no idea what to title this

I was watching the Three Kings the other day. Actually, it was over several days and then I re-watched it twice to listen to the two commentary tracks. I watch a lot of things on my other monitor while I work at my desk, read news, throw unread e-mails away, etc. Lately, I've been on a finance kick with Quicken and all that jazz and have been contemplating year end moves I might want to make. Like I've mentioned before, I watch DVDs on my second monitor for background entertainment. It's a way to make up for the not having a television thing, but with no commercials.

As one might expect (if you've seen the movie), it got me thinking about the Gulf War in 1991 and the current Gulf War that we're now in. The first Gulf War ended with the United States liberating Kuwait by driving the Iraqi forces out. There was no march to Baghdad or attempt to oust Saddam Hussein. It was a war with defined military objectives that were achieved so it ended at that point. However, the first President Bush later regretted never going to Baghdad to remove Hussein from power. Due to the obvious connection between that President Bush (41) and the current President Bush (43), it is not surprising that we entered into another war with Iraq. The thinking part is that the current President Bush is uniquely committed to resolving the war in Iraq specifically because of his father's regrets.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. That's a rather bold claim to make. Yes, it is. I also believe that the same reasons and motivations led us into Iraq in the first place as well. However, that's not the question now since we're already there. The real question is how do we get out and win? To win, from a foreign policy standpoint, we would need to leave the country safer and more stable than when we found it and develop a non-anti-American sentiment with most people in the country. President Bush is more likely to stay committed to Iraq even in difficult times (like now) because he saw firsthand how much his father regretted the missed opportunity. He will not let himself willingly let the same happen to him. He wants to win down to his very core. Not only is his reputation as a leader at stake with this war, but also the latent expectations of his father of a vision of what the Middle East can become.

There's something about being a man that is very hard to quantify or even qualify. We are the sons of our fathers, but we are not our fathers. We are not destined to the same failures and shortcomings, but nor are we guaranteed the same successes and strengths. Nonetheless, there's a connection, a sense of obligation and understanding that binds many men to try and achieve certain ideals of their fathers about how they should live their lives. The idea is heavily romanticized in popular culture, especially movies with male-centric stories like The Godfather. The real world is filled with a much hazier version of the romanticized, honor-bound surreality of films, but I believe it still exists. It is that sense, that father-son connection that obliges the president to see this war to its proper end.

I firmly believe that John Kerry would not have handled this war any better than Bush has to date or will in the future. I say that because Kerry would have caved to the whispers into is left ear and more quickly drawn down troop levels before the country was stable enough to govern itself. This is not to say that Bush himself is a great military strategist, but more that Kerry is not so deeply committed to properly resolving the war. He has less on the line. Bush has history, for both him and his father on the line. he understands that the future of an entire region of the world might be at stake along with strong American interests in the region. He is the one who will have the intestinal fortitude to stick with the war even if it becomes wildly unpopular and more difficult to conduct.

At this point, I'd like to point out that they were some really good commentary tracks on that Three Kings DVD. One was from the director and the other was from the two producers. They actually discussed the filmmaking process, both from an artistic and logistical/financial point of view. I recommend it for people who are interested in filmmaking.

I totally need to get an iron. (I also totally need to not use unnecessary words in sentences. It's a bad habit.) I wanted to wear my bright blue shirt to the Christmas party. It's pretty close to Schlumberger blue, but I had it folded (in the broadest sense of the word) in a corner of my closet. Instead, I opted to look like I had tried and wore a sinister looking shirt that was Halliburton red.