Prefer cautious presidents

President Eisenhower rejected militarily responses to the Hungarian and Polish revolts of 1956 because his only real countermeasure was nuclear weapons. President Kennedy delayed airstrikes and invasion during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Unknown to the CIA, there were dozens of battlefield nuclear weapons and several nuclear-tipped rockets ready to launch in Cuba. Russians had submarines with nuclear torpedoes on station. The captain and first officer of the lead sub used their launch keys to fire one, but the fleet commander countermanded the launch. If we had invaded Cuba, tactical weapons would have been deployed and intermediate missiles launched. Once any nuclear weapon had been used, global thermonuclear war was inevitable.

The invasion of Iraq embroiled us directly in the seething mud pot of the Middle East. These conflicts stem from the Sunni/Shiite schism, the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the colonial machinations of the British and French, plus the Bible.

Presidents are elected to make careful, honest and prudent decisions, especially as commander in chief. The military myth compels action without regard to consequences.

I prefer a cautious president to a reckless one. Invading Iraq was reckless, doubling down on that is foolish. Ask our untreated wounded vets.

David Webb

Spokane