Well - I must be doing something right. One of my [former] co-workers at HandsNet was mad at me because she thought I was being too gung-ho in my pro-American attitude and blood-thirstyness. Now a reply to this morning's post leads me to think another friend is under the impression that I've joined the "Let's-roll-over-and-die-and-take-what's-coming-to-us" club.
The truth is I'm in neither of those extreme camps. All I've been interested in doing with my posts here, and with some emails I've sent, is to ask for a calm, reasoned, and realistic approach in responding to terror. I agree 100% about doing something about this. But I don't believe World War III is the answer.
As the [edited] clergy letter I posted this morning said, "we too demand that those responsible for these utterly evil acts be found and brought to justice. Those culpable must not escape accountability. But we must not, out of anger and vengeance, indiscriminately retaliate." The keyword being "indiscriminately" - yes, we must retaliate, but wisely and selectively and with restraint.
To be honest, I don't know what that means any more than anybody else. But I'm fairly certain it doesn't include massive air raids or sending ground troops across Pakistan to invade Afghanistan to chase Osama bin Laden into Chechnya.
Just think of me as Alan Greenspan cautioning about irrational exuberance in the field of warfare.