War is not freedom

  Roughly a decade and a half after entering Iraq, we still have not rendered it a free nation. A dozen years after the country held its first free elections, the country still is not free.
  For war is not freedom.
   If you "free" a country, but it remains embroiled in war, it is not free. Freedom is not fear -- It is not fearing for your life. Freedom is not death. It is not being forced to run and hide. It is not having your home blown apart, or family members being shot and killed.
   Of all things that keep a nation from being free, none stands larger than war. No nation is so far removed from freedom as that nation embroiled in war.
   War can bring freedom, but the period of time leading to that freedom -- the period known as war -- is the most oppressive of all. It is a little like curing a person of cancer: It is wonderful when a person is cured and healthy, but the chemo treatment leading to the cure is very oppressive. Good health lies not in the moment of treatment, but after the treatment is over. 

If We are to have Guns, We Must have a Reverence for Life

  If you would teach your children how to use guns, you must teach more. Guns can be good and guns can be bad. What you teach about guns is more important than just teaching how to use them.

   Guns come with dangers, so they should come with warnings. Guns can kill the soul of the person shooting them as quickly as they kill the person who is shot. So, pass them out only with precaution. Tell those who would use them not only when to use them, but when not to.

  We may suppose we strengthen our society by giving it guns. To the contrary, we will only weaken it if the guns come without instructions on the sanctity of life. Guns should not be placed in the hands of anyone who is not first taught to reverence the lives of those they can be aimed at.

Is it Fulfillment of Scripture of Just Likeness of Scripture?

  As I went to bed last night after writing about the Middle East practice of hiding in underground caves, I thought of this scripture. And, as the U.S. dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever on the tunnels of Afghanistan, I thought of it again.

  Is the practice of hiding in the tunnels fulfillment of scripture, or just a likeness to scripture?

   "And they shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, for fear of the Lord," says Isaiah 2:19.

   As I finished my blog yesterday, and considered what to put as the headline, I found myself thinking of the phase, "holes of the rocks." So, I titled the column, "How do You Find Them in the Holes of the Rocks?" That's when it hit me that the practice in the Middle East of hiding underground might be fulfillment of scripture, and it certainly is at least likeness to scripture.
   Then this next day, the tunnels made the news as the U.S. dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb ever.
   Saddam Hussein was found in an underground hideout. Osama Bin Laden is said to have accessed the tunnels. Both would be considered wicked men by many. Both had the fear of justice, the fear that they would be caught.
   Perhaps, then, the fear of the Lord.

How do You Find Them in the Holes of the Rocks?

   Syria is the one part of the world he would blow up and start all over on. I have a friend who feels that that is the best way to deal with Syria.
   I'm not in favor of such a suggestion. I don't at all want to see the country wiped off the map, so to speak. But, I do take note of one of the reasons he gave for wanting to blow Syria off the map, and I note how it affects my thoughts on making Syria a protectorate of ours.
   My friend said Syria, like many other countries, has so many tunnels and underground hiding spots, the bad guys can live underground. So, if I am suggesting we first rid Syria of its bad elements, then before sealing it off against them, we face a large task. If we would clear all the bad people out, how do we do so when they are holed up underground?
   Starve them out? That might be one thought. But, I don't know exactly how we would go about starving them out and identifying them when they came to the surface.

More Thoughts on the Business Model

  Recently, I suggested a business model worthy of trying might be one in which the company lets subcontractors own certain component departments, thus inserting the profit motive on middle management.
   I've continued to think on this. It occurs to me, you could insert the profit-making motive without giving up a portion of the ownership. Just base the department head's pay on a factor tied to saving the company money. I still think there is an advantage, though, of offering a share of ownership. We have a tendency to take greater pride in something that is our own.
   And, about as quick as I wrote the blog, I realized there are some departments for which you do not want to be motivated by profit. Some, you want and need to focus on quality, not profitability. Though it is essential that the company, as a whole, makes a profit, some functions must not be tied too closely to profitability lest a necessary level of performance be compromised by an effort to reduce costs.
 

Model the Defense System after that of Israel

   Here's a novel approach to solve the Syrian crisis: Go in, take over the country, and make it a protectorate of the United States. Now, I'm not saying we definitely should do it, but I'm saying we should consider it.
   The goal would not be so much to free the people -- to bring them democracy -- as to free them from war. Could we do that? Could we go in, kick out not only Bashar al Assad, but also ISIS and any other rough influence  -- and keep them out?
   It is war the country needs freedom from. Six million are internally displace, almost five million have fled the country and are refugees, and an estimate 400,000 have been killed.
   Could we do it? Could we isolate the country from war? Could we take a country in the middle of the Middle East and block out all the hostile elements so prevalent in that part of the world? (A few of Trump's walls might be worthy.)
   And, could we afford to do all this?
   I believe the answer might be, yes, to both questions. For part of the model of how to do it, look no further than Israel. In it, we have a country surrounded by foes and yet it is a nation not only surviving, but thriving. They have their famous Iron Dome anti-missile system. Place a similar system over Syria. Look at whatever other measures Israel has in place for keeping out the enemy and copy them.
   Again, I'm not sure but what Trump-type border walls might be in order. Consider Gaza, and how the wall there keeps out weapons that might be used against Israel.
   Now, in Syria, since we are wanting to be a benevolent protectorate, while blocking the nation off, do everything to help the economy and to foster it. That is part of being a benevolent protectorate, building the economy.
   Can we pay for all this? Seems a little much, right? Well, yes, we can pay for it. We can afford to do this. Syria has its oil wells. Take their profits and use them to pay for the defense system.
   The harder question is, what will become of the defense system down the line? What if we are ever pressured to leave? Do we leave behind the defense system we have created? What if an undesirable government some day takes over? Will our defense system fall into its hands? Should we make it clear that if we leave, we dismantle the system?
   Still, so far, I am not dissuaded from thinking the right way to handle the Syrian crisis is to adopt the nation, take it under our wing, and care for it as a parent cares for its child.

Should we Consider becoming a Benevolent Protectorate?

   I wonder today on the wisdom of whether the U.S. should become an occupant nation, go in, take over Syria . . .
   And rule it.
   Be a benevolent ruler, but a ruler the same.
   I am not ready to say we should do it, but I believe we should consider it.
   Some estimates put the death toll at 400,000 in that war. An estimate 6 million have been internally displaced, and an estimate 4.8 million have become refugees outside of that country. We, as Americans, find ourselves crying out, wanting to help.
   But, if we rid Syria of Bashar al Assad, who steps into the void? Will ISIS gain control? Will another despot rise to power? If we step in, militarily, and rid the country of both ISIS and Assad, and then let them have a democratic election, will they just elect another despot? And, if a decent person is elected, will he and his nation remain under attack from ISIS or someone else? The scenario of Iraq should haunt us. We call it a free nation, but war remains and shows no signs of going away.
   What if we just stepped in as a benevolent protectorate? Coul we afford it? Would we just be putting ourselves in harm's way? Would war remain, just with us more at its center?
   Or, could we go in, put up all the anti-missile systems and all the defense systems to keep the enemies at bay? How many soldiers would we have to keep there? How much money would we have to spend?