The Problem of Middle Ground

Lately it seems that politics is dominated by a "not enough" syndrome. If you partly do something, it's not enough, or too late, or weak. Issues are picked at. Problems are indicated. And at the end, no one is happy. When did progress become so complicated?

Recently, I posted my thoughts on the deployment of troops in Afghanistan (which I still object to, but understand). It has been fascinating to me that lately, no one is pleased AT ALL! A recent CNN poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/04/rel18b.pdf) suggests that there is general support for the war. Inside the numbers, the opinion of moral justification to the war today (63%) is growing closer to that of 2003 (73%) after treading in the 40%'s for so long.

Yet, seemingly nobody in congress (recall, the people that we elect) are happy. Republicans are upset about a timetable, and Democrats are upset about the surge and not keeping the campaign promise (as a note: his campaign promise was actually about Iraq). It has long been considered by both parties that Afghanistan (not Iraq) was the real threat. But now, the whole thing stinks to everybody. Funny...

It seems that the objection by Democrats is more focused to contested re-election and seeing more images of war and (seemingly) neglected campaign promises to bring troops home. Meanwhile, Republicans understand that it is their job to not approve of anything Mr. Obama does (playing to the extremity Conservative base, that is growing everyday). At the end, there is no real solution to the schism that is growing in Washington. And more and more, representatives are growing more biased to play to re-elections and likely voters, not necessarily the true percentages.

It begs the question: if America agrees with the president, then why doesn't Congress?

The Audacity of War...

War is unpopular. Vengeance, however, is not. Interestingly, vengeance only lasts as long as you are actually mad at somebody. We first, seemingly, went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq out of vengeance. We need to get those who hurt us. But the irony is that the cost of all of that is hurting us more.

Think of it almost like a domestically-sponsored terrorism inflicted by foreign militants. This war has burdened us with a substantial human and monetary price tag that has additionally helped lubricate the fall of many sectors of our own society. And now, news from Mr. Obama suggests that this price tag will only go up. I wonder how much more the costs will rise.

In my humble opinion, we've done this enough. The lives of thousands of Americans and "coalition forces" members, and billions of dollars suddenly don't seem worthy of the cost for the capture of a few men. (Recall, the objective of the Bush-era was focused on Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein). Now the objective is on the Taliban. An organization that seems as complicated to put together as a 5000 piece puzzle of a cloudless sky. I don't know what this will accomplish, more than confusion.

It seems that (under Bush) vengeance, then confusion led to a common sense "cut-and-run" outcry from the public with the election of Mr. Obama. But now, we're drifting towards confusion again. I understand that keeping the Taliban under-wraps is best for America, but how long are we to go on keeping them under wraps? The conflict with the Middle East will perpetuate for some time, it seems. And now, I simply don't understand why...