Evil at center of debate over war with the Islamic State (letter)
Re: “Time for a real conversation about war,” by Jason Stanford (Feb. 25).
I, like Jason Stanford, would like to have the next presidential candidates, as well as our current president and Congress, have a real conversation with the American electorate. However, instead of just talking about war, let’s expand it to a conversation about evil, a word the media rarely uses. The word, I understand, is controversial. For the sake of brevity, I would hope that anyone who is aware of the ISIS activity in the Middle East these days would have no problem classifying their activities as evil.
Now what I would like to hear from our political leaders going forward and from my fellow voting citizens is how you would like the U.S. to address this kind of evil in the world, because this kind of evil has been with us throughout history and it will continue to be with us for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, humanity seems to have evil in its DNA and some of us let it control us. Now having said this, I believe good can and does overcome evil. The one thing that seems to prevail, when you look closely at “good overcoming evil,” is that in every situation it required sacrifice, which is another controversial word not exactly embraced by the culture of today.
So what I would like to know from our leaders, is what evils will the U.S. address going forward and what will be the sacrifices needed to defeat them? Don’t sugar coat it.
In the current world situation, anyone who believes the jihadists can be defeated without “boots on the ground” and the American military in the leadership role is totally unrealistic. Name one free country that has the resources or the capacity to lead such an undertaking?
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.