In Need of Allies

We are all in need of allies.

To be an ally requires sacrifice, thoughtfulness, awareness, intention.

To have an ally – what does that require?  Humility enough to ask for the help, I suspect.  Willingness to match our pace to the one we’ve asked to walk with us, perhaps.  Ability to recognize our own need for such, a certainty.

In the world of nations just now, the United States needs Turkey as an ally, but it is not at all clear whether Turkey needs the United States.

And to be an ally always seems to involve a cost-benefit analysis, at least in the world of nations.

But what of the world of individual relationships?

Where then is the cost?  Is it fair, right, appropriate, to count the cost?

Well, Jesus tells those who would follow him to count the cost before taking even the first step – his point being, as I would gather, that there is always a cost.

Knowing, then, that there is a cost to the other in walking alongside, in being an ally, how can I ask anyone to take on such a role for me?  Is it ‘fair’ to ask for help knowing in advance that the help will be costly to the other?

But are we not made to walk in tandem?  To help as, where and when we can?

Bonhoeffer speaks of Christian fellowship as burden bearing.

That rings so true to me.  It also rings true that all of we Christians – not just the professionals among us – are to be burden bearers, each with the other.

Does this change my understanding of burden bearing?  Perhaps.  Perhaps it is just taking turns the way we did when we were kids.  Sometimes I’ll follow you, sometimes you’ll follow me.  Sometimes I’ll help you and sometimes you’ll help me.

But allies do more than simply help or provide succor.  Allies are advocates of a sort – the ones who do not stand silently by when bad stuff comes to town.  Allies walk alongside, provide practical aid, raise their voices in protest.

There, surely, is the greater cost, given the great resistance of humankind to such activity in all but the rarest of occasions.

Which brings us back to the beginning – allies – where to find them?  How to ask them?  How to be one?  If these were easy questions, one suspects, there wouldn’t be much need for allies in the first place.

So I am left to wonder – who have been your allies?  Did you ask them for help or did they merely appear at the needed time?  Have you been an ally?  How did you know you were needed?  What prompted you to act this time when you had not, perhaps, acted before?  What did it cost you to be an ally?  What did you gain from having an ally?

Those are the questions I’m asking today.

It is No Accident 2.0

It is no accident that President Obama’s speech calling for war
          by another name was given on September 10 – the eve 
          of an anniversary of horror in the United States.

Last September 10, President Obama gave his address about Syria and its chemical weapons.  This year, the President again addressed a crisis of the Middle East on September 10, at the same time that he was saying, “ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim.”

At the same time that he decried, by implication, any broad-brush condemnation of Islam, President Obama engaged in appealing to the tendency to broad-brush condemnation of all things Muslim by the very date of his speech, timed so thoughtfully to coincide with but not usurp the commemoration of, September 11, 2001.

It was and is manipulative in the extreme.  And it is a calculated effort to stir the American people to again see unknown and unnamed forces from the Middle East as terrifying hordes about to descend upon our borders.

If the cause be just, there is no need or requirement for propaganda or manipulation.  Thus does the very use of such techniques in order to ‘convince’ us of the President’s ‘case’ suggest that it is a weak case at best.


It is no accident that President Obama mentioned Russia 
          in his speech.

“ It is America that has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’ right to determine their own destiny,” the President asserted as part of a laundry list of examples of supposed American moral superiority and claimed unique positioning in history as justification for his plan against ISIS (a.k.a. ISIL).

It is no accident that the President mentioned Russia, ally to Syria and global actor in its own right.  Russia perceives itself as having vested interests in the Middle East as well as we do.  Turkey, a NATO member, lies uncomfortably close geographically to Russia from its point of view.

Russia and the United States remain all too willing in the present global climate to continue to fire shots across each other’s proverbial bow and this was yet another from our side of the imaginary trench.

This, I read, as President Obama telling Russia to stay out of it.  Why Russia would listen to us any more than we listen to them I cannot think.


It is no accident that President Obama referred to “Kurdish” in
          addition to “Iraqi” forces – as something separate 
          and distinct.

All due respect to my many Kurdish friends, there is, at least technically, no such thing as “Kurdish forces”.  The President presumably refers to the Peshmerga, the fighting forces originating in the north of Iraq where the Kurds historically reside.

The Peshmerga have remained intact and visible since the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but in more recent years, have largely been absorbed into the Iraqi army in its various permutations, although they do see themselves largely as a separate entity from the rest of the Iraqi army.

But since August, various countries around the world have been arming the Peshmerga.

President Obama said these things last evening:  “These strikes (air strikes against ISIS to date) have . . . given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory.”  and “[These American forces] are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces . . .”

President Obama recognized Kurdish fighting forces as something separate and apart from Iraqi fighting forces, in effect recognizing the Kurdish semi-autonomous region of Iraq as its own separate country.

This gels nicely with the desires of the Kurds themselves.  But it will not end well for them.  Turkey has a substantial Kurdish population that desires to form a Kurdish nation.  The PKK, the Turkish-Kurdish resistance, has been labeled a terrorist organization by Turkey and by the United States.

Iran’s sister organization, PJAK, with similar intentions and tactics to PKK, is actually supplied arms by the United States in order to disrupt that regime.

President Obama glibly names the Kurds as a separate entity in a speech televised around the world, giving hope and quarter to the aims and desires of the Kurdish peoples who have long desired to have their own nation-state.  But he doesn’t mean it.  When Turkey complains, as it has in the past and surely will again, about the impact on its own internal politics with its Kurdish population, Washington will, as it has before, capitulate, for the simple reason that to not capitulate will unite Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey in common cause against the Kurds, which Washington will perceive that it can ill afford (remember Turkey’s strategic importance relative to Russia).

But the Kurds aren’t fools.  They’ve been down this road many times with the West.  Only time will tell what will become of their resolve, but make no mistake, this current violence is an opportunity for the Kurds.  Maybe it’s one they deserve.  I am in no position to judge; but I do know that it will be costly for all involved.

It always is when so many motives with so little power are on the table.


It is no accident that President Obama asserted his ‘authority’ to 
          act as he already has and clearly plans to continue to do, 
          congressional imprimatur or no.

In a December 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe, then Senator Obama said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

The only thing that has changed between then and now is that Mr. Obama himself is the one wielding the power.

The President’s assertion last night that he has the authority to act as he already has and plans to continue to do, with the expanded and ominous threat to invade another sovereign nation (Syria) to achieve his stated goals, with or without congressional approval, merely continues the actions of presidents in the aftermath of World War II (the last declared war under the provisions of the constitution that the United States has engaged in).

There is no virtue in announcing ones intention to violate the laws of one’s own nation.  But there is clarity.

And it might be good political strategy for the president to throw down on Congress in this manner, but it isn’t good governance.


It is no accident that President Obama referenced no direct 
          threat to the United States, but raised all of our 
          collective bogey men to stir our fear of what might come.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East – including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our intelligence community believes that thousands of foreigners – including Europeans and some Americans – have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.  -- President Obama's speech of last night

The language the President used was careful but revealing: the only Americans threatened are those living and working in those areas where ISIS/ISIL are located.

But they “could” threaten us.  And although there is no knowledge of any specific plots of attack, there could be.  And those of ISIS/ISIL who are from Europe or the United States “could” come home and attack us.  Just like on September 11.  Except not.

President Bush specifically abandoned any pretense at just war theory in his invasion of Iraq in 2003 and President Obama has never looked back from that dramatic shift in policy.

Everyone who doesn’t like us is a threat to us.  And we to them.  But every threat is not a justification for war or invasion.  And the distinction between ground and air attack is a distinction without a difference in terms of whether it is constitutional or proper.

The distinction between ground and air is simply to assure the American people that its children will not die in the numbers that the children of our enemies will.  In others words, it’s a tactical point rather than a legal or procedural one.  And I, for one, am not particularly interested in debating tactics.

I am interested in a national debate on whether to do this at all.  By simply doing it and then asking permission, our President has taken that privilege and responsibility of citizenship away from us.

And we are the poorer for it.

The shame, however, is ours as much as his, for we have let him do it.

21 Questions for the Candidates on Foreign Policy: Just a Suggestion

Here are some suggested questions for next week's foreign policy debate.  I really don't want to waste a single minute on how it's been gotten wrong or right in the last four or even last twelve years.  I want to know where we go from here.  And in order to know, as best we can when it comes to predicting future behaviors, I have some questions.

1. Why must Israel be our ‘special’ friend?  Why isn’t it enough that we are allies?  Shouldn’t our goal be to be ‘friends’ with all the nations of the world?  Does speaking ‘for’ human rights for Palestinians equate in your mind to speaking ‘against’ Israel?

2. Why should we arm anyone around the world?  There is a call to arm folks in Syria, which overlooks the obvious question of why arm anyone.  In Syria in particular, who would you arm?  Why?

3. When will either of you bring all our troops (mercenaries/private contractors included) home from Iraq?

4. What is the tipping point for you in moving away from sanctions and towards military solutions (including nuclear attack) against Iran?  In other words, what would trigger a justification for war or military action against Iran?

5. What WWIII dangers do you see right now in the world?  What about Syria/Turkey/Iran/Russia/China/US alignments in regards to the Syrian civil war?  Do you see a danger there of missteps that might lead to global conflict?  What will you do to avoid that?

6. Explain to the American people exactly upon what legal basis, national and international, you would place US ships in the Strait of Hormuz?  Iran has threatened to blockade its own territorial waters in the Strait.  Upon what basis do you claim that the United States would have the justification to militarily oppose such an action?  Do you have any other basis for such a position than ‘because we can’?  Or that cutting off oil (even if done perfectly legally) ‘threatens our national interests abroad’?  Why would it be militarily actionable for Iran to police its own waters however it sees fit?  Please bear in mind that inconvenient or costly or even economically catastrophic is not militarily actionable, else we would have tanks parked on Wall Street.

7. Drones – yes or no.  Usage of drones inevitably takes the position that the lives of civilians, often children, are expendable, more expendable than our own troops.  After all, they aren’t our kids.  How do you justify that?  Will you at least acknowledge that modern warfare as waged by the United States has abandoned even the pretense of acting to protect civilians on all sides?

8. What do you believe solved the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Was it military strength?  Diplomacy?  Some combination?  We teach our children that it was military strength alone that averted nuclear war between the US and the then USSR, omitting from the narrative the behind-the-scenes negotiating that took place whereby the USSR withdrew its missiles from Cuba and we withdrew ours from Turkey.

9. Do you perceive engaging in diplomacy as a sign of weakness or of strength and why?

10. When, if ever, should the United States apologize on the world stage?  When have we gotten it wrong in the last 10-20 years?  Should we admit that?  Why or why not?

11. Name your top 5 principal advisors on matters of foreign policy – the people upon whose advice you most rely.  What is their experience/where and for whom have they worked in the past?  What do they bring to the table as far as you’re concerned?

12. Name one naysayer on matters of foreign policy to whom you regularly listen – someone who sees the world very differently than you do and tells you so.  Name one time when that person changed your mind and why.

13. Name the most important religious principle of your own faith that governs your views on how the United States interacts with other countries and why.

14. Name one person from history whose leadership in world affairs shapes how you think on these issues and one lesson you learned from that person.

15. You are both espousing Christians.  How does your faith inform you on matters of foreign policy?  Specifically, Jesus taught that the other, the enemy, the one not of our tribe, is in fact our neighbor, whom we are to love even as we love ourselves.  How do you see that maxim of the Christian faith played out in your presidency?

16. Constitutionally, the president is the commander-in-chief.  Why, in your view, is this role important to be held by a civilian?  How does investing the duties of commander-in-chief in the civilian office of the presidency serve and promote the public welfare?

17. Surveillance of citizens of the United States by the CIA and other intelligence agencies of the federal government – do you favor or oppose and why?

18. The Patriot Act’s provision making the education of persons or groups on non-violence, peaceful resolution to conflict and utilization of legal recourse an act of terror if provided to persons labeled by the government as terrorists – what, in your view, is the purpose of prohibiting such skills, intended to help people move away from violence and towards peace in solving problems?  How does this provision promote the national security interests of the United States, if at all?  To Mr. Romney – if elected president, would you keep this provision intact or move to rescind it?

19. NAFTA and CAFTA and other free trade agreements are attacked by working people of the countries with whom we have these agreements as decimating their livelihoods.  What changes, if any, would you make to these agreements?  How do these agreements benefit working people in the US or abroad?

20. Please as best you are able refrain in speaking in sound bites or slogans and address the role of the United Nations from your point of view – addressing specifically its positives and not its negatives.  What does the United Nations do well in your view?  Name at least one success story of the United Nations from your point of view.

21. There is much discussion about the Republican strategy regarding taxes of having a pledge, a precommitment, if you will, not to engage in tax-increasing behaviors.  Will you make such a pledge here and now to the American people when it comes to engaging in military action around the world?  Will you pledge not to engage in military action around the world unless you have first sought and obtained from Congress a formal declaration of war?  If you will not, why not?

Grading the Debate

Grading the Debate

My Scoring of the 1st 2012 Presidential Debate

With an important post-script about Syria & Turkey

I score President Obama the winner over Governor Romney by a score of 26-10.

How did I arrive at a score?  I flowed the debate, as best I could.  Even though this was not actually a debate in any sense of the word, I scored it as if it were and to that end, I took each candidate at their word (leaving my own pre-knowledge outside the room and leaving fact checking to others).

Clash is the debate concept that each debater meets the issue(s) raised by their opponent directly and responds, with evidence rather than with mere assertion.  Mostly what I ended up scoring was clash or the lack of clash.  This approach was in order to capture, as best I was able, the content of what each candidate had to say in relation to what the other said, which is the essence of debate.  If there weren't an opponent in the room, there would be no debate.

Round 1 - The economy and jobs: Obama claimed to have created 5 million new jobs, to have saved the automobile industry, that housing is on the rise, and that money saved from the two wars the US has been involved in will be used to ‘rebuild America’, and a plan to close tax loopholes regarding overseas investments, none of which Romney responded to.  5 points Obama.  Both agreed on a need to invest in skill building of the work force and education.  Obama specifically referenced Race to the Top educational reform, the plan to invest in 100,000 additional math and science teachers and to keep tuition affordable, none of which Romeny addressed.  1 point Obama.  Obama referenced developing new energies, increasing American energy production and increased oil and natural gas production, which Romney countered with the fact that energy prices have increased under Obama, public energy leases have been cut in half under Obama and increased development has occurred on private lands, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney’s tax savings plan was attacked by Obama with specific figures ($5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in increased military spending, e.g.), saying that these could not be offset by eliminating tax deductions.  Romney countered with the assertion that it isn’t true, to which Obama responded that the math is clear and it can’t be done without other cuts or tax increases to the middle class.  1 point Obama.  Assuming a nexus between taxes and job creation (as both seemed to do, at least part of the time), Obama claimed to have lowered taxes 18 times to the benefit of small businesses, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  On Obama’s proposal to raise taxes for those with an income above $250,000, there was clash about what is a small business, how much employment the top tier of small businesses generate, and finally, Romney’s claim that the top tier of 3% of small business owners employ 1/4 of the work force and enactment of Obama’s tax increase would result in a loss of 700,000 jobs, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  On the big picture, there was a bit of a tie: Romney’s claim that in the last 4 years, 24 million people have been out of work; and Obama’s claim that under the Clinton/Democrat model, there was record prosperity and under the Bush/Republican plan, there was record financial crisis - 1 point each.

Round 2 - The economy and the deficit: Obama urges the elimination of corporate subsidies to the oil industry, which Romney countered with the fact that the same subsidies were extended by Obama to alternative energy companies, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama urged eliminating deductions for corporations such as for corporate jets, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claimed a record on deficit reduction of eliminating 77 government programs, 18 educational programs, saving tens of billions in eliminating Medicare fraud and 15 billion in waste, taking 1 trillion out of the budget, a 4 trillion deficit reduction plan, a plan to increase revenues by $1 for every $2.50 in spending cuts, to none of which specifics Romney responded.  1 point Obama.

Round 3 - The economy and entitlements: Noting a problem with the usage of the word ‘entitlements’, Obama said that Romney’s voucher plan is estimated to cost each person covered an average of $6,000 per year, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney proposes shifting to needs-based coverage, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney overall attacks the expense of provision of these benefits, to which Obama responded that Medicare has less administrative costs than private insurance, which also adds in the expense of its profit for doing business.  1 point Obama.  Obama cited AARP claiming that Obamacare extends the life of Medicare by 8 years, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama said that repeal of Obamacare would cost on average an additional $600 per year in prescription drugs, increase in co-pays, and benefitting only the insurance companies, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 3a - The economy and government regulation: Romney said that while some regulation is necessary, it can also become excessive and actually do unintended harm, citing Dodd-Frank banking regulations as an example.  Obama did not respond directly to Romney’s challenge about excessive or over-regulation.  1 point Romney.  Obama specifically linked the recent economic crisis to an absence of regulation, with which Romney either agreed or did not expressly refute.  1 point Obama.  Romney said Dodd-Frank hurts the economy with provisions like protecting banks deemed ‘too big to fail’, to which Obama responded that the banks had paid back the monies loaned to them by the government with interest.  1 point Obama.  Romney said that he would keep ‘some’ of the provisions of Dodd-Frank (used as an example of government regulation).  Obama charged that Romney had previously said he would repeal Dodd-Frank, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 4 - Health Care Romney asserts that Obama cuts Medicare to pay for Obama care and that Obamacare will kill jobs because businesses are less likely to hire workers because of the additional burdens it imposes, to which Obama did not respond.  2 points Romney.  Romney charged that a private unelected board would be making medical decisions for patients under Obamacare, to which Obama responded that the board did not deal with individuals but with industry best practice standards, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claims that repeal of Obama care will result in 50 million people without health insurance, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Both claimed the provision of health care to be an important goal, but when challenged by Obama to reveal what his plan is, Romney did not respond save to say he would have one.  1 point Obama.  On the Obamacare model and its workability, Obama asserted that it is the same model as that enacted by Romney while governor of Mass. Romney shifted the argument to say that Obamacare did not have bi-partisan support, to which Obama responded that it was a Republican idea using the same plan as that in Mass, with actually the same advisors helping craft it.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that according to the CBO, Obamacare would result in 20 million people losing their health insurance, to which Obama did not directly respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama claimed that the rate of growth of health insurance premiums has slowed, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that the (federal) government is a bad bet as an organization or institution for saving money, to which Obama did not respond at this point, although Obama had earlier made the case that Medicare administrative costs are lower than private insurance, which when added to profits private companies received, results in savings to the consumer.  No point to either candidate.  Obama challenged Romney’s plan as failing to provide for coverage of pre-existing conditions.  Romney denied that was true.  Obama responded with an explanation of Romney’s plan (which sounded like COBRA), which would not provide universal coverage of pre-existing conditions, to which Romney did not further respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney’s health care policy foundation is his statement, “the private market and individual responsibility always work best”, to which Obama challenged him to explain how he would enact to provide health care and why keep it a secret, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 5 - The Role of Government - what is government’s ‘mission’?  After outlining their general principles about the role of government, the debate focused on education and the question of whether providing education or improving the quality thereof is a role of the federal government.  It is to that portion that I addressed my judgments, making no score on the two men’s statements of principles.  Obama alleged that Romney would cut the education budget by 20%; Romney said he wouldn’t.  No points.  Romney offered his school voucher proposal, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney attacked Obama on things like investments in green technologies and an implied attack of corruption (saying that Obama gave federal green monies to campaign contributors).  This was off topic, as Romney never tied it to education.  No points.  Obama cited his program of linking community colleges with industry, providing training for students, who are guaranteed a job at the end of the program as an example of the role the government can play in education, to which Romney did not resopnd.  1 point Obama.  Obama also cited his program which eliminates banks as ‘middlemen’ in student loans, saving students on the cost of repaying their loans, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 6 - Governing and gridlock Both men spoke about their aspirations and approaches.  No points.

On the substance of any debate, which is comprised of the often boring details and minutia of an issue, the winner was clear on my flow chart.  Mr. Romney tended to speak in broad terms.  That does not mean what he had to say was either unimportant or untrue.  It does mean that when it comes to debate, there was often little upon which to judge his performance.

Some general observations about the style aspects and other random thoughts

1. Pundits asked for a substantive debate.  Even observing that Gov. Romney spoke more generally, both men in fact gave a substantive debate, outlining their worldviews when it comes to governing and at least some of their particular ideas about how we go about achieving their vision for the United States.  The sadly ironic thing is that it was that very provision of substance that results in many claiming Mr. Obama ‘lost’ the debate on style points, which simply demonstrates that we apparently have absolutely no interest in how we are going to be governed and are only concerned about whether we like the person, or think the person is most like us, or some other such ephemera.

2. Here’s my take on who you should vote for, for whatever it’s worth: if you believe that government should get out of your way, be the least intrusive as possible in your journey towards your dream, leave it entirely to you to choose, whether you choose badly or well, vote for a Republican.  If you believe government should help you and provide for the common good, even if not your own particular good, then vote for a Democrat.  It is a philosophical difference.  It does not mean that one is necessarily morally superior to the other.  And the fact is that most of us believe government should land somewhere in the middle of these two poles.

3. Both men ran roughshod over the moderator.  Mr. Romney was more obvious, interrupting Mr.Lehrer often, even talking over him.  Most seemed to have found that appealing, as Mr. Romney was assertive, like a president should be.  I thought it was just rude.  But Mr. Obama ignored Mr. Lehrer as well; he was just more subtle.  One female commentator noted last night that maybe it’s a gender difference, but she didn’t like it.  I agree.  If you’ve agreed to a format beforehand, honor it.  If you haven’t, don’t tell us you have.

4. I just googled ‘judging the presidential debate by content rather than style’ and got 65 million+ hits, but not one of them was about the debate that actually happened last night.  Not one.  That, I think, is an incredibly sad commentary on us as a people.

Finally, in my blog yesterday, I had a couple of questions I wanted answered.  Mr. Romney answered the questions I had for him:

Mr. Romney, if you wish to eliminate or substantially change the approach of progressive taxation, as your talking points suggest, upon what basis do you claim that this shift actually results in an increase in prosperity for everyone?  And as a subset of that question, if you have to sacrifice one of your taxation goals in order to achieve a balance to the budget, which goal is the most expendable from your point of view?

As I understand his position, Mr. Romney believes that lowered taxes on the wealthy (the job creators, as he describes them) generally frees up more capital for them to invest, which creates more jobs.  He did not say those words.  What he said was, “taxes slow growth”.  I extrapolate the rest, but I think I understand his position.  The second aspect was much more clear: what would Mr. Romney sacrifice to achieve a balance to the budget?  Everything – when it comes to government spending.  Everything except military spending.  And social security.  And education.  And Medicare for those currently receiving it.  But Mr. Romney made it very clear that under no circumstances would he increase taxes.

My question for Mr. Obama was answered as well.

Mr. Obama, given that as president, you are required to work with Congress, how do you propose to enact your economic programs (or any of your programs, for that matter) in the face of organized, concerted congressional opposition?  It is not enough to merely blame Congress.  What do you plan to do about it?

He said that he would take all ideas on board when it comes to solving our problems as a nation, whatever the source.  He said that he would take care to well-describe his plan so that there was understanding about what it is and what it is not.  And he said that occasionally, he would say no, to both friend and foes.

I believe them both.

Now to the hard work of citizenship and deciding where that takes us as a nation and what I intend to do about it when I enter the voting booth.

An important post-script

Yesterday as these two men were preparing to meet and debate, one of them had some other things on his mind, no doubt.

Yesterday Syria (or someone from Syria’s opposition groups) bombed Turkey.  This isn’t the first time.  But it is the first time that Turks were killed.  Five people, including a mother and her three children were killed.  Turkey responded by bombing Syria.  NATO weighed in as did Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

And Turkey’s military asks its parliament today for the authority to act against Syria.  Early indicators are that this is more symbolic than an actual precursor to outright war between the two nations and thus far, Syria has taken a conciliatory and apologetic approach with Turkey, promising to investigate how this could have happened.

But the border between the two countries is a tense place as Syria’s civil war continues and rebels move into Turkey for cover.

And lest we forget, Syria counts among her allies Iran, Russia and China.

World wars don’t always or often begin in the obvious place.  They begin with a skirmish there, an insult here, a death or two, revenge killings, drawing in of allies, and escalation.

Thus far it seems that in the aftermath, both Turkey and Syria are seeking ways to avoid war with each other – a good thing.  But allies are also being pulled in.

If you do nothing else today about world politics, pray for Syria and Turkey, pray for world leaders, that cooler heads prevail and that escalation is avoided.  In the U.S., pray that the man who you think didn’t have such a great debate last night be filled with wisdom and vision and the courage to resist violence as a problem-solving technique.  Pray like the world depends on it.