Category Archives: Thinking

Preview Of The Election 2024 Chronicles

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes it seems like election seasons are getting longer and longer and the respite between them gets shorter and shorter. Our next Presidential election is set for November 5, 2024. For no clear reason I’ll start the “Election 2024 Chronicles” category on (or near) May 5th, 18 months before.

It’s already getting interesting. President Biden has already announced his intent to run for reelection; that’s a concern because he’s already 80 years old. Many of us have concerns about this, but frankly don’t see an alternative. If he does win in 2024 I hope he’ll spend at least part of his term looking forward to a younger successor.

I had hoped he would seek the nomination without rivals but it appears that isn’t happening. Robert Kennedy, Jr. has announced his intent to run and he’s problematic at best. He’s an attorney and spent much of his career in environmental law. That’s good but in the last several years he’s advocated against vaccines and has promoted the lie that vaccines in children make them more susceptible to autism. There’s no way he can win but he may cause some damage.

On the Republican side we already know that former President Donald Trump is running. He’s lied about so many things it’s hard to keep track but he still argues that he was cheated out of the 2020 election. He is currently under indictment in New York for bribing someone to keep quiet about their affair. There are likely other indictments to come.

Right now he is still the frontrunner despite all this. But there are several others who have also indicted they will seek the nomination, and others who we assume will make that announcement soon. They have a problem because they don’t wish to go head to head with Trump but they also want to give a reason voters should support them. My suspicion is that they are aware of Trump’s age (he’s only 3 1/2 years younger than President Biden) and hope that a health crisis will pull him out of the race.

Keep posted. I’ll have more soon.

Fifty Years After Vietnam

Posted on by
Reply

Fifty years ago this week the United States ended its involvement in the war in Vietnam. For the uninitiated, before World War II the nations of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam were colonies of France and called “French Indochina.” After the war Vietnam declared itself independent but France attempted to regain control. But in 1954 at the battle of Diem Bien Phu fell to Vietnamese troops under the command of Ho Chi Minh (1890-1969). Ho and his Communist allies controlled North Vietnam but not South Vietnam even though they wanted to. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the United States supported South Vietnam in the hopes to prevent the spread of Communism. By the mid 1960s we were sending combat troops into Vietnam even though there was never a declaration of war. By the late 1960s our government realized that we could not defeat North Vietnam and began negotiating a peace treaty.

On January 27, 1973 we signed a cease fire and pulled out. At the time President Nixon proclaimed victory and made it sound like this would cease hostilities between North and South Vietnam. It didn’t. When our troops pulled out so did our cameras and it came as a surprise to many but the war continued and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam when their capital, Saigon, fell.

And while the Nixon administration tried hard to claim we didn’t lose the war it was clear that we did. Through a series of lies, missteps and miscalculations our government convinced large parts of our country that our cause was just and the result was honorable. In that time somewhere around 2.5 million troops served in Vietnam and 60,000 died. Countless came back with wounds, both visible and invisible. We learned about napalm, Agent Orange and PTSD.

Did they all suffer and die in vain? I hope not. I hope it brings us to the realization that we should never go to war without a clear understanding of what victory will look like. We had a vague idea that we would “stop the Communist advance” but never recognized that some residents of South Vietnam supported the North. We didn’t recognize that we couldn’t always tell who the enemy was or what a random person would do. We dropped troops in the middle of the jungle and told them to hold our position. We didn’t mark success by territory taken but by the daily death count (remember that from the TV news? Each week we were told how many North Vietnamese were killed, how many South Vietnamese and how many Americans).

Since then we’ve sent troops into different places, oftentimes with the same result. Let us honor our Vietnam vets but promising we will do better by today’s veterans

Thoughts On The Birth Of Jesus: Did It Really Happen The Way We Think?

Posted on by
Reply

Growing up Catholic has given me the gift of imagining how the birth of Jesus looked. Mostly we have a mash up of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and until I began to study Scripture in college I didn’t give much thought to it. But in the years since it’s become clear that the birth narrative can’t have happened as it is read. Here are some thoughts:

The Census: Luke 2:1 places Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem instead of Nazareth where Mary and Joseph lived. This was necessary as the Old Testament prophet Micah stated (Chapter 5) that the Messiah will come from Bethlehem. According to Luke, Mary and Joseph needed to travel to Bethlehem because the Roman ruler (Caesar Augustus) demanded that everyone return to their ancestral home and since Joseph descended from King David he needed to be there. Matthew (Chapter 2) places Jesus’ birth during the reign of King Herod who died between the year 5 BCE and 1 CE (formally 5 BC and 1 AD) but Luke places this when Quirinius governed Syria who didn’t begin his reign until 6 CE. Now we can put that down to a simple mistake, but there’s more. Say what you will about the Romans, they kept good records. And there’s no record of a census “of the whole world” as Luke states. Furthermore, a census lists where you live, not your ancestors; that means there would have been no need for them to go to Bethlehem. As an aside I was born in Washington D.C. My father was born in Gardner, Massachusetts and his father was born in Notre Dame, New Brunswick (Canada). If you go back far enough my 8th Great Grandfather was born in France. Where do I go for a census?

Virgin Birth: Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of Mary but not of Joseph as she was a virgin (Matthew 1:18). Matthew wrote that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20); this was important because it fulfilled the prophecy from Isaiah 7:14 that they could recognize the Messiah when “the virgin shall be with child, and hear a son, and shall name him Emmanuel.” But there is a translation problem. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew but by the time of Jesus most people read its translation to Greek. The word Isaiah used in Hebrew is “almah” which was translated into the Greek word “parthenos.” But almah doesn’t necessarily mean virgin as much as “young woman.” So why is this important? Throughout history there has been a persistent rumor that Jesus was conceived by Mary and a Roman soldier. It’s not hard to see how the followers of Jesus could look back to Isaiah and see the word parthenos and couple Matthew with Isaiah.

Does this mean Jesus wasn’t the Messiah? No. As I was once told a story can be true even if it didn’t happen the way we think. I’m not a fundamentalist (who believes the Bible is without error in fact as well as faith) because of passages like this. My belief in Jesus does not depend on the accuracy of facts.

If Jesus had a human father that doesn’t negate my belief that he was the Messiah. But I have to admit that the concept of the virgin birth has led to a long held and persistent belief that virginity is good and sex is bad. And that’s bad. There’s nothing I see in Scripture that tells me that sex is bad, or evil, or sinful. And while we rightly revere Mary because of her willingness to give birth to Jesus in some pretty awful circumstances, her marital status should not matter.

So let’s celebrate Christmas this year for what’s good. Jesus brought us redemption, eternal life, and the ability to love in hard circumstances. Let’s not care so much about Bethlehem or virginity.

And So The 2024 Campaigns Begin

Posted on by
Reply

In a previous post I indicated I wouldn’t open the “Election 2024 Chronicles” until early summer of 2023. Depending on how things go between now and then I may not be able to keep that promise.

It’s virtually a given that President Biden will run for re-election. He’s as much as admitted it and I think other Democrats know that if they challenge him they may well insure a Republican victory.

On the other side, ever since he lost the 2020 election (though he still refuses to admit this) Donald Trump has hinted that he will run again in 2024. A few days ago he made the announcement here. He announced that he would announce before the midterm elections and expected he would ride the crest of a Republican landslide. That didn’t happen.

He also likely expected that once he announced that would end the race to the Republican nomination. But that hasn’t happened. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will almost certain run. Smart money is also on former Vice President Mike Pence to run and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson.

Previous to this Mr. Trump was able to immediately halt speculation on competition but it appears his behavior may have finally come home to roost. Fox News appears to have dropped their support for Governor DeSantis and didn’t even fully carry Mr. Trump’s announcement.

So where do we go from here? Clearly a large part of the Republican Party wants Trump to drop out and give his support to DeSantis but that’s unlikely. Trump never admits defeat and never gives up. I think there is widespread fear that Trump will continue to polarize voters to the point where everyone who seeks the nomination will chew each other up until there is no viable candidate.

Trump breaks all molds and defies all expectations so predicting the future is always perilous. But if Trump is going to hit the end of the line, this may be it.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 41: Dobbs v. Jackson

Posted on by
Reply

In a previous post I promised to read and discuss two Supreme Court decisions that were released in June: Dobbs v. Jackson and New York State v. Bruen.

I have (finally) read through both with my trusty highlighter. I likely won’t discuss New York v. Bruen. It wasn’t as interesting as I had hoped.

On the other hand, Dobbs v. Jackson was both dense and interesting. It will be a while before I plow through another Supreme Court Decision. So let’s dive in:

Overview: You have to give me props for reading and commenting on a judgement when I never attended law school. Then again, neither did Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln. I welcome feedback as long as it is thoughtful and not obscene.

Majority Opinion

  • The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito. It was clear to me that despite his testimony that the 1973 Roe v. Wade opinion warranted respect he didn’t give it much. Much of it appeared (to me) to have been written a while ago. The state of Mississippi prohibited abortion after 15 weeks gestation; it did not ask that the states have final authority or that Roe be overturned. But Justice Alito went far beyond the facts of the case to overturn Roe. Law students are taught to find the narrowest ruling on a case.
  • He wanted to place his opinion in the vaunted arena with Brown v. Board of Education. In 1896 the Court ruled in Plessy v. Feguson that public places could be segregated (separated by race) as long as the accommodations were “separate but equal.” In 1954 the Brown decision recognized that separate was never equal and segregation was unconstitutional. Brown was seen universally as correcting the mistake of Plessy. In the same way Justice Alito felt that Roe was wrongly decided from the start and he was correcting a previous mistake.
  • Justice Alito and many of his fellow conservative jurists describe themselves as “originalists,” that when deciding a Constitutional issue we should look back to the original intent of the Constitution’s framers. This view presents a few problems, including this: the Constitution enshrines slavery (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3). They respond by pointing out that the 13th and 14th Amendments prohibit slavery. In this context Justice Alito goes back to 1791 (when the Constitution was ratified) and 1868 (when the 14th Amendment was passed). But in the years since courts have had to adjudicate all sorts of issues that didn’t exist then. The 4th Amendment protects our “persons, houses, papers and effects” from unreasonable searches and seizures. But the courts have extended that to include our phones, cars, and computers. The 2nd Amendment ensures the existence of a “well regulated militia” but in 2008 (District of Columbia v. Heller) the court ruled that anyone could keep a firearm in his home for protection. Those of us who are not originalists see the Constitution as a living document and while the understanding of 1791 and 1868 matter, they do not hold supremacy.
  • Lest you think this is an anti court screed, allow me admit to one of Justice Alito’s points. When Justice Blackmun wrote Roe in 1973 he divided pregnancy into three trimesters with different government interest in each. Since then we’ve looked at viability (when the fetus can reasonable live outside the womb). But the trimester distinction is a legal and not medical metric and viability has changed over the years. I don’t believe this should rule when an abortion is legal. That said I think Justice Alito overreached in his decision.
  • Finally, I conclude this with a warning. When the decision came down that the right of abortion is not guaranteed by the Constitution it led to concern that other similar issues (marriage equality, consentual sex and access to birth control) may also come under scrutiny. All these issues were decided by the Supreme Court. Lest you think I’m exaggerating, this is what Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion: “[I]n future cases we should reconsider all of this Courts substantive due process precedents including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Conservative government entities may look at this as encouragement to overturn those decisions. Interestingly, Justice Thomas (who is black) is married to a white woman, and he did not include the court’s prohibition against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia.

Dissenting Opinion

  • Both sides acknowledged that Roe held particular respect as a previous decision; the phrase in these circumstances is Stare decisis, “to stand by those decided.” The dissenting opinion (written by Justice Stephen Breyer) argued that Roe was not a mistake and should not have been overturned.
  • The minority argued that Roe ensured that a woman has autonomy over her body and her health. Just as the government has no authority over a man’s body and health, so too with women. The fact that only women can become pregnant does not give additional government oversight to them.
  • Roe has been in effect since 1973 (nearly 50 years) and in that time women have been able to make important and permanent decisions over their lives (e.g. sexual activity and marriage). Changing the rules now places an unfair burden on women.
  • Roe also protected the private relationship between the woman and her doctor. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy and overturning Roe places someone else in the room.
  • Previous to Roe abortion was available if the woman resided in the state where abortion was legal or if she had the ability to travel. This discriminates against women who live in states that prohibit abortion and are not able to travel.

My opinion

Again, I recognize my lack of legal training. On the other hand I did read the whole thing. So here’s where I stand.

Two facts make this difficult: only women can become pregnant and we’ve never come to a consensus when a fetus becomes a person. For centuries many believed that life began when the woman could feel the baby’s movement in her womb. Scientific advances in the last century have only made things more difficult: the phrase “life begins at conception” ignores the fact that conception is a multi step process and we continually learn more about it. Pregnancy is a process and finding a fixed point where life begins continues to prove elusive.

When we think about women who seek abortions it’s too easy to label them as murderers. But by and large they are women who find themselves pregnant and believe that abortion is the only option left. Simply put, the best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted or unplanned pregnancies, and we know how to achieve this. We need to teach sex education in schools and make birth control much more available. We need to teach young women that they can say no and we need to teach young men that they need to take responsibility for their actions.

I have several friends who describe themselves as “oops babies,” in other words they were unplanned but not unloved. They had the good fortune of being part of a family that could afford them (financially and emotionally). This is complicated but the more services we provide to these families the better.

Finally, despite anything you may be thinking, I am 100% pro life. I see abortion as a tragedy but allowing the courts to decide on this just makes it worse.

Thanks for reading.

July 4, 2022: It’s Been 246 Years. How Are We Doing?

Posted on by
Reply

It was a temperate 72 degrees on July 4, 1776 in Philadelphia, not the image we often get of oppressive heat and stuffy rooms. On that day, in that place, something incredible happened. Fifty six British subjects signed a document that declared that they were no longer part of the British Empire but were instead an independent nation.

From the point of view of King George III (1738-1820) it was nothing short of treason. He saw this as a rebellion that he would put down and punish harshly. This document would be Exhibit A on executing these men.

These 56 were not a diverse group, at least by modern standards. They were all white, Christian (including one Catholic), and men of some wealth. Some were farmers, some were lawyers, some were merchants, but all had the wealth to gather in Philadelphia. They all had a great deal in common, including their belief in revolution.

Previous generations were told that their ultimate loyalty rested with the king (or queen) and they had the power of life or death over everyone. But a 33 year old farmer and scholar from Virginia wrote this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

.

In other words we are primarily subject to God, not the king. We have rights that not even the king can violate.

We’ve made a great deal of progress in the last 246 years, but we’re far from done.

  1. We ended slavery in 1865. This was perhaps the largest task of all. The framers of the Constitution (13 years in the future) recognized that there would be no United States unless slavery were allowed to continue in the South. Slavery constituted our greatest challenge and it led to a conflict that nearly destroyed us. Today, 157 years after the abolition of slavery, we’re still reckoning with full racial equality. But the fact that most of us recognize this gives us hope.
  2. We have never reverted to governance by royalty and we have never come close. Several of our Presidents have been jeered at with the epithet “King.” If you watch the 2012 movie Lincoln he is referred to as “King Abraham Africanis I.”
  3. Freedoms of press, speech, religion, and assembly are entrenched. We think nothing of writing to the local newspaper criticizing our leaders, often not even thinking that citizens of other nations wouldn’t dare. We need to look over our shoulder when we walk into our place of worship.
  4. When we see discrimination we’ve done what we can to stop it. Women now vote. People of color can now live where they choose. Recent conflicts over marriage equality, once thought impossible, are now the law of the land.

And yes, we still have a long way to go. Today we are divided in ways we haven’t seen in our lifetimes. Good people on each side accuse others of wanting to end our democracy. But our history gives us great reason for hope.

Next year I hope I’ll be commentating on our 247th birthday. I’m confident I’ll still be hopeful.

Thoughts on Christmas Movies

Posted on by
Reply

I write this in the days after Christmas, having watched parts of countless movies, some old, and some new. My wife loves Christmas and spent the last few weeks addicted to the Hallmark Channel. It got me thinking about Christmas movies.

As long as there have been movies we’ve experienced movies about Christmas. Charles Dickens (1812-1870) may have started this with his novel A Christmas Carol, first published in 1843.

The first half of the 20th Century gave us movies that many of us remember from our childhood. I can’t keep up with the number versions of A Christmas Carol but that was far from the only Christmas movie. We also enjoyed It’s A Wonderful Life, White Christmas, Holiday Inn, Miracle on 34th Street, and A Charlie Brown Christmas (among several other cartoons).

All of these movies explored some aspect of conversion. Some character, normally the main character, found his life was changed by the birth of a child 2,000 years ago.

Ebeneezer Scrooge recognized that his choice of profit over love wouldn’t go well for him. George Bailey learned that his life made him a hero, not a sucker. Charlie Brown learned that his heart captured the real meaning of Christmas and he’s not a blockhead.

The birth of a child calls all of us to recognize the possibilities of new life. I think all of us see a newborn and wonder where his (or her) path will lead and hope it’s a path that’s good for everyone. And I think we watch these Christmas movies to remind ourselves of the reality of this.

That said, I have to confess I watch parts of several Hallmark movies with a little concern. In fairness Hallmark is a for profit company and they make movies to make money, not to remind us of who we are.

But if what I saw indicates anything it indicates this: We celebrate Christmas because it allows young, beautiful people to find each other and fall in love. A young man moves back to his hometown and connects with an old girlfriend and they find they were destined from the start. A young woman accepts a job promotion and works alongside a man who seems arrogant but really is trying to heal from a toxic breakup.

This may mark me as a grumpy old man but these movies trouble me. The birth of Jesus didn’t inaugurate a new world where young, beautiful people can finally find each other and fall in love. The birth of Jesus meant that people like Ebeneezer Scrooge and George Bailey and Charlie Brown were more valued than they thought.

And if Faux News finds out about this please understand that this isn’t an attack on the Hallmark Channel or another example on the war on Christmas.

It’s just a reflection from an old guy in California.

Thoughts On Thanksgiving

Posted on by
Reply

For as long as I can remember I’ve loved Thanksgiving. Full disclosure, as a child I didn’t much like turkey as I found it a dry version of chicken but that was before turkeys were engineered to taste better. But I liked the fact that it gave me a Thursday and Friday off from school.

And like many children of the 1960s I was heavily influenced by the Peanuts “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving,” and more to the point, Linus’ account of the shared meal between the Pilgrims and the Indians in 1621. Alas, like many historical events, our image has little to do with the actual events. If you want the true story of the first Thanksgiving, let me steer you to Mayflower: A Story of Courage, Community, and War by Nathaniel Philbrick.

Nevertheless Thanksgiving has become a time to recognize gratitude. Thanksgiving became a national holiday in 1861, instituted by President Lincoln. He proclaimed it during a time of great suffering, when the future of the nation was in doubt.

Now, near the end of 2021, we have a great deal to fear. Many of our leaders continue to ignore the devastating realities of climate change and our role in its creation. Here in the United States many of our citizens have used victimization to ignore the simplest of truths and the most obvious of events.

And yet we give thanks. Thanksgiving does not depend on optimism, the preponderance of evidence, but on hope. There is darkness in even in our best days but more to the point there is light even in our worst days.

Years from now we will look back on Thanksgiving 2021 and recognize not only what was wrong, but what turned out right. Gratitude (Thanksgiving) allows us to celebrate that now.

The Justice Chronicles, Volume 39: The First Monday In October

Posted on by
Reply

Historically the Supreme Court begins its term on the first Monday in October. Most of the time this date means little to anyone who doesn’t follow the court. But this year, well, it’s a different story.

For much of its history we’ve seen the court as being above politics and their decisions were unpredictable. Not so much today.

Today most descriptions of the court tell us that there are six conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barret. There are also three liberals: Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

This matters because this year they may render a decision on an issue that has divided our nation for more than sixty years: abortion. Before 1973 the ability of a pregnant woman to terminate (abort) her pregnancy depended mostly on where she lived and how much money she had. In 1971 a pregnant Texas woman wished to end her pregnancy but she lived in a state where abortion was illegal. She filed a lawsuit claiming that Texas violated her right to privacy and the case, Roe v. Wade made it to the Supreme Court.

On January 22, 1973 the court decided, by a vote of 7-2, that abortion in the first trimester (13 weeks) of pregnancy was within the rights of the mother and cannot be outlawed. Pregnancies in the 2nd trimester (14-26 weeks) could be terminated with restrictions and pregnancies after 26 weeks were protected. Since then it’s been assumed that abortion was unlawful when the fetus/child was viable, that is, could live outside the womb. Opinions differ but it’s generally held that a child at 24 weeks can live outside the womb (full term is 40 weeks). It didn’t take long to divide the country.

Those who opposed abortion identify as Pro Life and those who supported abortion identify as Pro Choice.

At first the only strong Pro Life voice in the United States was the Catholic Church but by the early 1980s they were joined by Evangelical Christians

Since then these groups have formed an uneasy alliance and virtually all their energy has focused them on overturning Roe v. Wade. During the 1980s this became a cause for the Republican Party and since 1984 it’s been enshrined in their platform. Republican Presidential candidates since then have all promised to appoint Supreme Court Justices that will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade.

We may be on the cusp of that. Of the 9 justices all six who are listed as conservatives have been appointed by Republican presidents. During their confirmation hearings they all promised not to have preconceived opinions on abortion and would decide any case on its merits.

Nobody believes that. As I write this the Court has agreed to hear the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Mississippi passed a law that prohibits abortion after the 12th week of pregnancy. Since this case was filed Texas passed a law that prohibits abortion after the 6th week of pregnancy (often before the woman knows she’s pregnant). If the court finds in favor of Mississippi it will, in essence, overturn Roe v. Wade.

Cards on the table, I’m pro life. I know any number of people who describe themselves as “oops babies.” In other words their conception was unplanned and unexpected, but not unloved. I’m not naive and I’m not certain that we will ever get to zero abortions. But I believe we can look to Switzerland for guidance. Theirs is a three pronged approach. They provide sex education in schools, they make birth control free and universally available, and they work to raise the socioeconomic level of all their citizens so that nobody chooses abortion out of economic desperation.

Their abortion rate isn’t zero but it’s pretty low. But reversing Roe v. Wade also won’t eliminate abortions in the United States. It will simply allow states to write their own laws (as they did before 1973). Mississippi and Texas will certainly outlaw abortions but states like California and New York certainly will not. Women with enough money will simply travel to states that allow abortion.

But perhaps most troubling of all, women in those states without the ability to travel find themselves with few options. Some of them will choose to have illegal abortions that often lack the safety measures they need.

Some will say that people who choose to break the law shouldn’t complain about bad outcomes. But many of these women are barely past being girls. Some pregnancies are not consensual and some of them are the result of sexual abuse by someone they knew who broke their trust.

Simply put, overturning Roe v. Wade won’t get us to a pro-life nation. I fear it will draw us further away.

Thoughts On Our WIthdrawal From Afghanistan

Posted on by
Reply

Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001 we learned that Osama bin Laden masterminded the attack. We also knew that he was protected from capture by the Taliban, a terrorist organization who occupied Afghanistan. The Taliban identified as Muslim but denied basic rights and education to women. Most of us believed the Taliban to be evil because of their beliefs but felt we couldn’t invade another country only to impose our values on them, noble though they may be.

Osama bin Laden wasn’t a member of the Taliban but was instead the head of another terrorist organization (who also claimed to be Muslim) called al Qaeda. When we demanded that bin Laden be turned over to us Afghanistan refused.

At that point the administration of President Bush had a choice to make. They could either see the 9/11 attack as a criminal matter and dispatch the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or they could see it as an act of war and ask Congress for a Declaration of War.

They did neither. Instead, on September 18, 2001 Congress authorized President Bush to “prevent acts of international terrorism.” On this authority President Bush sent troops into Afghanistan. But here’s the problem: In December our troops were closing in on bin Laden in Tora Bora, in Afghanistan close to the border with Pakistan.

But at the time the Bush administration were more interested in invading Iraq because they claimed that Iraq stored “weapons of mass destruction.” They didn’t but the invasion of Iraq pulled out troops that could have captured bin Laden. Simply put, we were at war with both Afghanistan and Pakistan and bin Laden avoided capture.

That’s where things stood at the end of President Bush’s 2nd term in 2008. He was replace by Barack Obama. President Obama ended the occupation of Iraq in 2017. On May 2, 2011, on orders from President Obama, Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.

So if we invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to capture or kill bin Laden and we did that over 10 years ago, why have we continued to be in Afghanistan? Good question.

President Bush famously claimed that we weren’t in the business of nation building and had no interest in forcing our American values on another nation. But that’s exactly what we tried to do. Both Presidents Obama and Trump claimed to wish to leave Afghanistan but neither did it.

This year President Biden found himself saddled with a war that none of his predecessors were willing to end, and he decided to end it.

Yes, it’s a mess. Yes, many good people in Afghanistan believed our promise to liberate them from the terrorists that drove girls and women from classrooms and the freedom to go outside their homes.

And yes, perhaps most importantly, we promised good, honest Afghans that if they helped us they could look to a better future for themselves and their families. Now many of these Afghans find themselves trapped in a country no longer their own, fearing reprisals from the Taliban, and wondering why they trusted our promises.

I don’t blame them if the regret helping us. War is an awful thing and promises easily made become hard or impossible to keep. Their vision was our vision for a free and inclusive Afghanistan, and that vision now lies in tatters.

I grieve for them. I also grieve for the brave and heroic American men and women who were placed in harm’s way. Some of them sacrificed their lives. Others came home with horrific wounds (physical, emotional, and spiritual) that will haunt them the rest of their lives. But all came home wishing for a different outcome, and many of them will likely never reconcile the guilt they feel in making promises they intended to keep.

As Americans we need to stand for the promises we make. We are a nation founded on the belief that each and every one of us has the God given tools to create a nation that embodies truth, justice and love.

Finally, and we didn’t learn this after Vietnam, we should never land boots on the ground without deciding in advance what victory would look like. If our goal was to kill or capture bin Laden, we achieved that 10 years ago. If our goal was to create a new Afghanistan in our own image, we should have had that debate 20 years ago.