A Controversy

I had an article on Afghanistan which said we should get out. A reader, Ben, disagreed entirely. I have wondered whether to argue about it, but I realize that his viewpoint was one of belief in the goodness of our country, whereas my viewpoint was one soured by things from Vietnam on through the present day.

The fact that I have seen disasters brought on by the Best and the Brightest in Foreign Policy and in Finance explains my sour mood, but it does not make my viewpoints valid, nor my arguments true. Similarly, Ben's intensity to believe the best does not make his opinions true.

So I guess we agree to disagree... still remain friends, and friends sometimes do disagree, right?

The problem I keep coming back to is that while we may have an amicable difference of viewpoints, we are acting like gentlemen among ourselves while we are engaged in a war in which people of every side are being killed.
Sometimes I feel like the Austrian Emperor Franz Josef, watching the young people waltz in Vienna while Europe is in flames.

Therefore, should we argue in order to move things along?
No one is ever convinced by argument. Only time and emotional turmoil - good or bad - change us. In my case, I am still open to such turmoil if it will change me for the better. (It's not as if I could duck turmoil, anyway. It hunts you down.)
Furthermore, we had better not go into such engagements with the foolhardiness and almost total lack of preparation which surrounded our decisions post-9/11. Just because we have a legitmate gripe should not make us jump into the water without checking for rocks and shallow spots.

--