Wisdom is often nothing more 

than withholding an opinion.

   
   When all the facts are not in, the wise person will perceive they are not, and reserve judgement. But, a fool will rush to judgement. "A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards," says Proverbs 29:11.
   Even so, sometimes we rush to opinions too quickly, and I speak of current events, and how we rush to our opinions. Wisdom is often nothing more than holding off on an opinion until you know more about an issue or event.
   And, even so, we often are too quick to condemn others, and end up accusing them falsely.
   If you would be wise, then, neither judge your neighbor too harshly, nor place all your public opinions in stone.

Should We go to War in Syria?

   Do we let ourselves get drawn into this war? Or do we remain out? I'm told President Trump's attack on the Syrian air base was the first direct U.S. attack on Syria in the six-year history of the conflict.

   Do we delve in, more?

   I open today's newspaper to read how Syria has struck, again, at Khan Sheikhoun, the town devastated by the chemical bombings. I assume the news story is correct in saying it was the Syrians who conducted Saturday's attack on Khan Sheikhoun.

   And, I read the criticism of how Trump's missile attack was but symbolic, of how it will do nothing to deter the Syrians, nor save the civilians. That the Syrians returned to Khan Sheikhoun is evidence of that. They thumbed their nose at the U.S. and, in essence, suggested our attack will only make it worse for the civilians.

    From the Washington Post story, I read: "'The American strikes did nothing for us. They can still commit massacres at any time,' said Majed Khattab, speaking by phone from Khan Sheikhoun. 'No one here can sleep properly; people are really afraid.'"

   So, what do we do? 

   Are we the world's policeman? Do we want to be? Does international law allow us to be? Will this be but one of many conflicts we get drawn into?

   I read from the Washington Post story of Shiite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr criticizing both Russian and U.S. intervention. "I call for a military retreat from Syria by everyone," he says. "The Syrians are the only ones who have the right to decide their fate."

   I consider that this is not exactly a matter in which you could ask for a national referendum of the Syrian people, asking them what they want. The Syrians the only ones who should decide their fate? The people are not even in position to pick their own fate. Or is Moqtada al-Sadr saying the fate should to be left to Syrian President Bashar Assad, ISIS and the rebels? 

   I do believe this: Congress should convene -- should already have convened, for that matter -- to discuss whether we should go to war. We keep saying it is for Congress to declare war. Often, then, when the question of whether we should go to war does come up, why is it that Congress does not even convene to discuss the matter? 

   As for me, do I believe we should go to war? I must think on it some more.

I Hesitate to Endorse President Trump's Attack

   I hesitate to endorse President Trump's attack on Syria. I might endorse it, but I will be slow. I do not condone the use of chemical weapons that resulted in 86 or however many deaths. And, yes, I do think such things call for response.
   But, was Trump's attack the appropriate response? We launched 59 Tomahawk missiles at the air base in Syria that is suspected to be the home of the planes involved in the chemical attack earlier in the week.
    And, if I hear correctly, eight or nine civilians were among the casualties. Now, if you are attacking an air base, perhaps you are not expecting to take out civilians. I still pause, though, because, allegedly, we did take out civilians. If civilians were, indeed, killed, could it have been avoided?
   For what it is worth, as I study the issue, I hear that 23 civilians were killed in the Jan. 29 attack in Yemen that also took out a Navy SEAL.
   I know that war can only be so surgical, that some civilians are going to die. But, I still feel you keep them to the minimal, and when you can, to zero. When you are in the midst of battles in the middle of wars, that is when it is least likely you can keep civilian deaths to zero. Often, you can't choose the battlefield, and civilians are in it. But, when you are planning an optional, surgical, single-day attack, perhaps you should be expected to keep the deaths to zero.
   Killing someone to protest the death of others is not an appropriate response.
   Still, despite all my concern about the loss of civilian life, I cannot but come back to the reality that an air base is singularly a military facility, and, as such, an appropriate target. While I think we should be asking how we ended up killing civilians, while I think we should be very concerned and disheartened, I conclude that the attack on Syria appears appropriate.
   On a separate concern not addressed in this column, I am not yet convinced Trump acted within his powers, nor within international law, but the military action is in line with what past presidents have done.
   This would leave but the concern that the Syrians are not the ones responsible for the chemical attack. On that, I wonder but what the strike might have been justified, anyway.
(Note: the second sentence and last three paragraphs were added hours after this column was written.)

These Days, if You are Going to go to War, You Better have a Lawyer

   These days, you need a lawyer to go to war.  You need to know if its legal to go to war, and you need to know how to conduct the war legally once you're in it. You don't just wander into war without the advice of a competent legal team. Until our current day, war was the one thing that didn't have rules. Those days are gone. It used to be that part of the definition of war was that you could do anything you wanted, kill anyone you wanted, and kill them however you wanted -- because that's what war was all about.
  Nowadays, we have rules. You can't just fight anyway you want. You can't just go about killing another country's people unless you do it by the book. In coming up with war strategy, you need both generals and lawyers.
    No chemical weapons. If you are going to kill another country's people, be nice about it.
   And, you better remember that the War Powers Resolution only gives you permission to skip over Congressional approval in case of an attack on America, its territories, its possessions, or its armed forces.
   And that international law says you can only fight on another country's soil if that country gives you permission, the UN gives you permission, or you are acting in self defense.
   These days, instead of asking for Congress's approval, you better ask for your lawyer's. He can tell you whether you have the proper permissions and qualify to go to war, and whether you are fighting in an authorized manner.

Is there Anything to be done to Discourage These False Accusations?

   If someone were to accuse me of being a racist, would it make him a racist? Perhaps just as important, am I in any way and even slightly racist? That is an introspective question I consider.
   But, again, realizing how apart I am from being racist, would it make them a racist if they were to suggest I'm one?
   Off top, maybe, maybe not. Some of them might be just jumping to the wrong conclusions, using what they feel are reasons when those reasons don't exist. Let's say I said to one, "Listen, son, you need to do this," and they took my use of the term "son" and the fact I was giving an order to indicate that I was trying to put them in their place, racially.
   They'd be wrong, but I don't know that that would necessarily mean they were the ones who were racist.
   But, what if they knew I wasn't racist, but just threw out the accusation to cause trouble? I don't know that that qualifies as racism either. But, it is a form of conduct that is just as bad as racism.
   And, it is a form of conduct we need to call out. In our society, as we veer back toward a more divided nature, one race against another, we do not want people to be fueling the fire without cause.
   As, I often do with social issues, I wonder what could be done to remedy these two problems. One, I wonder if there is something we could do to discourage people from jumping to the wrong conclusion that the other person is a racist. And, two, I wonder if there is something we could do to dissuade people from knowingly making the false accusation, just to stir up trouble.
   Off top, I see no answers. I will go to bed thinking on it, but doubt I will come up with answers.

Sometimes, They Show Themselves to be Racists

   I wonder, when someone suggests there isn't racism, or much racism, in America, if that doesn't show them a racist. Let me explain.
   Shortly ago, I ran into a situation where one person was suggesting the others in his group were treating him in a racist way. I was privy to some of the back-and-forth of what was going on, but could see that I didn't know enough to say whether they were discriminating against him racially.
   Someone asked me about it. I suggested the racism might be possible. Saying it might be possible is just leaving the door open, not saying it is so.
   Later that day, as I thought about it, considering all I knew and weighing each small evidence I had, I concluded I just couldn't tell. I went back and forth thinking it might be, and then thinking it wasn't.
   Without reading their minds, I concluded, there often is no way to tell. Often they do not come right out and do something that clearly brands them a racist. That doesn't mean they aren't. They can pick on someone and put it off as there being a reason for their doing so -- having nothing to do with racism.
   If we were to say such things never happen, we would be wrong. There are going to be those who are racists, who just don't let on. To say that it never happens is to deny what surely does happen. How often it happens might be a question, but not that it does.
   So, when someone suggests it never happens, when they say certainly no racism was involved in situations where it possibly might have been, they might just not be thinking clearly.
   Or, they might be showing themselves a racist.
   And -- another thing -- if we suppose we are wise enough to figure out whether racism is involved in a lot of these situations, our "wisdom" proves us fools. We are fools for thinking we are wise. When there aren't enough facts to sort it out, there aren't enough facts.
  (Minor changes made 4/6/17.)

Too Many Opinions; Too Many Chiefs

   "Too many opinions; too many chiefs," my friend said. He exited the door, then came back seconds later. "Everybody puts their 2 cents in; all you get is chaos."
   Just as there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians, so are there too many people putting themselves forward as having all the answers and not enough people willing to follow good advice?
   There's an interesting thought.