You know, I have no idea how to defeat ISIL, nor am I spending any time trying to figure one out. If it comes down to our nation needing my thoughts about this, the terrorists will already have won.
But a lot of the arguments I'm reading remind me of a trait some people have which annoys me. It's "talking tough without doing anything." Back during the '88 Writers Guild strike — actually, during all the many Writers Guild strikes through which I've lived — I kept finding myself in this conversation with some writer who was sure he had the key to victory…
HIM: We have to be tough.
ME: Okay, fine. We'll be tough. What are you suggesting we do?
HIM: I just told you. Be tough. Let them know we won't give in. They're tough. We have to be tougher.
ME: I get that. How would you suggest we express this toughness? What should we do that we aren't doing yet?
HIM: Win. Get in there and fight and battle and be tough. They'll give in, trust me. All we have to do is be tough.
I could never get any of these tough-minded people to suggest an action on our part…or if they did, it was something we were already doing. I guess it made them feel vital and powerful to think they'd actually come up with a solution. There's a saying that "hope is not a plan." Well, neither is an attitude.
Politicians like to talk tough, especially when we seem to be in a war situation. It's easy to talk tough. Hey, my dad can beat up your dad. But it's kind of meaningless without any workable idea how to apply all that alleged toughness. Check out almost any speech lately about how to defeat ISIL, especially those from folks who want to be the next President of the United States. Talking tough may have its place but it's not the same thing as being tough. Or even being smart.