Christina Thomas' Oct. 25 response to my foreign policy letter of October 15 is a study in the folly with changing the subject.
Thomas begins with the scurrilous claim that I advocate "warmongering" and concludes with a flourish of stunningly off-point (and silly) assertions that, as a government pensioner and "closer to the end of life," I should care more about our fellow citizens dying in future wars -- though I no longer have skin in the game.
Not presuming Thomas' personal situation as she has mine -- because facts do matter to me -- I'd have to wonder why she considers one's maturity as somehow a disqualifier when drawing a conclusion about the world around us.
As to the end-of-life-so-I-don't-care-about-casualties argument, a bizarre claim to the extreme: While the thought of Thomas pushing to be first in line with a spade at my grave first produced a chuckle at this address, I'm not dead yet. Actuarially speaking, I'm good for another five presidential terms.
But at its crux, Thomas' rebuttal is no rebuttal at all. The issue raised on Oct. 15 is whether our lack of influence in the world accelerates or curbs human misery and the likelihood of our eventual involvement in warfare.
That, Thomas, is a plea for peace.
As a final illumination for the reader on my personal situation (and because it seems to be the strong suit for Thomas' 'points'), I am indeed a veteran and have adult children who are veterans -- and grandchildren entering the age for enlistment.
So, I most certainly do have skin in the game. To imply that I no longer care is...what's that favored liberal trump word?...Oh, yes! "Offensive!"
People want to kill us, Thomas. Twenty-first century warfare means that borders no longer matter. We would do better to soberly rethink the history of the geopolitical consequences for the power vacuum produced by the current administration.
The discipline of staying on point wouldn't hurt Thomas' arguments, either.
Dan Flathers, Toms Brook