Palestine, Texas

We've started a long trip. I feared that I would have no access or ideas to post.

Today, as we were driving through east Texas, seeing the many huge Baptist churches, I considered just what is happening during this election. The incredibly long, sometimes bad tempered campaigns, I thought that this was a ploy to make Americans so sick of the candidates and their non-statements that no-one would vote. Then, as the Democratic candidacy came down to Senators Clinton and Obama, race and religion raised their ugly heads.

What difference does it make that one presidential candidate is a woman, another black and the third a Vietnam veteran. Do any of these things have any effect on their competence to manage this country? Who cares if one is Christian or another Moslem? All three have shown their dedication to America and their ability to campaign.

But that Moslem thing really sticks in my craw. I have yet to decide who I want for president. I am certain that I don't want it to be me. But this religious interference with our government bothers me.

From their letters and papers, it would appear that our founding fathers wanted no religion to tell our legislators how to run the country. They did not just speak of the various forms of Christianity. They included Islam, Judaism, Bhuddism and Hinduism in their discussions. We have falloen away from that.

The separation of church and state is an important part of our constitution. But preachers are able to use their pulpit to state their views on who should govern this country and how they should do it. The fact is that many of these religious leaders have great influence on their congregations. Another fact is that mass media have given some of them incredibly large followings... people who will do as their pastor suggests.

That is not separation of church and state. It puts the churchs squarely into the political arena. That, I beleive is wrong. We are up against the rule of separation and the guarantees of free speach and assembly. Never-the-less, it doesn't seem right to me that any religious leader can accept his tax free (separation) status, then try to put his views of government as gospel to his followers. It has been suggested that such a leader's church be stripped of its tax free status. Not a bad idea, but impractical since they already have such a firm grip on our elected leaders.

Besides, it would put the congregation in the position of having to report on their chosen faith. We don't want to put agents in every church to make certain that its leader stays away from politics. That smacks of the worst of totalitarianism. The chrch leaders are understandably unwilling to part with the power they have gained from their sermons on who is right.

But still, some of their preaching is right down the line of intollerance and hate. How to control this is not so much the problem as how did it get that way and will it ever swing in the other direction.

Notice, that I don't say anything about the "good old days." Anyone with access to newspapers of the 19th and early 20th centuries will note that name calling and obstreperousness were just as popular then as now. We certainly do not want to return to the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Leaving the policing up to the government puts us right into the position that we have fought so hard to leave. The answer is individual action. If your pastor starts politicking fromthe pulpit, it's time to walk out of the service. Do it publicly and answer (softly and courteously) the questions of your fellow congregants. We pay these preachers. If we leave and don't pay our dues, they are out of a job, usually.

It is our responsibility to clean up our act.

Comparing Iraq and Vietnam

As promised last month, I have been thinking about the similarities and differences between the war we fought 40 years ago and the one we are fighting today.

To begin, both were started as the result of faulty intelligence and theories that just didn't pan out. Both were divisive for Americans since there were strong anti-war groups protesting our involvement. Both have stretched much longer than the administration starting them calculated. It is a point for debate if either was necessary for the security of the United States. Neither war attracted the hoped for allies. Finally, neither could be won on the terms that the administration of the time wanted.

Some gross differences were, the draft. Although many of the soldiers serving in Vietnam were volunteers like me. There was conscription at the time. Quite a few men of draftable age agonized over whether they would have to go and fight. Some even fled to other countries to avoid this. Iraq/Afghanistan is strictly volunteer. Every troop fighting there volunteered for duty in the armed services, even if they did not think, at the time, that they would have to go to war. The attitude of the anti-war movement was distinctly different. Most returning from the present conflict have been welcomed whether people agreed with the war or not. Vietnam returnees were greeted with hostility, even violence against them. The wounds caused by that reception have not yet healed for many.

In Vietnam, the US was supporting a government, a corrupt, inefficient government to be sure, but a government. While elections have been held in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the elected governments there are powerless beyond the security of their capitols. Without an effective central government, both countries will either continue in violence or the power will be ceded to local leaders.

Forty years ago, our troops were fighting just two opponents, the North Vietnamese Army and the Viet Cong. In Iraq/Afghanistan, there more factions than I can count fighting each other and the US. It is this high number of combatant groups, with mostly different objectives that makes the job in the mid east very difficult.

The United States is faced with what is called "non-centric" warfare. That is, instead of a capitol like Hanoi or fixed bases, the mid eastern opponents are dispersed through the population. Command and control are accomplished in many cases, without the individual fighters having to actually meet with their commanders. Unfortunately, that makes the common problem that sometimes a soldier doesn't know which of those people out there are friends and which want to kill him/her.

While in both conflicts, the enemy was flexible and could retake areas left by the Army, there is a difference in Iraq. Soldiers and police are being trained to keep the peace in their neighborhoods, Iraqi soldiers and police who can hold their areas and prevent terrorists from returning... for the present.

The major difference is (I think) that it is possible to achieve peace and stability in Iraq where in Vietnam, it could only happen if we had been prepared to completely conquer North Vietnam and protect both the north and south from their neighbors for at least 30 years. The kind of government that develops in the middle east won't be the type President Bush was thinking of when he pushed for elections. Hopefully, it will be something new that fits the region and religion.

There is more. But I'm going to have to ponder some to be able to write it.