If You Knew Then What You Know Now. . .

Coach Jerry Sloan

I watched more than a few post-game shows with Jerry Sloan, the legendary coach of the Utah Jazz. When he would get questions like what could the team have done better in that game just completed, his classic response was, "You can't play this game backward. We're getting ready for the next one."

When asked once what he needed to do to beat a certain team after losing badly to them that night, he answered wryly, "Score more points than they do." 

Recently, former Florida Governor, and probable presidential contender, Jeb Bush, younger brother of George W., was asked a dumb question. "Knowing what you know now, would you have gone to war in Iraq?"

Politics aside, and the media's tendency to ask "gotcha" questions in general, I'll bet everyone out there would be a lot smarter then if they knew what they know today.

I'm now 50 years removed from my high school graduation. A lot of water has passed under the bridge to my future I built back in 1965. Were there some bricks in that bridge that I would love to go back and reconstruct today, knowing what I know now? Of course.

Bush was criticized for his bungled answer to that hypothetical. I'm not here to defend Jeb Bush, only to point out what a stupid question it really is.

Knowing what Americans now know about the real Barack Hussein Obama, would we (if we could) go back and ask for a re-do on two presidential elections? TWO?

Knowing what we know now, is there anyone who would have allowed Muhammed Atta and his band of "freedom fighters" (or is it "terrorists"?) to fly hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001?

Knowing what we know now, would George Washington have ever taken on the might of the British Army and Navy?

Knowing what we know now, would anyone have allowed the door to the presidential box at Ford's Theatre to have gone unguarded that night on April 14, 1865, when Lincoln attended?

These are a few examples of decision making. When Presidents and their advisers make decisions, they have enormous consequences that are felt for generations yet to come. They cannot be reversed. We may boldly fly "Mission Accomplished" banners, only to learn our euphoria was premature and ill-advised.

America continues its interminable war against terror. The body count continues to rise. Leaders of the new ISIS (rhymes with "crisis") phenomenon in the Middle East are routinely hunted down and surgically removed in the name of homeland security lest their poisonous tentacles infiltrate America's borders. However, on a larger scale, the fall of Ramadi to ISIS begs the question, "Is there really an American strategy at this juncture?" Nothing changes in the trajectory of nations, it seems, except heightened threats of instability and the potential for nuclear proliferation. Robert Gates, former Defense Secretary under Obama, flatly stated, "There is no strategy in Iraq."

And, oh by the way, those were all existential threats 50 years ago in the "idyllic" times of my youth. We practiced hiding under our desks, and neighbors were building bomb shelters. The protests of the Sixties had all the familiar earmarks of those we witness today. The Vietnam War was the social springboard for anti-war protests, flower children, free love, and psychedelic drugs like LSD and marijuana.

All that seems tame indeed when today we are dealing with Islamic extremists among whom murder is common practice, legalization of marijuana, the infiltration of illegal aliens pouring through our porous borders and flaunting our laws, and those who have advocated "gay marriage" (in quotes because there really is no other way to express that oxymoron in my lexicon) seemingly on the brink of victory in all 50 states pending a POTUS decision that is weeks away. Even conservative Utah Governor Gary Herbert said this week he's keeping "an open mind" about legalizing medical marijuana in Utah.

Some call it "progress" under a "progressive" political agenda. Neanderthal Man that I am, I just call it sin. I know we live in a secular world, surrounded by human secularists on all fronts, but I'm still clinging to my guns and my Bible. I am such a cultural dullard, I guess.

I wonder if some dull-witted reporter in some future day will ask a presidential candidate, "Knowing what you know today, would you vote in favor of gay marriage?" When we put in place a broad and sweeping declaration for marriage equality, when there is nothing "equal" about it, we must imagine there will be consequences.

When we make personal decisions, they may not be as far-reaching in global politics, but in each case those decisions can only be made on the basis of what is known at the time. Imagine what a different life it would be for each of us if we could make a decision where we know the outcome at decision time plus X years out into the future! I know many who would crave that kind of certainty.

There are very real issues that face our country today. The media does not serve the electorate well when they engage in such stupid parlor games with questions like "If you knew today what you didn't know then, would you have decided differently?"

I was thinking back on what my mindset was seven years ago in 2008, then 2010, then 2012, then 2014, when the political pot was boiling with what I thought were massive issues requiring immediate attention. Now, seven years removed from the heat of the battle for the White House in 2008, little has changed on immigration, the massive federal debt, the lack of a balanced budget, not to mention an executive branch usurping constitutional authority reserved to the legislative and the judiciary branches. In fact, much of that troubling agenda I thought about then has only gotten worse.

I was tempted to believe that when the House returned to GOP control there was hope for a brighter future. Then in 2014, the Senate was returned to Republicans as well. Even more cause for hope! But what has happened instead is I have grown older and more weary of the familiar rhetoric. I am heartened with the announcement that we will at least have a federal budget prepared and submitted to the Senate for consideration this year. But the rhetoric is all too familiar, and the results all too predictable.

It seems there are many who are willing to engage in one of life’s favorite fantasies, daydreaming about living one’s life over knowing what one knows now. If it's an idle speculation indulged in on occasions like your 50-year high school graduation, it's harmless enough I suppose. But I would advise against spending too much time on it. You can't have your yesterdays today and make them into something you wish they had been. But you can repent and move forward.

I teach and counsel young people today. I say essentially these same things to them. I counsel them to live well in their youth, to put the building blocks of a sure foundation in place in their lives today while they aren't even thinking about their future too much. Then, as I do now, they can look back without regrets (some, maybe, but not too many). I always treasure the counsel of Mark Twain, who noted: "Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life." So I counsel my young friends to surround themselves with those three to prepare them for old age lived serenely.

My takeaway from Jerry Sloan is the bit of advice I pass along today - don't live your life in reverse, going backward to revisit what happened yesterday. If you learned from your past, and hopefully we have all done that, take the lessons learned and move forward. Life must always be lived into the future.

That's where true hope and happiness reside, as we look forward to our next great adventure, not backward on past events.

Another Doomed Attempt at Middle East War Making

It will come as no surprise to regular visitors to this page that I am not a big fan of our current POTUS. It would be fair to say there is little I find of merit in his presidency, and I am waiting for it to come to a merciful end for America at home and abroad when his second term expires.

I must confess I am baffled by his "management" (if it can be called that) of foreign policy and his almost continual array of missteps in the Middle East. For example, only a month ago he was saying that the ISIS (or ISIL) threat was little more than a bunch of "JV terrorists" who posed no serious threat. He also called it a "fantasy" to think we could arm, train, and field an opposition army to confront them composed of "Islamic moderates" and that he had "no strategy" to deal with ISIS.

And then they started beheading American journalists. Evil, pure evil, was once again presented before us. We now had to take action of some kind, but what? If the intent of the terrorists is to draw us back into the region again, then so far so good. It's working.

Fast forward to this week, as Congress hastily passed yet another "Continuing Resolution" without debate to keep the government running and managed to tack into that bill funding for arming, training and leading what amounts to a bunch of mercenaries who are comprised of the very "moderates" he said a month ago were nothing more than a "fantasy." The most disturbing fact about this week's hastily crafted piece of legislation to confront the threat of ISIS is that it passed overwhelmingly in both the House and Senate.

The legislation is designed "to train, arm and fund the elusive 'moderate' Muslim rebels" fighting to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria. It's astounding, isn't it? Nobody, least of all Barack Obama, wanted to do it when Assad was gassing his own people, and now it's our US "strategy" in the region.

This latest fantasy now calls for the US to somehow discern who the "honest brokers" who stand in opposition to Assad might be, and then start supporting between 3,000 and 5,000 rebels in the Free Syrian Army. Here we go again. . . that's the centerpiece of an authorization to spend $500 million through December 11, 2014.

Stunningly, the bill passed both houses with barely a moment of debate, and it received more support from Republicans than Democrats. We must be living in the twilight zone now, when Democrats sound like they're more responsible than Republicans.



There were a few "notables" in the President's own party who opposed the plan, like Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA). She called it “lame.” Speier wasn't the only one who noted that former generals are also expressing their opposition. The generals, and even Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) point out the obvious fact that the plan does nothing to cut off funding for ISIS. Said he:

"On Thursday, I voted against the Continuing Resolution that is a product of a dysfunctional law-making process. This resolution tied the authorization for military intervention in Syria to a bill to temporarily fund the entire government. One of the most important and solemn duties we have as members of Congress is to authorize the use of military force and ask the brave men and women in our armed services to put their lives in harm’s way.

"It is a gross dereliction of that duty – and an insult to those men and women – to tack on a military authorization to a must-pass spending bill, just so members of Congress can hurry back home." (Emphasis mine).

The terrorist group earns about $3 million per day on oil income from facilities they now control. What, any reasonable person might ask, does the latest plan do about disrupting that stream of income? Would we blow up oil wells and the roads they use to get the oil tankers to shipment?

Another Democratic Congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), claimed “We simply don’t know if somewhere down the line it will turn our guns back against us.” Ask anyone who knows about what happened in Iraq when we left. Who now controls millions of dollars of our military equipment? We gave it to the Iraqi army, and it's now in the hands of the Islamic State being used to kill the innocents.

Nobody can accurately identify what “moderate” Muslim fighters might look like. Whose definition of that term will we accept before we turn over a half billion US dollars to arm and train them? The Iraqi army threw down their weapons and ran in the face of ISIS.

I heard a comment last week from former U.S. ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, who said the rebels are not focused on fighting ISIS. He said, “Their priority is not the Islamic State; it is the Bashar al-Assad regime. We need to know that going in.”

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he has “seen no evidence that the Syrian rebels we plan to train and arm will remain committed to American goals or interests."

Who would doubt Assad has a track record of supporting terrorism and is a brutal dictator? Certainly, he is in the same class as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. So what does America do in the face of new dictators rising to power? Do we intend to take out everyone anywhere they emerge? Our track record so far suggests that when we take down a dictator, the country we "liberate" then falls under the control of even more radical Muslim terrorists. Iraq and Libya are classic examples.

There are still a few Republicans who opposed the President’s “lame” plan. Even though a vast majority (78) in the Senate) favored authorizing the funding, Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Mike Lee (R-UT) in vocal opposition about the funding of Syrian rebels.

Once again, the Constitution provides that the military will always be controlled by the civilian population. That is wise. However, politics tends to trump good policy making when it is not accompanied by robust debate over the decisions to send American forces abroad into foreign intrigues our Founders warned about. So, acting in response to the horrifying images of their beheadings of the journalists that ISIS broadcast for all the world to witness, Congress acted to "courageously" stand up against the obvious evil. Congress can now go home and say they "did something," even if the plan seems doomed at the outset to fail.

And so the onward march of war in the last days continues unabated, it seems. More money, more lives lost, more treasure squandered, and more havoc wreaked.

For a POTUS who started his presidency by proclaiming he was elected to "end wars, not start them," we are now launched on yet another misadventure in policing the world against brutality, evil, and tyranny. May God help us all in that elusive quest.