Crisis averted?

This morning's news of the death of The Butcher prompted me to consider the mindset of those who opposed the Maoist movement in Cambodia and were subsequently beaten, tortured, killed or all of the above. We've often heard the phrase, "Are you willing to die for your country?", to which I always say yes without much thought.

But in considering the Khmer Rouge and its bloody war, it occured to me that sometimes dying for your country means being on the losing side of a civil crisis. Is it any less honorable to die as a perceived traitor in a fundamentalist revolution? The Khmer Rouge would have suggested the opposition were the ones without nationalistic pride ... the unworthy scourge needing a good cleansing. What did the British say of the colonists at the time of the American revolution?

I'd be guilty of being a bit melodramatic if I tried to compare the polarization in America's current political climate to the genocide that took place in the Killing Fields of Cambodia. But you have to recognize that civil wars all start somewhere and typically begin with differing ideas.

Which is why I bring up the ongoing debate in America. Opinions are so entrenched that it's more than just a little scary. And when a nation differs so significantly on some fairly fundamental points, you end up with a recipe for potential disaster. So the question becomes, "Do you want to be on the winning side or the right side?" From a personal point of view, the article of Ta "The Butcher" Mok's passing made me realize that my life has been spent on the losing team, where my possibly unrealistic idealism could become my eventual downfall. If push comes to shove, am I as willing to stand up and die for the America I believe in as the nation's radicals are? Ironically, I'd probably die still trying to answer that question.

The good news is a civil conflict is likely not in our future. After nearly five years of being the aggressor, the US finds itself back in a defensive position, operating in a more cautious manner. In a strange way, our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan now becomes a good thing, as we're stretched so thin that Bush CAN'T go into Gaza with guns ablazing.

Whatever is really happening behind the scenes is largely irrelevant, because the growing crisis among Israel and the Middle East is no longer a US thing. For now, the heat is off us as the UN unites to figure this one out (don't worry North Korea -- we're still thinking about you, but Japan can take the lead on this one). All of which means the US should begin to garner a bit more solidarity among its citizens. It won't be anything noticeable like it was after 9/11, and it will soon descend into finger pointing, but at least I can delay my plans to flee to Vancouver.

Speaking of finger-pointing, I think it's high time the dems started planning for life after Bush, rather than continually sounding the rally cry over his every misstep (of which there are too many to count). Of course, I said it was time to do that the day after Bush was re-elected, so why would they listen to me now?