There’s a passage in Jim Bouton’s Ball Four, a great book about an aging and marginal baseball player hanging on in the big leagues. In the passage, he talks about having to act really mad after every loss even though it was just an act. He liked winning, but he didn’t see the point in throwing a tantrum after a loss.
I feel the same way every time a president gives the tough talk to the bad guys. It feels so pointless to me, but I guess it’s part of the job to act angry. If you need to blow up some bad guys, then blow them up. I don’t see the need for the act. I guess some people take solace in tough talk, but it seems dumb to me.
If a president initiates military action, putting American troops in danger, simply out of some righteous sense of vengeance, he’s a maniac. If there’s a valid strategic reason for it, that’s a sobering decision that carries the weight of life and death. If you have a strategic justification for killing the bad guys and the risks are acceptable, cool, but that’s not a choice made in anger.
Put more directly, no service members should be put at risk just because some fat redneck in College Station wants to act tough and angry. Some things are worth dying for, but not a demented identity and hurt national pride.