Letting the Pitcher Decide.

Few moments were harder on Red Sox fans than 16 October 2003 around 11pm when Grady returned to the Sox dugout at Yankee Stadium without what he had gone to get; Pedro Martinez. In a foolish assault on a supposed curse that led to 85 years of futility, I had already made a few calls to friends and parents of friends, people who wouldn't take my calls a year later even when it was obvious the Sox would win because nothing seemed more obvious than game 7 of the 2003 ALCS. And within that obvious game, nothing seemed more obvious than to let the bullpen take over for Petey.

Instead Grady let the pitcher decide. He deferred to someone without perspective beyond 60' 6". He allowed someone who wanted to be a hero decide to be a goat. In '86 it was Buckner, out on the field well past his defensive usefulness in hopes of being there for the final out and a Sox first in 69 years. Instead of asking what Stapleton did with that championship ball, we watched Bill stumble behind first in search of it. Was it all Pedro's fault or even Buckner's? Of course not, but they are convenient. The managers charged with making decisions, who have more oversight of the larger picture and facts in hand were derelict when they deferred to their performers instead of deciding themselves. Even SportCenter Anchors know that.

So why is it that some pundits think we should defer to the men and women in the trenches to decide if we should continue a particular strategy? Why would put excessive weight on the opinions of people who are in the midst of the "fog of war", who measure themselves by never giving up? Why would you listen disproportionately to people who see a small snapshot of a larger political-military conflict to determine what to do next? Why should we be swayed by that?

And how does questioning the troops’ ability to determine if we should “soldier on” become a sign of non-support for those troops? The public can admire their will, determination and training, but Presidents can also make decisions that are in their best interest and the interests of the country, though perhaps contrary to what a non-scientific sample of GIs writes home. In fact, that's what Presidents are elected to do.

There was a lot of rhetoric about how those who questioned the war disheartened the troops and emboldened our enemies. I give our troops a little bit more credit and believe they can tolerate dissenting opinion within a democratic system. Many even claim to be fighting to protect just that. No, I don't think that debate disheartened or emboldened anyone. Now the lack of armored Humvees, platitudes about "dead-enders" and "turning the corner" in the face of a well organized and deadly insurgency and the lack of a coherent plan for victory? Those might have been a little discouraging. It was also contradictory to listen to soldiers about staying the course while ignoring their opinions about the basic equipment they required.

However, don't believe I'm all for the defeatists. I firmly believe the criticism after Hurricane Katrine and since has emboldened tropical depressions everywhere.