I'm a little late to this thread but thought it worth comment.
I disagree with the premise on which Jeff Elkins based his article.
This is not 1917, G.W. Bush is certainly not the academic utopian Woodrow Wilson was and of course, Free Republic is open to many points of view, as the very posts on this thread attest, specifically those of 'Inspector Harry Callahan'. This is not new for FR. I've seen and joined threads where I did keyboard battles with atheists, Libertarians, liberal/DNC disruptors, McCain/Buchanan supporters and many, many Bush-haters. Each point of view was aired, sometimes it got nasty but no prior censorship was ever involved other than to enforce the well-known guidelines, and even those are often disregarded by members and yet the threads are allowed to stand.
I believe that poster Southern Federalist reflects my feelings on the war against terrorism and he/she said it best in his post #90 addressed to you so I won't bother trying to add to that message, except to agree with it.
I sympathize with your concern about the civilian Afghans who may be killed in any future bombing by the U.S., but that is the price of war and of their tolerance for the Taliban thugs who run the country. I believe the U.S. will use rebel Afghan troops (well-supplied by the U.S.) for the bulk of the fighting, and that we will be doing little 'carpet-bombing' so this may not be a real concern. 'Innocent' people will die on all sides of this fight, and terrorists will not think twice about using women and children to use as shields, so I'm sure there will be civilian casualities in any military action and it cannot be avoided, but, that is the nature of war....every war.
We didn't ask for this war, we took a lot of prior hits and did virtually nothing about the looming threat from terrorism and now, we're forced to become totally engaged. Debate will go on, some will continue to reject anything done by our government and some will find anything done by government to be beyond question. Like the majority of FR posters, I'll fall somewhere in the middle, but my only real guide is that we must win and come as close to eliminating terrorism as is humanly possible. I believe we can do that. We cannot do so without some death and destruction but I believe that military action will not be the major part of this fight, although some will be necessary. I accept that simple fact of war.
I cannot worry about every Afghan's safety and as our President is a Christian man, I do not believe he will accept mindless killing with no purpose. His very restraint now, as America thirsts for revenge, shows me that despite your personal, deep reservations about President Bush, he can be trusted to conduct this war in a rational manner and with his eye on the goal of breaking the back of terrorism and not watching the polls. I also believe, as a Christian, that our government has the obligation to defend it's citizens, so this war is certainly justified. I also believe it will conducted honorably.
I find it ironic that in a prior article you posted, the writer castigated President Bush for 'doing nothing' (actually, showing restraint) in the wake of the terrorist attack, and now some to fear that he will do too much. I think we all need to seek balance in our analysis and not let preconceived attitudes color our reactions, or it's going to be a long, long haul.
Thanks for your voicing your reasonable comments and concerns Beckie, and for considering mine.
I think we can find lot of common ground here.
You obviously think dropping the bombs on Japan to end the war was wrong. Those were cities after all… It very likely saved 100,000+ American lives. If you want to be "disgusted" because I value our lives more than theirs so be it. This is war, our survival is at stake. There's no reward for 2nd place.