and personal commitment to the soldiers and not report on the mission until it was already underway. His kind of integrity is a welcome change of pace from those in the media bound and determined to support our defeat in Iraq. He is convinced from previous missions in Iraq that General Petraeus is the man for the mission. He points out the Defense Department's previous errors and missed opportunities and how Petraeus should have been in charge a long time ago. He thinks Petraeus can still be successful there, even with all the cards stacked against him both there and at home. It's a fascinating read. Go check it out.