On the death penalty vs. fighting toughness

[Neil wrote:]
>As far as the bravery and toughness factor, let's face it...we are a
>country that rarely even puts anyone to death, no matter how terrible
>their crimes. We say "civilized" nations don't have a death penalty
>(that's another topic for discussion); OK, but with that mindset, it
>may be difficult to gear up to deal with the savagery of a bunch of
>folks who, as has been mentioned, skin prisoners alive. Their approach
>to life and death seems to be quite removed from the American way of
>life. Do our fighting men have that kind of savagery inside? If so, can
>they bring it to the fore, and use it? Because it looks like they may
>well have to. If they don't, there may be serious problems. Overall, I
>don't like the thought of what's coming, and I fully realize that my
>opinions are pretty teensy in the overall scheme of things.

I think it may be important to distinguish between the death penalty and
fighting fierceness. The death penalty is imposed against people who
are already in jail, and therefore not of any immediate threat to
individuals or society. Many, including me, consider it barbaric.
Others, including my wife, consider it completely appropriate.
Regardless, the heat of the moment is an entirely different affair. I
own a firearm, and would seriously consider using it if threatened with
deadly force. Hope that never happens!!! I'm sure that killing another
human carries heavy baggage even when fully justified by the unfolding
of circumstances beyond one's control.

But I digress. I think U.S. soldiers are plenty tough in the heat of
battle, and certainly they are also well-equipped. When the enemy is in
sight, we will be tough to beat, but when the enemy is hiding and
ambushes, we may meet the same fate as the Soviets did.

If one or more of our soldiers falls into enemy hands, and is made to
endure their apparent usual treatment, there will certainly be a huge
public outcry. I hope the resultant anger does not become a call to
nuke the entire country, bad people and good. Luckily, that hasn't yet
happened.

I think Bush has himself in a bind. He had hoped to capture bin Laden
by now (and I hoped for that result as well), but bin Laden has proven
elusive, and the Taliban, if weakened, have not yet collapsed as
planned. What's Bush to do, to keep from appearing to be "Wimp, Jr."?
I am very sure that's the way he frames the question in his own mind,
though perhaps I'm failing to give him enough credit.

Now Ramadan, winter, and refugees loom large, and our hands are empty.
I think we should stop bombing and give everyone a chance to cool off.
Give U.N. relief convoys a chance to get food across the border. Bush
should be a big enough man to say, "Don't worry, we'll get those who are
responsible in the end," and take whatever heat follows without
flinching.

As for toppling the Taliban, there is unfortunately a vacuum of
plausible replacements for it. The rival members of the Northern
Alliance are at least as big jerks as the Taliban, and they don't well
represent the majority of Afghans ethnically. The U.S. rightly fears
being perceived as imposing a gov't to our own specification, but what
to do? So far it's a moot point, because the Taliban is holding its
grip on power. I worry that "victory" may be as challenging as
the stalemate we now have.

[Neil:]
>I am grateful that we have a forum for discussion here, I can learn a
lot by testing my opinions and ideas with the rest of you.

I'm grateful too, and appreciate your contributions.

JdL