The Democrats uncertain and waning support for the war in Iraq can be liken to two characters portrayed in the movie Wyatt Earp (Warner Brothers, 1994): Wyatt himself and Ed Masterson. Since the 125th anniversary of the famous “Shoot Out at the O.K. Corral” happened this past fall, perhaps it's fitting to draw inspiration from the famous lawman's life. The movie’s theme is laid out pretty early on when Wyatt’s father, a judge played by Gene Hackman, talks to him after the teenage boy witnesses a man being gunned down in cold blood on a western town street. He said “You know I'm a man that believes in the law...But there are plenty of men who don't care about the law. Men who'll take part in all kinds of viciousness and don't care who gets hurt. In fact, the more they get hurt, the better. When you find yourself in a fight with such viciousness...hit first if you can. And when you do hit, hit to kill.” He said that Wyatt would know when that time comes.
Wyatt, played by Kevin Costner, grows up and becomes a lawman and puts his father’s words into practice. He strictly enforces the law, particularly the one he posted at the entrance of Dodge City stating “No firearms in city limits.” Any resistance to this policy is likely to be met with Sheriff Earp delivering a swift pistol whip to the head. He believed it was better to pre-empt a threat than to have it develop into a full blown gunfight where innocent people could likely get hurt.
Earp hired an old friend Ed Masterson as a deputy, but quickly noticed he did not seem to possess the temperament to last as a lawman in the western frontier town. Wyatt told him that he wasn’t a deliberate enough man. Ed liked to reason with those failing to comply with the no firearms law to show them it was in their best interest to do so. Wyatt feared that Ed’s way of kind of sidling up to the issue with these vicious men was likely to get himself and perhaps others killed. Some of the townspeople began to question Wyatt’s methods and appreciated Ed’s more amiable ways and decided to fire Earp and make Masterson head sheriff. Wyatt was banished to Texas to engage in small time bounty hunting.
Unfortunately, Wyatt’s concerns about Masterson proved true. Ed talked a man out of giving up his gun who at first belligerently refused to do so. When the outlaw eventually got his gun back, he shot Masterson dead in the street. The town afterwards sank into lawlessness and sent an urgent message to Wyatt begging him to return.
One could argue that President Bush has followed the Wyatt Earp approach in dealing with Saddam and in the wider war on terror, and he now in a sense has been banished or at least faces being severely restricted in his prosecution of the fight. Regarding Saddam, the Democrats preferred (or at least looking back now would have preferred) the Ed Masterson approach of trying to reason more with Saddam believing apparently that seventeen United Nations resolutions demanding compliance issued over twelve years wasn’t quite enough time to allow dictator to come to his senses and amend his ways. Many in that party have been extremely critical of Bush’s domestic surveillance program and detention of enemy combatants as well.
President Bush came to office with an outlaw regime in Iraq and an emboldened Al Qaeda following a string of attacks against the United States from which they experienced little or no repercussions. Following 9/11, he understood Congress’ authorization to use force to prosecute the war on terror and bring justice to our enemies to mean what it said and set out to do just that. Some may argue he’s been too aggressive in the prosecution of the war, or should have done more here or less there, but he’s been dealing with vicious men with no respect for the law or human life.
In our current fight to preserve modern civilization, the United States must ask itself: would we rather be led by Wyatt Earp or Ed Masterson?
