The bandwagon is filling up.  Despite the growing evidence that maybe Global Warming isn’t all the result of capitalism’s insatiable appetite for oil and our desire to read at night under Edison’s great invention, the number of politicians who take the “Inconvenient Truths” of Global Warming as gospel—the  start of some catastrophic forgone conclusion—continues to grow.  The situation—at least politically—looks eerily like 2002-2003 and the buildup to the war in Iraq.  Like those political opportunists-turned hawks (John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Hagel) who voted for the war against Iraq based on the intelligence of impending national security doom, many politicians who know nothing about the chemistry of the environment have become converts to the faith of imminent ecological doom.  Their conversion, like those hawkish opportunists of the Iraq war, may soon find that the importance of ridding the world of incandescent light bulbs is about as relevant as the WMD threat of Iraq.  Let us consider the similarities:

            Both the WMD justification for war and the ‘certified data’ that humans have caused global warming is/was based on a number of facts, quite a few assumptions, and expectations based on both.  Iraq had previously used chemical weapons, had an active nuclear weapons program, and continuously defied UN inspectors’ demands for information or access.  When inspectors found facts which hinted at any WMD program, Saddam kicked them out.  Also, intelligence from many nations concluded that Saddam’s weapons program was alive and well.  Global warming experts point to recession of glaciers, a .6 degree increase in average temperatures over the past year, and the corresponding increase in CO₂ as evidence of global warming. 

            The Iraq war and the need for urgent action on global warming were based on official statements and actions of the United Nations.  The UN passed seventeen resolutions threatening Iraq with forceful action if they did not change their ways.  Likewise, the UN board of scientists stated that Global Warming was probably due to human activity and urged the nations of the world to act. 

            Both the Iraq War and the push for carbon emissions reductions were/are considered moral imperatives.  Those who oppose either one do not love freedom, the world, and the life we live.

            Despite the assurances of either party of advocates, neither outcome is sure, nor does course of action guarantees happiness, security

             There were many reasons for ridding the world of Saddam’s regime, not the least of which was WMD.  His support for terrorists, is blatant violations of the UN-imposed cease-fire agreement, the murderous nature of Saddam and his cronies, and the oppression felt by the Iraqi people were all valid arguments for removing him from power (all of which were espoused by the opportunity hawks).  Similarly, there are many (and better) arguments for changing how we consume energy and take care of the environment.  Energy independence will take power away from belligerent regimes.  Increasing population and more crowded areas require that we re-think how we dispose of waste, network our power, and manage our resources.  Our economy relies on a readily-available source of energy not subject to the whims of other nations who dislike us, and the options are limitless. 

            As we progress with the Iraq war towards a situation that leaves that nation much better than it was under Saddam, one of the great differences between Iraq and Global Warming becomes apparent.  While the supporters of Saddam’s removal from power have stumbled towards a resolution of the conflict, the Global Warming supporters have yet to offer any type of solution to the problem.  Most Ecological prophets speak of the impending world demise, and man’s involvement in the problem, but almost none propose any solution that does more than slow down the march of warmer temperatures.  These Global Warming sirens have given us not a single solution regarding how to live in a world a degree or two warmer, and they admit that their draconian actions may very well do little to change the warming trend on earth.  So while the Hawks of Iraq presented a solution to the problem in Iraq, the carbon-haters of the world have no solution, only hysteria to match their gloomy outlook. 

            The biggest danger the Global Warming crowd faces will be if their predictions of heat and dying baby seals turns out to be yet another portion of the cycle of the earth’s ever-changing environment.  Then, not only will they look foolish, but any future calamity will be met with disbelief and disdain.  If we think George Bush took it on the chin for his stance on Iraq, just wait for the spears that Al Gore and his friends will take in the chest for their chicken little cries for a non-existent problem. 

It is a well-known fact among political junkies that Hillary Clinton is a very ‘handled’ politician.  Her campaign constantly controls the environments she appears in, refuses to let reporters that concern them ask her any questions, and strong arms many magazines when they think the coverage of their candidate might be negative.  This may work in the short term, but the Clinton campaign only robs their candidate the opportunity to grow and face challenges that will make her a stronger candidate.  Likewise, the public may tire of the candidate that never has to answer for her answers and start to distrust this “smartest woman alive” as nothing more than politician with a hollow vision and no real experience to handle the tough challenges of being President. 

            As the primary voting season nears, the ‘other’ Democratic candidates are looking to put chinks in the armor of the front runner by finally asking her questions about her positions, and highlighting the disconnects of many of them.  And as many in the nation saw in the recent debate and the aftermath, Senator Clinton’s armor may not be that thick.  The more the challengers press her, the more confusing her answers got, and the less she appeared to really be the “smartest woman alive.”  The New York drivers’ license discussion was just one of many examples where her unwillingness to take a real position left her open for cross-examination, the accusers smelled blood in the water.  No longer will the “blame Bush” response work, as it gives no vision for the future, and no insight into what the senator really believes. 

            Further disappointing for anyone wanting to know what the senator really would be like as President was her (and her campaign’s) post-debate reaction.  She and her campaign may not have exactly said, “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl!”, but that is the message that the rest of us got.  Electing an unqualified person to the White House simply because they are a woman would be hurtful at best, catastrophic at worst.  Margaret Thatcher never played any gender card to get what she wanted in politics.  She fought for what she believed in because she saw it as right, not because she felt a feminine message needed to be heard.  Our President must be able to deal with a scathing press, other world leaders who would just as soon spit on them than sit and negotiate, and the ‘piling on’ of everyone from Tim Russert and the Media to the results of the latest Zogby poll.  A woman President, whoever that woman may be, will not be able to ask for the kid glove treatment because she is the ‘more delicate gender.’ 

            The Clinton supporters who coddle their candidate and shield her from the challenges of a scrutinizing media hurt themselves, their candidate and potentially the nation as Senator Clinton never learns what it is like to have to answer hard questions.  Sure, she is severely disliked and criticized by much of the country, but that is much different than having to make an accounting for her ideas.  As the campaign progresses, and especially if she becomes the nominee for the Democrats, she would be foolish to expect that the real Presidential debates would not involve tougher questions, and that the Republican nominee would not press her on exactly what she stands for. 

            Perhaps the real reason she shuns the tough questions is because she and her party know that what she really stands for is simply unpalatable for the nation at large.  Based on some of her quotes, one must wonder whether she believes more fully in Karl Marx’ Manifesto than she does in Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration.  Mixed in with her attempts at warmth, her ‘tough’ stance on terrorism, and her criticism of Bush, she has vocalized beliefs that sound more like the positions of Politburo members than those of the Senate.  But it is hard to tell for sure, as she really is all over the place as she attempts to cover all her bases for the diversity that is our electorate.  So no one really knows who the real Senator from New York is, and we are simply left guessing about her competency, her ideals, and her ability to take a punch. 

            Good luck to the Clinton Campaign in its attempt to push their candidate of the lesser gender with unknown concrete ideas and untested leadership to the White House at a time when the nation really needs a strong President.  My guess is that if they really want to win, they are going to have to prove that she can really lead, and that she has a vision that is right for America.  Thus far their protection only weakens her chances.  She will be too weak to compete, too weak to lead under duress, and too affected by what others say of her to be effective. 

The slow but steady comments have been on Blogs, mainline magazines, and nightly newscasts. Critics of the war are making more and more comparisons between previous U.S. conflicts and the current Iraq War, none of which are flattering. Their goal is to besmirch the current US Administration for its ineptitude, and call attention to the US’ immoral war. Their folly lies in their misuse of facts, and misunderstanding of the nature of this conflict. And the timidity of the world is blame for any extended duration of this conflict.

On October 26, Terrence Hunt of the AP remarked how the U.S. involvement in Iraq will soon have lasted longer than our involvement in World War II. Ari Berman of The Nation made the same claim more than a month ago. And Rupert Cornwell of The Independent stated way back in August that “America’s (and Britain’s) disastrous war in Iraq has now lasted longer than the US involvement in the Second World War.” Each author uses the most convenient date for ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ of US involvement in World War II to make their point, but the actual length is not important for them. Many others have also chimed in, all painting a picture of overwhelming despair because of the suffering of this conflict.

The forgotten facts are too numerous to recount, but humor me with just a few. First, World War II really began in the early 1930s when the Japanese invaded Northern China, and started their Pacific expansion which eventually led to the conquest of the entire Pacific Rim. Our entry into the conflict did not begin until 1941 only because of our blindness to the growing aggression of the Japanese, and we (and the rest of the Far East) paid a dear price for our unwillingness to stand up to the growing bully. Second, official conflict on the European front started on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. This was not the real start of hostilities (ask the Czechs or the Jews), but Europe was ‘officially’ at war by the fall of 1939. And yes, you critics out there are correct in deducing that America did not enter the European fight for more than two years, but ask Poland, Belgium, France, Holland, Britain, parts of Africa, Middle East, and the Soviet Union if the world was at war, and they will mock your isolationist ignorance. Lastly, the major hostilities of World War II ended with the treaties signed on VE and VJ days, but the conflicts were far from over. German guerrilla groups continued to kill Americans, and any Germans that cooperated with the Allied invaders. All of Europe took billions in US capital via the military, the Marshall Plan and US charitable organizations to get it back on its feet after more than a decade of Hitler’s evil and the rest of Europe’s denial and then retribution.

The personnel and body count differences between the two conflicts make any comparison of suffering seem silly. Low estimates of World War II deaths are as high as 50 million, with higher reports climbing to nearly 100 million. American deaths were a mere 418,000 citizens, while Poland lost 16 percent of its population. Compared to that kind of suffering, the current Iraqi conflict is painful, but not even on the same level as World War II.

Militarily, The United States landed over 156,000 soldiers on the beaches of Normandy in 1944 and suffered over 10,000 casualties in those first few days. While our casualty count in Iraq is now higher than the D-Day invasion, the extreme nature of the suffering in such a short amount of time overwhelms any comparison with today’s conflict. Our highest troop levels in Iraq have hovered right around the total D-Day veterans’ total (with our country’s population roughly twice the WW II size), making the current conflict significantly less of a strain on the US and its resources than World War II.

Various pundits have used other conflicts for comparisons with Iraqi Freedom (Vietnam), but World War II is the best comparison to make my point—Iraqi Freedom, however devastating it is, is no where near the tragedy and personal loss experienced during World War II. This war could drag on another 10 years (heaven forbid), and the pain would still not equal the 10 million US servicemen drafted during WW II, the MILLIONS killed, the TRILLIONS spent, and the overall lives ruined by WW II. War is never a joyous moment. In armed conflict, nobody really wins. But sometimes that suffering is required to prevent future, greater suffering at the hands of emboldened, ruthless thugs who have no timeline, and who think as little about 3,000 lives as they do about 100 million.

The timidity for real conflict in today’s discourse is the root cause for the extended duration of the current conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, and indeed the rest of the world. We fight a ruthless, barbaric enemy who values his lust for power more than he values his own sons, and yet we refuse to call him an enemy, refuse to crush him, and assume that he can be reasoned with. Our current enemy respects brute force, and continues to sacrifice its own children in the murder of soldiers, women and children. Until we respect him as an enemy and not as a neighbor, we will never see peace.

Comparisons help us develop yardsticks for how we are doing. But poor comparisons to prove an otherwise poor point only muddy the waters, and trivialize the suffering of both current and previous conflicts. One comparison with World War II is critical, however. The West’s unwillingness to tackle the problem of Islamic-Fascism head on ensures that we will some day reap results similar to the suffering of the World War II generation. That is one comparison I hope we can avoid.

I hate the New York Yankees. Each and every year, they find a way into the playoffs. Similarly, each time they play my Orioles, it seems they find a way to adjust, shift players, and steal many games from Baltimore that in the fifth inning appeared to be hopeless for the Bronx Bombers. They shift tactics, personnel, and plans, but their goal is always the same—winning.

Baseball is the sport of pure capitalists. No salary caps, wild trades for September pushes into the playoffs, and no time limit to the games. Indeed, I shudder to think of the games that Baltimore’s middle relievers have blown after building a comfortable lead. You see, baseball is not about home runs, strikeouts, or walks. It’s about twenty-seven outs, period. Many games have been lost after successfully leading through 26 brilliant outs, only to let one pitch get up in the strike zone. Each inning pits hitters against pitchers and fielders in small athletic face-offs, but each inning only matters as it is combined with the other eight. The final score when the last out is made is the only thing that counts.

Like baseball, war is the aggregate of multiple battles, with the only statistic that really matters being the final outcome. Sure, tragedies of each encounter will leave their mark. And winning ugly is never the goal. But the main goal—the only goal that matters—is winning.

So back to baseball. How many games would the Yankees have won this past year if, after their starting pitcher got crushed in the first few innings, they had forfeited the game to save their resources for the next night? Likewise, how many years have we seen the BoSox with a comfortable lead in August, only to see it vanish at the hands of those darn pinstripes?

George Steinbrenner doesn’t make his late-season trades on the basis of how the other owners will view him. He spends his money and makes his adjustments to WIN. And win he does. For all his lack of grace, Steinbrenner and the Yankees expect to win, and don’t settle for anything else. Sure, other teams often challenge them and even take the pennant from them, but that does not change the focus of the Yankees’ organization. They salute their opponents, and put them on notice that they’ll be back next time. For the Yankees, winning means the game, the pennant, and a year-in and year-out tradition. In foreign policy and especially where war is involved, the focus must be victory and success. This brings me to my next point.

Was the contest worth it? Since the Baltimore Orioles were picked to finish fourth in their division AGAIN, why did they even try? Is it worth the effort if you know that your talent and cash reserves just don’t stack up against the Red Sox, Yankees and Blue Jays? Of course it is! And despite having outspent the rest of the league, the Yankees failed to make the World Series this year. They were bested by a no-name team from the Motor City who focused on twenty-seven outs for seven games better than they did. Detroit—despite the pre-season predictions of failure and the nay saying experts—demonstrated what it means to stay in the game, and focus on the end goal. Will they win next year? Maybe not, but you won’t see them rolling up their flag because of the renewed predictions of failure. And speaking of ‘worth it,’ many will tell you that baseball is still a poor sport, not worth the time we Americans expend on it. They are entitled to their opinion, however wrong it may be.

Many questioned the Iraq war from the beginning, and they are also entitled to their miss-guided opinion. The nay sayers predicted (and continue to predict) failure, and see no link between this war and the greater struggle for civilization. This is perhaps the only legitimate point of debate, but these critics are still wrong. Years of paying for suicide bombers, raping his own country, ignoring UN sanctions, seeking WMD (and achieving them, but that is another topic), vocally supporting terrorists, and attacking American Forces enforcing a UN weapons-free zone sealed Saddam Hussein’s necessary fate long before the “Neo-Con conspiracy” came to power here in the U.S. Could we have handled him a different way? Maybe. Did we try many other ways to contain, punish and/or change Mr. Hussein? Yes (don’t make me go through the ways employed during Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43’s tenures), but none of them worked, and this Administration felt that the only viable option was military force and regime removal. The goal of winning and a successful Middle East program never changed, the tools just changed. When your pitching staff lets you down, you have to let your heavy hitters swing away to push the balance in your favor.

And for all you fair weather fans out there who leave during the seventh-inning stretch when your team is down, your excuse that it’s late and you have to get up early for work tomorrow is just as shameful as those early flag-wavers who loved the quick march to Baghdad, but have become disenchanted with the hard task of holding onto the lead until that twenty-seventh out is made.

War is not baseball. It is not a game where the losers go home, clean off the uniform and try it again next time. War is for real, meant to only be used when you intend to win. That does not mean that the contests will be easy, that the enemy will always quit when we get ahead, or that the challenge of the conflict means that it wasn’t worth it. But walking off the field before the war is complete guarantees that it won’t we worth it, and ensures that your enemy will know where to go when he wants an easy victory.

Stay the course does not mean to blindly push on when things are not going well. Stay the course means to take the lead of the Yankees, and never accept anything but victory, doing whatever it takes to win. And step One is to finish the game.