When Is It GO TIME?

We all have a different sense for when it's go time. By go time, I mean the point at which we are committed to doing something that exposes us to the risk of personal harm. It's the point of no return. This concept applies to individuals and countries. We'll start with individuals.

Some people arrive at go time very quickly. I can remember being careful not to stare too long at rednecks in camaros when I was a teenager. I was quite familiar with the stories of peers whose prolonged glances elicited the go time response from mullet-headed drivers of souped-up idiotmobiles. They came to school with stories of terrified car chases and the ever-looming fear that their assailants would one day catch up with them. This kind of person, the premature go-timer, takes the slightest perturbation and interprets it as a moment of truth, a moment when his status is in question. The response to this moment of truth is the willingness to risk personal injury to keep face - fistfights usually ensue. In my view, this phenomena characterizes some of the most primal of human behavior. In short, the premature go-timer is the antithesis of a reasonable person.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the person who never gets to go time. For whatever reason, usually it's fear, this second-guesser never acknowledges the moment of truth until it has passed. Second guessing is precarious because, afterwards, it can turn out that the moment of truth was not a moment of truth at all. In this case, it's a good thing. It vindicates restraint. In other cases, however, second guessing can cost everything, such as in an emergency when action is required and the consequences for inaction are grave. At times like these, the second-guesser, the one who reasons too much, is introduced to the regret that will haunt him for the rest of his days.

Of course, the reality is that most people perceive go time as somewhere in the grey area between rashness and over-analysis. In fact, most of us fall somewhere on the continuum between the two. This is certainly the case with the leaders of countries when go time is placed in the context of international affairs.

When we're talking about countries, the premature go timer and the second-guesser become the hawk and the dove. The hawk is quick to arrive at go time, while the dove continuously insists that all options are not exhausted. In today's increasingly dangerous world, niether approach makes sense. The mark of wisdom in foreign policy is not knowing whether it will ever be go time; it is knowing when it is go time.

The premise that underlies the necessity of go time is the notion that there will always be humans who do not respond to diplomacy. They may pay lip service to concessions but they have designs on the world that do not include their capitulation. From Mao to Hitler to Milosovich to Hussein, it has always been so. When dealing with these kinds of people, doves are out of their element. Indeed, they're downright dangerous.

This is because bad people make their decisions based upon the likelihood of success. If they know that those who stand in their way are doves, they press on. On the other hand, if they believe that a hawk stands between them and their objectives, they pause and reconsider, they second-guess their plans. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

The election that stands before us is really a competition between a hawk and a dove. Though Kerry would have us believe that he can be a hawk if necessary, his record says otherwise. He opposed the escalation of the Cold War. He opposed the United Nations coalition to liberate Kuwait, a coalition which, incidentally, met the very global test he proclaims to be the only prerequisite to him donning his feathers and talons. Now, he claims that the invasion of Iraq was premature, that all options were not exhausted. Given his obvious penchant for second-guessing, it is fair to ask when exactly would have been go time. (It may be argued that Kerry's willingness to go to Vietnam is evidence of a hawk tendency in his personality. However, his request to return home after only four months gives more credence to the possibility that his trip to Vietnam was a career-builder, not a commitment to participating in the prolonged go time in SE Asia.)

Bush, like him or not, operates on the principle that go time against militant Islam is inevitable. We may argue all day long as to whether his place is too far toward the premature go-timer on the go time continuum, but it's important to recognize that his appreciation of the necessity of go time is essential to overcoming the current scourge of this planet. It simply is not clear that Kerry shares this perspective.

In my view, if an error is to be made, I'd rather it be made by being too aggressive rather than being too passive. So, even if I concede that Iraq was a mistake (which I absolutely do not), I'd still take Bush over Kerry. At least with Bush, the terrorists are forced into second-guessing. This, I am convinced, is a good thing.