I'm afraid that this isn't just empty musings by Podhoretz. Remember, Madam Albright said that the deaths of 300,000+ children as a result of US sanctions on Iraq and bombing of civilian infrastructure (like water treatment facilities) was "worth it" - remember, the hope was to terrorize the civilians in Iraq so much that they would rise up against Saddam and do the job for us. Dershowitz - who has openly defended the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians using the Holocaust as an excuse - has more recently started talking about "degrees of civilianness" too...

And Israel's attack on Lebanon is quite obviously intended to terrorize civilians to depopulate the South of Lebanon, and generally punish Lebanese civilians for supporting Hezbollah:

Israel is gambling that the right strategy is to make the people who elected Hamas and a government that includes Hezbollah reckon the costs of their representatives' recklessness. That is why Israel has targeted not only Hezbollah leaders and strongholds but has also bombed infrastructure that sustains daily life for everybody in Lebanon. From Israel's standpoint, this is no longer a fight with nonstate terrorists who are holding their fellow citizens hostage to their tactics. It is, rather, war between Israel and countries that are pursuing (or tolerating) violent policies endorsed (or at least accepted) by their electorates.

 We have long had inner cities terrorized by gangs, even by competing gangs that fight each other.  When was the last time a president declared that we werre engaged in a global war on gangs?  And, when has a president sent in an invading force to replace the mayor and city council of such a city?  And, I can only think of one incident where we bombed a large area of such a city to try to "get the gang" - Philadelphia, not too long ago.  So, have we all succumbed to an ever increasing loss of battles in the "war against gangs"?  Nope.  We let the city police forces do their jobs as best they can.

Acts of terrorism are different?  Really?   Who did we declare war against when Oklahoma City had a federal building bombed?  No one.  Who did we declare war against when a series of abortion clinics were bombed?  No one.  Who should we be engaging in war against when the 9/11 events were committed?    Yes, the answer is still no one.  And, the answer is the same for the same reasons too.

Israel has it's own problems, quite different from our US problems.  No conflation of Israel's problems with our own is justified.  I can't say what Israel should do to solve their problems, but war hasn't yet been the solution to those problems, so it isn't at all likely that it will be now. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Rachel

This is all very helpful, but it is essentially the same thing the anti-Bush left has been saying since Mission Accomplished.

Are you proposing that terrorism be fought with special operations? Are you suggesting that broader coalitions be united before any military engagement is undertaken?

The basic problem here is that we all know Bush's stragegies are wrong. There is no use in lamenting on it. Harping over how Bush is stupid and reckless might bestow some kind of emotional catharsis upon us, but it does nothing at all in terms of finding pragmatic solutions to the problem.

I have been deeply disappointed by the Democrats response to the alleged failures of the Bush foreign policy.

Rather than proposing viable alternatives the left seems content with merely criticizing the president and pointing out that he is corrupt and arrogant.

To me, that is equally as regretable anything Bush himself has done.

Accept John Podhoretz' position that our invasion of Iraq was sensible and necessary and you accept his rhetorical challenge that only the severest of occupations could be successful. That is; either destroy the enemy's morale in the war (Germans and Japanese in WWII) or in the putting down of the insurrection (Philippinos in the Philippine-American War). There is no other way.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't accept torture and atrocities, don't invade -- and certainly, don't occupy -- another country.

Rachel says:

There is no bigger failure in a war leader than the inability to understand the nature of the enemy. A war for hearts and minds DEPENDS on civilians being persuaded that we are right and turning against the terrorists in their midst. It cannot be won any other way....
Karl Rove and his cronies pride themselves on divisive wedge strategies domestically--why can't they understand the need for one in the war against terror?

Seth responds:

I am not fighting a war against Hezbollah. I am not fighting a war against Iran or Syria. I am not fighting a war against Hamas. I, we, are fighting a war, of sorts against Al Qaeda.

Get your damn priorities straight.

Its hard to tell whether John Podhoretz is sincerely hoping to persuade his readers that they should support a terrorist strategy in defence of liberal civilization.

Whatever his intentions, the practical effect of his article among those who agree with it would be to induce despair and hopelessness about the possibility of persuading enough people to follow that terrorist strategy and give fellow supporters of that strategy the comforting thought that they are "Too Nice to Win" as they accept defeat and adapt their posture accordingly.

Whether John Podhoretz is doing that consciously or unconsciously, that is the inevitable result of the current policy of Israel proclaiming an intention to crush the largest political party in Lebanon knowing that it cannot occupy south Lebanon and that its previous attempt to do so ended in defeat after 18 years despite not being "too nice" to inflict tens of thousands of civilian casualties.

What makes Rachel so sure that Bush doesn't understand the nature of the enemy and doesn't understand the need for a wedge strategy?

In appealing to the Christian Right, does Karl Rove really believe in their principles?

In proclaiming that Iran and Syria are the main enemies in a GWOT and Hezbollah is their proxy does Bush really believe it?

People here seem generally comfortable with accepting that Bush is a mendacious liar.

When Bush maneuvered both Truman Democrats and paleo-conservatives into supporting the invasion of Iraq by saying it was about WMDs and to "disarm Sadaam", did he really believe it?

Rachel apparantly believes that Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas are enemies of the US in a GWOT. Seth doesn't. Nor do I. Does Bush?

My view is that Bush has an understanding of the nature of the enemy and the strategy for defeating it that Rachel lacks. In particular he understands that in the long term the US cannot be protected from jihadi terrorism without draining the swamps that breed that terrorism.

Those swamps are the stagnant autocracies of the middle east otherwise known as America's moderate Arab allies.

Bush also understands that it is not necessary for people to believe that the US is right in order for them to turn away from terrorism. The old US foreign policy establishment believed and still believes in supporting stability and the status quo throughout the region because democracy will inevitably result in the election of less "moderate" governments led by strongly anti-US islamists. But that autocratic stagnation and the hopelessness it gives rise to is precisely what breeds jihadis.

Democratic elections in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine Authority have demonstrated they do have the result of electing more anti-US islamists. So what? They are not at war with the US and the US has neither the right nor the capability to govern those societies better than the people of those societies choosing freeely how they wish to govern themselves.

It is hardly surprising that anti-US parties would win given the US record of keeping the region backward in the interests of Israel and cheap oil for 60 years. This too shall pass.

Those policies brought, as Clinton's CIA Director James Woolsey said, "shame, disdain and September 11". Or as Bush and Condi put it, 60 years of backing tyranny in the name of stability and security bought neither stability nor security.

The US alliance with Israel, which Bush cannot simply cancel overnight, is not a strategic asset but a strategic liability. Israel's oppression of the Palestinians provides a prop for the autocracies and helps breed jihadi terrorism.

Hezbollah, Hamas and Fateh are not jihadi terrorists like Al Queda, strengthening them is a classic wedge strategy. Supporting the more "liberal" pro-Western autocracies and perpetuating endless "negotiations" about the West Bank was the old policy that spectacularly collapsed with the World Trade Center towers.

There is no strategy that could lead to pro-American regimes making peace with the Israeli occupation. If Bush doesn't know that he is indeed as big an idiot as people claim.

If Bush doesn't know that Israel's current behaviour is leading to its total isolation and strengthening Hezbollah and Hamas, he is again an idiot. A very misunderestimated idiot.

He does know that and is not attempting Rachel's ludicrous proposal of trying to persuade people in a region that has been brutalized by 60 years of US support for tyranny that the US is right. He is instead maneuvering for as orderly a retreat and transition to democracy as possible, hopefully with less bloodshed than other watershed transitions like for example the American Civil War.

Israelis are being given a crash course in the fact that tyrannizing their neighbours buys them neither security nor stability. They cannot win Lebanese hearts and minds this way, as Rachel knows. Nor can they win them any other way as Rachel still hasn't grasped.

The end result in Lebanon can only be acceptance of Hezbollah's perfectly legitimate demands for a prisoner exchange and withdrawal of Israel from the small part of Lebanon it still occupies (Shebaa farms).

The Israeli government knew that when it decided to resort to terrorist bombing with its air force. It has been refusing to replace the Israeli occupation of the West Bank with an international force for decades and is now preparing public opinion to do just that, by demonstrating that it has no viable alternative.

The logical conclusion of Rachel's position is that the US should help Israel to keep fighting Hezbollah, more humanely.

The logical conclusion from John Podhoretz's position is that this is not going to work.

Israel is now demonstrating that neither a terrorist strategy nor the previous strategy of exuding sweet reasonableness while building settlements is going to work.

Hezbollah is not a small band of terrorists. Nor is Hamas. Nor was Fateh when Israel was pretending that they were the big terrorist problem. Israel is a terrorist state ruling over a dispossessed people by means of terrorism.

Apartheid South Africa was once a key ally fighting the "Communist terrorism" of blacks who insisted that they had rights too.

The civilians who need to be persuaded are people like Rachel. They need to be turned away from supporting Israeli terrorism and accept the necessity to stop talking about a negotiated rule over the Palestinians and simply withdraw behind the 1967 borders.

It is not necessary for Israelis to support the US just as it is not necessary for Iraqis or Egyptians or any others in the region to support the US. All that is necessary is for the stagnant deadlock crippling those societies to end unleashing modernity and development with democratic processes. That dries out the swamp that breeds both jihadi and zionist terrorists.

The logic of events is pointing towards the need for a comprehensive settlement in the middle east instead of the endless wars and ceasefires promoted under previous US policies.

Rachel apparantly wants to keep fighting those wars, humanely.

Bush and Condi are presenting the stark alternative, abandon the status quo and stop fighting.

More importantly, how do you know when you've won? And if you can't tell, isn't declaring a war a bit silly?

I gotta say, there ain't nothing lunatic about getting out of Iraq with your tail between your legs. Pretty much, that's the situation you've carved out for yourselves down there.

The thing that's sticking in your craw is not common sense, it's pride.

That pride is going to get a whole lot of people killed. Thousands more Americans. Maybe a million Iraqi's, who knows.

But pride won't change the result. And pride won't elevate a butcher or make his work noble.

Don't think you're right.  My sense is we Americans don't have that great an emotional investment in the outcome of our Iraq adventure (our elite leadership? yeah; horse of a different color).

In fact most folks I know don't even think of it as a "War" -- more like a bad situation where we tried to do something nice for people and for whatever reason, they turned out either unable to take advantage of our generosity or just downright perverse.

It won't be any skin off our nose if we "cut and run." 

RogerGathman
This is interesting: "Rather than proposing viable alternatives the left seems content with merely criticizing the president..."

I didn't know the left had forgotten the viable alternatives! Wow, well, here's two or three.

1. Say you have Osama bin Laden holed up in a cave. Say that cave has a back entrance, and fifteen miles away is the Pakistan border. Do you:
a. put soldiers along that border as a priority, or
b. let obl get away and then pay Pakistan 3 billion a year to play zookeeper, so you can keep your war on "terror" going?
Well, viable strategy no. 1 is a.

2. Say Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, and in fact has a failing economy, a crap army, and no power over its Northern half. Do you
a. Invade it on false pretenses and pay no attention to any advice as you occupy it into ruin?
or b. Not invade it.
If you picked a again, you are doing well! Here's a tough one now.

3. Say you have tried to deny the reality of Iran for, say, thirty years. You don't recognize the place, you are alternately hostile to the place and sell it weapons for your contras, but your main strategy is to hope that people inside Iran overthrow the government and become your buddy again. After 30 years do you:
a. think this is the best strategy ever, and its really working or
b. hold face to face talks, recognize Iran, and in general not try to enforce a long term solution on the Middle East, instead opting for phases or relative civility.
Ah, you were thinking we were winning against Iran, eh? Any day now the Shah's returning? Nope. The correct answer is b.

Next week, we'll play the game of left alternatives to looting the social security system, skewing the distribution of wealth in the country so it looks like Neronian Rome, and an environmental policy that doesn't look upon the heat death of the earth as a good thing.

Perhaps the truth is so self evident in this case that the Democrats feel no need to even lift a finger.

Stripped of the sarcasm, your "left" alternative amounts to:

in general not try to enforce a long term solution on the Middle East, instead opting for phases [of] relative civility

That is also the policy of all previous US administrations and the overwhelming bulk of "expert" opinion in the foreign policy establishment.

I cannot even begin to imagine why you regard traditional US policy in the middle east as "left". Frankly I don't care.

But I would like to know why you consider it so self-evidently successful that you only need to mention it for everyone to see that it was obviously a good idea.

The culmination of not trying to enforce a long term solution on the Middle East and its phases of relative civility (ie periodic war punctuating long term stagnation) was September 11. Clinton's CIA Director Woolsey drew the conclusion that letting the region stagnate under corrupt tyrannies had brought the US "shame, disdain and September 11".

Concretely, how would your so obviously "correct" answers to your own questions prevent the situation continuing to get worse with more jihadis breeding in the swamps until eventually there was a more spectacular attack on the US using WMDs?

Specifically your answers were:

1a. This would have (hopefully) increased the chances of having killed or captured Osama Bin Laden. But what about the thousands of other jihadi terrorists that the CIA had funded to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan under more enlightened administrations such as Carter and Reagan? What about the societies they came from that were breeding many more thousands of young men willing to dedicate their lives to global jihad. How does adding another "martyr" stop their cause from growing?

2b. How does not invading Iraq deal with the problem that the regime was so vicious it was bound to explode in civil war eventually and when it did would have drawn in neighbours such as Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait in a regional war? How does it deal with the fact that the murderous sanctions the US was imposing were being described as genocidal by UN official administering them as well as by Al Quaeda while simply dropping them would have resulted in a victory for a predatory regime that would have gone on to start another regional war directly?

3a . How does talking to Iran's reactionary mullahs help establish friendly relations with the Iranian people who hate them?

If you had an orientation towards "draining the swamps" you might want to present a "left", "right" or "whatever" alternative to the various blunders that the Bushies have made in the course of doing so.

But by your own admission your "left alternative" is to pretend the status quo policy was not discredited by its results demonstrated in September 11.

You want to continue the rule of tyrants to buy security and stability just like for the past 60 years.

Bush isn't that stupid. You don't have to be "left" to realize it simply isn't an option any more. Even right wingers like Bush recognize that it didn't buy either security or stability.

Do you have any other alternative apart from advocating the policies that prevailed before and led to September 11?

Thus the poplicies of Dershowitz and Podhoretz are in the fine traditions of Madelaine Albright and are likely to be as successful as her policy of murderous sanctions.

Aren't we lucky the Democrats aren't in power?

Problem is how to make the fact that this is in fact the Democrats position evident to voters in the next Presidential election.

Give them control of at least one House in November and then watch them spending 2 years splitting between supporting the Bushies plan and failing to come up with an acceptable alternative to it.

You can avoid the tough questions and just make cynical remarks when you have no influence on policy whatever. But you are either going to have to vote for "stay the course" or for "cut and run" or propose an alternative course once your votes actually matter again. That may only be a few months away.

Scary isn't it?

Lol. Actually, the quote with Margaret Trudeau was "Hey, I wonder if we can get her to do something with an erection."

We don't elect anyone in a Newfie Drinking contest, thank god.

And the Alliance is a sort of national embarrassment. Steve Harper finally sort of won an election, but its a minority.

That sounds even more constructive and helpful than your other proposal to sack the people who didn't prevent September 11, 2001.

Glad you liked them. That sacking thing is basically about 'accountability' and 'responsibility.' I remember your country used to think highly of those concepts.

Any chance of you letting us know what plan you come up with sometime before September 11, 2006?

Sure. First things first. Impeach the boob. Remove the incompetents who are screwing things up.

Let's be realistic here. The United States six years ago was at the top of the game. You had a balanced budget, top flight military, international credibility, you had identified Al Quaeda as a problem and were taking steps to deal with it. The world was quiet and stable, not without problems, but those problems were managed.

Where are you now? You've pretty much blown all your political, economic and military capital. And to what end?

The truth is that most of your problems are self inflicted and derive from spectacularly incompetent management. Go and take a look at New Orleans, there's a textbook case.

No matter what plan you come up with, no matter what new strategy you employ, you put it in the hands of screw ups... and they'll screw it up. They'll screw it up spectacularly.

Moreover, this particular gang of idjits is particularly unruly. They pretty much intend to do things their way only and they're not good at taking advice or looking at facts.

So, the bottom line is that there's no improving things so long as you are not going to demand some basic baseline levels of competence at serious levels.

Sorry Lester, but that's just the facts.

You do know that this stuff about coming up with a plan is not going to impress many voters at the elections to be held 8 years after Bush took office.

Or don't you?

Lester, ol pal, ol bud, I think that it may well impress voters, what with their being exposed to eight years of refusing to have a plan and substituting mindless thrashing.

But hey, I figure your 'drunk drowning in a bathtub' strategy still has a couple more years to go... We'll see what happens. I mean, it hasn't been working for you so far, but you never know...

Or maybe not.

Arthur has a fascinating thesis:

My view is that Bush has an understanding of the nature of the enemy and the strategy for defeating it that Rachel lacks. In particular he understands that in the long term the US cannot be protected from jihadi terrorism without draining the swamps that breed that terrorism.

He's positing that beneath the apparently inept quest for power and domination, Bush is actually operating on a sophisticated and nuanced liberal master plan to subtly reform the region.

That's such an amazing proposition that I've actually had to go away and spend a night kicking it around.

Unfortunately, I've concluded that it is largely bunk.

Which is actually a sad thing, because I'd feel a lot better about everything if I believed that Lester was right.

But, sadly no. It doesn't look like anything of the sort goes on in the administration. Quite the opposite.

The most telling window into Bush's thinking, and how Bush thinks, was with his impromptu 'open mike' conversation with Blair, where, mouth open and chewing on a breadstick he opined that 'Syria should just tell Hezbollah to stop this shit.' and 'Kofi Annan needs to get involved.' Or things to that effect.

The thinking on display here was profoundly superficial, not terribly nuanced, and desperately wrong. It's at the level of sophistication of a guy on the bus talking economic theory.

An examination of Bush's foreign policy before and after 9/11 reveals a basic continuity of purpose and action. Don't talk to states you designate as 'hostiles' - Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea. Ignore non-state terror groups. Invade Iraq (a policy course established well before 9/11). Support Israel, regardless of consequences. Control the Persian Gulf and extend that control or influence as far as possible. Make inroads into Russian influence to forestall its economic or political resurgence. Cordon off China to neutralize it. Divide Europe.

Essentially, its the perpetuation and expansion of American power without the sophistication of a skillful hand or iron fist, but rather the blunt will of a raging erection.

In this context, the grand vision of 'reforming the middle east' to drain the 'fevered swamps producing terrorism' is nonexistent.

Oh, I'm sure that it's articulated among the pseudo-intellectuals that pass for America's 'think tank' class. But as a serious set of policies or initiatives? Forget it. It's business as usual.

And beyond the blind urgency of an unrestrained hardon, its' pretty much an ad hoc, reactive and random quest.

Those swamps are the stagnant autocracies of the middle east otherwise known as America's moderate Arab allies.

True enough, or at least, true-ish. But look to the actual policies there. There's some lip service and credit taken when we see some modest token democratic gesture. But in every respect, it is business as usual with these autocracies. The structures which perpetuate them are maintained.

Admittedly, it would be difficult to simply overthrow these structures. But there is scope to support and encourage meaningful social reforms. It's not being done.

Bush also understands that it is not necessary for people to believe that the US is right in order for them to turn away from terrorism.

I'm not sure what this is getting at. I think that the better thing to say is that local factors are critically important to societies dealing with domestic unrest.

The old US foreign policy establishment believed and still believes in supporting stability and the status quo throughout the region because democracy will inevitably result in the election of less "moderate" governments led by strongly anti-US islamists.

I'll extend that thesis a bit. The American and British policy was to install or support monarchies and established traditional governments, largely because these monarchies and traditional governments could be relied upon to cater to American and British interests.

The first threat to this came, not from Islamists, but from secular reformers, beginning with Nasser in Egypt, who threw out the monarchies in favour of western style modernization and reform. Nasser was followed by Assad in Syria, the Baathists in Iraq, Quadaffi in Libya. They met unrelenting resistance from Britain and America and this drove them into the Soviet camp. Nevetheless, economic and political warfare by the west, their own economic and political bungling and disastrous campaigns against Israel largely stripped their credibility.

By the 1970's, their wad was shot, their credibility as an effective political or economic movement was done, and for most of them, their focus shifted towards local concerns and self perpetuation.

The Shah of Iran, of course, tried to straddle the fence, remaining a traditional feudal Monarchy, while the same time embracing technocratic secular reform... effectively embracing the worst of both worlds.

By the eighties, the period of genesis of the Islamic movement, Muslim peoples were faced with two distinct styles of government - traditional autocratic monarchies, and secular nationalist reform regimes - both of which were largely failed and discredited.

Into this social and intellectual vaccum, a new political philosophy was drawn... Islamic theocratism... Or, a government of Islam.

The period of the eighties is when we see the consolidation of the Mullahs in Iran, the rise of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan and the rise of terrorist or radical Islamic movements in Egypt, Algeria, the Sudan. It's also the period of the Iran/Iraq war which can be interpreted as a contest between the secular nationalists on the one hand and the theocratic reformers on the other... between an old and a new vision for muslims.

Terrorism may be a big cause for us in the 21st century west. But if you look to people actually being assassinated or blown up by radicals in the middle east... well, look at what happened to Anwar Sadat. It starts there, and they were suffering for twenty years before it arrived on our shores.

Theocratic fundamentalism did well enough to be considered a live cause. They kicked the Russians out of Afghanistan, which was a major boon. They kicked Israel out of Lebanon. Hamas proved to be a more effective representative of Palestinians. The Iranians did okay in the Iran/Iraq War (but they were Shiites, so it didn't really count).

It did well enough that the traditional feudal regimes, which had been threatened by the secular nationalists, felt the need to accommodate them somewhat. The traditional nature of the monarchies was somewhat more comfortable with the traditional nature of the theocrats, so there was some basis for adaptation, accommodation, and coexistence.

Not so the secularist nationalists, whose regimes clamped down big time. If you look around, you'll see Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt, Quadaffi in Libya, the Algerian Army, Assad in Syria, all engaging in aggressive violent repression of theocratic movements and theocratic terrorists. The two philosophies were absolutely antithetical. It makes a remarkable contrast to the 'live and let live' approaches we saw in Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.

The big turning point was the Gulf War.

Look at this in terms of the middle east as three big competing visions: Traditional Monarchy/feudalism, Western reforming secular nationalism, and radical theocratic fundamentalism.

The Secular Nationalists were on the ropes. They'd fought the Fundamentalists, but had no other accomplishments. The Iran/Iraq war had ended in an inconclusive stalemate. With the Gulf War, we saw a secular nationalist regime attacking a traditional autocrat regime.

The result discredited both. The secular nationalists were handed their most humiliating and pervasive defeat yet. They were stalemated and discredited, isolated, ineffectual and neutered.

On the other hand, the traditional autocratic regimes were shown to be hollow rotten shells, finger puppets for the west and for America. They would and could not stand on their own, rather, their existence depended on outside, western, support. Without it, they'd collapse.

This had two effects. It really gave the philosophical and political edge to Islamic fundamentalism. It was victory by default, the other two competing visions lay in ruins. And it also persuaded Islamic fundamentalism that the true problem, the true threat, was not their local rivals... but rather, the West and America.

Certainly, its after the Gulf War that the Islamic fundamentalists begin debating the inescapable role of the America in their lives, and many, particularly Osama Bin Laden and his supporters, start to conclude that the true enemy is America.

Their reasoning is thusly: The Secular regimes are a joke, barely able to hold on and unable to stand up to the west. The Autocratic regimes are puppets of the west. If America can be pushed out, the autocratic regimes will fall over and the secular regimes will be unable to stand against them.

But that autocratic stagnation and the hopelessness it gives rise to is precisely what breeds jihadis.

Not quite.

Democratic elections in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestine Authority have demonstrated they do have the result of electing more anti-US islamists. So what? They are not at war with the US and the US has neither the right nor the capability to govern those societies better than the people of those societies choosing freeely how they wish to govern themselves.

Wrong. They are at war with you, in the sense that they want you out of their lives. They don't want you operating their governments like finger puppets. This puts them on a direct political and economic collision course with American interests. They know it. You know it.

It's progressive of you, though, to argue that perhaps America really should get out of the lives of these people, and I commend you for it.

However, the thing is, that the Islamists are only electorally successful because the US has, in different ways, managed to completely undermine the competing philosophies. Keep that in mind.

The Islamists do have a problem. Their one real success (apart from Iran who were Shiites and don't count) was Afghanistan, and they pretty much disgraced themselves there. They are unlikely to be able to live up to their own PR in terms of actually accomplishing things for their people. It's possible that without American intervention and manipulation, their star would have fallen naturally.

It is hardly surprising that anti-US parties would win given the US record of keeping the region backward in the interests of Israel and cheap oil for 60 years. This too shall pass.

Well, its unsustainable.

Those policies brought, as Clinton's CIA Director James Woolsey said, "shame, disdain and September 11". Or as Bush and Condi put it, 60 years of backing tyranny in the name of stability and security bought neither stability nor security.

Not to be mischievous or anything, but 60 years is a good long time. Nothing to be ashamed about with a record of domination like that.

The problem is that in attempting to keep the region down, we have opened the door to an inimical philosophy. Had the region been allowed to develop naturally, had the secular reformers actually succeeded, Iraq might well have gone the way of Spain or Portugal, with a dictatorship giving way to a liberal democracy.

The US alliance with Israel, which Bush cannot simply cancel overnight, is not a strategic asset but a strategic liability. Israel's oppression of the Palestinians provides a prop for the autocracies and helps breed jihadi terrorism.

I'm not sure how it provides a prop for the autocracies.

Supporting the more "liberal" pro-Western autocracies and perpetuating endless "negotiations" about the West Bank was the old policy that spectacularly collapsed with the World Trade Center towers.

Well, except that they weren't liberal at all. We were adamantly opposed to the regimes which were closest in philosophy and outlook to our own. It was these regimes, the secular nationalists, who were most incised about Israel. The traditional autocracies might make a speech or two, but generally, they could care less.

There is no strategy that could lead to pro-American regimes making peace with the Israeli occupation. If Bush doesn't know that he is indeed as big an idiot as people claim.

He is.

If Bush doesn't know that Israel's current behaviour is leading to its total isolation and strengthening Hezbollah and Hamas, he is again an idiot. A very misunderestimated idiot.

Again, he is. However, you misunderestimate his perspective.

Bush's current view is that the secular regimes, what's left of them, are irrelevant. They're either dependent upon America (Egypt), in a state of surrender (Libya), under occupation (Iraq) or isolated and impotent (Syria). So who cares what they think, they don't matter.

By the same token, the Traditional Monarchies and Autocracies are also irrelevant in that he correctly perceives that their very existence is tied to American support. So who cares what they think, they don't matter either.

The only actor who counts is Israel. So why not support Israel's great wall, its expropriation of west bank lands, its attacks on Lebanon. What's the gain, what's the point of opposing any of these things?

Israel's isolation doesn't matter, because the states which might oppose it are irrelevant.

Hamas and Hezbollah are local insurgencies of no broader consequence to the United States. So if Israel is prepared to risk them, why not... It's Israel's call.

Hardly sophisticated or nuanced. But there you go. All the subtlty of a raging erection.

He does know that and is not attempting Rachel's ludicrous proposal of trying to persuade people in a region that has been brutalized by 60 years of US support for tyranny that the US is right.

Nah, his approach is that he doesn't need to be nice to them. They just need to be obedient, or suffer the consequences. Iraq is object lesson "A" that you don't mess with the big dog.

He is instead maneuvering for as orderly a retreat and transition to democracy as possible, hopefully with less bloodshed than other watershed transitions like for example the American Civil War.

And here you depart for fantasyland.

There's no sign of retreat in Iraq. Indeed, Bremer (Mr. 'Will to Power') was planning on a 5 to 10 year tenure. The plan was apparently to put long term bases in Iraq and use the country as the launching point for American power.

Nor is there any sign of retreat with respect to Iran, Syria or Israel's assaults on Lebanon. The goal is regime change or radical restructuring.

No such radical restructuring or regime change is in mind for the Monarchies, but there is no sign of disentanglement either.

Economically and politically, disentanglement from the region, and its critical supplies of oil, would be a major reversal for the US on the world stage. Realpolitik suggests that won't be happening. And the administration fancies itself a 'realpolitik' player.

Israelis are being given a crash course in the fact that tyrannizing their neighbours buys them neither security nor stability. They cannot win Lebanese hearts and minds this way, as Rachel knows.

So... Bush is encouraging them, so that they will learn from their failure? And he's sending them emergency rations of jet fuel and precision guided munitions, and running interference at the UN so that they'll have a free hand and eventually learn for themselves that it just won't work?

In the same way you sit and watch a child put its hand on the burning stove, or stick wires into an electrical outlet, so it'll learn better next time?

Hmmm... well, that's an interesting approach to parenting. But I'm not persuaded that its the underlying motive behind American policy in this instance.

Nor can they win them any other way as Rachel still hasn't grasped.

Huh???

The end result in Lebanon can only be acceptance of Hezbollah's perfectly legitimate demands for a prisoner exchange and withdrawal of Israel from the small part of Lebanon it still occupies (Shebaa farms).

Probably.

The Israeli government knew that when it decided to resort to terrorist bombing with its air force. It has been refusing to replace the Israeli occupation of the West Bank with an international force for decades and is now preparing public opinion to do just that, by demonstrating that it has no viable alternative.

So they've killed 500 people to justify what... something you claim they knew all along they'd have to do?

Colour me skeptical. I don't believe that Israel really was counting on this outcome. The more likely reality is that they thought they could take out Hezbollah and severely misjudged the situation.

Israel is now demonstrating that neither a terrorist strategy nor the previous strategy of exuding sweet reasonableness while building settlements is going to work.

Itself in essence a terrorist strategy.

The civilians who need to be persuaded are people like Rachel. They need to be turned away from supporting Israeli terrorism and accept the necessity to stop talking about a negotiated rule over the Palestinians and simply withdraw behind the 1967 borders.

OK.

It is not necessary for Israelis to support the US just as it is not necessary for Iraqis or Egyptians or any others in the region to support the US. All that is necessary is for the stagnant deadlock crippling those societies to end unleashing modernity and development with democratic processes. That dries out the swamp that breeds both jihadi and zionist terrorists.

You use a lot of swamp imagery, what's up with that.

Here's your problem. You guys have spent a good long time discrediting and crippling the forces of modernity and development which would have sustained and given rise to Democratic processes.

The Jihadi's are in the game largely because you made a point of destroying or discrediting their competitors.

So... whatcha gonna do?

The logic of events is pointing towards the need for a comprehensive settlement in the middle east instead of the endless wars and ceasefires promoted under previous US policies.

Well, it would be good to stop promoting wars. It can be argued that the US had a major hand in some of the key wars in the region, particularly the Yemeni War (North and South duking it out as part of the East/West confrontation), the Iran/Iraq War (Iraq acting as the US proxy).

The Lebanese civil war can be attributed to consequences of Israel and the destabilization introduced by Palestinian refugees. The Israeli wars are their own things. The Algerian Civil war was also western influenced.

But apart from that, the region is pretty peaceful.

Bush and Condi are presenting the stark alternative, abandon the status quo and stop fighting.

Not persuaded. Bush and Condi are proposing to rewrite the entire map of the region based on their own peculiar visions, and created by the Israel and America's raw power. Their mistake is that they think that they can shape something by force and make it permanent. It won't be permanent.

That power will fade, perhaps is fading. When that happens, it will inevitably come apart.

You appear to have "misunderstood" a half century and more of US dealings in the Persian Gulf and elsewhere.

American foreign policy is and always has been designed primarily to support the seaborne flow of those trade goods which it wishes to buy or sell.  Post-World War II the US's principal trading concern has been the free flow of oil, the largest source of which has been located in the Persian Gulf area.

It should be obvious to anyone that insofar as Iranian geopolitical  expansion constitutes the greatest threat to the flow of Persian Gulf oil, America can be expected to seek to block that expansion.  Installing(?) or supporting a Shi'i dominated Iraqi government is hardly likely to satisfy American interests.

Murtha thinks we can accomplish our goals from "over the horizon."  I don't.  But there's nothing cynical in either view.

Welcome to reality-based thinking, Arthur. 

Ok, this longer post from Valdron does not have the sneering tone of the earlier post that made me decide not to bother responding, so I'll take it seriously.

Unfortunately I don't have time to respond fully right now.

Just to clarify though, Valdron appears to view the islamist parties that are likely to come to power in free elections as an expression of theocratic fundamentalism and terrorism. That is precisely what the autocracies say to justify their refusal to hold free elections and precisely what Israel says to justify refusing to make peace.

My view is that islamism and islamo-fascism are two different things. The suppression of the islamist parties by the tyrannies, combined with the suppression of any progressive parties has left only liberals (who are generally useless) as the legal opposition and completely stunted political development. That is what breeds islamo-fascist jihadis.

Shia islamist parties already dominate the government of Iraq. The sunni islamist muslim brotherhood is likely to dominate the government of Egypt and Jordan with similar politics to Hamas in the Palestine Authority.

These developments create an atmosphere far less conducive to the breeding of jihadis, and far more open to actually progressive political development, than the stagnant rule of the autocrats (whether secular or not).

The current enormous boost to Hezbollah is undermining all the autocracies and closing the sunni-shia divide exploited by the sunni autocracies. Naturally the old foreign policy establishment regards this as further proof that the Bushies are blundering idiots, but it would require rather more than mere stupidity for the Bushies to imagine that the current attack on Lebanon would have any other effect than to boost Hezbollah and undermine the "moderate" regimes.

When I referred to the US staging an orderly retreat I did not mean abandoning the elected government of Iraq to its islamo-fascist enemies and the tender concerns of its neighbours seeking stability.

What I was referring to is the (vacillating and inconsistent) withdrawal of US support from the stability of tyranny using the excuse that the opposition was islamist, communist, pro-Soviet or whatever the US was worried about at the time.

What the US has been worried about since September 11 is none of the above, but (wahabi/salafi) islamo-fascist terrorism - a trend that the US sponsored, and encouraged its Saudi allies to sponsor in the late 1980s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan).

For some neocon analysis supporting that very different view of the islamist parties from the one Valdron appears to assume would be taken by US policy see some of the links to Gerecht.

Much of Valdron's analysis seems similar to Chomsky's so the following link to an attempt to make Chomsky spend a night thinking about it may be of interest at least in answering the question about what's up with swamp imagery

I'll leave it there in the hope that a follow up from Valdron after taking a look at those might narrow the debate to actual areas of disagreement rather than misunderstandings about where I am coming from.

Arthur

I agree that most Americans would love to have a clear, distinct choice during this upcoming election. Yet that doesn't seem particularly likely, at least not in terms of A versus B.

On the one hand you will have the Republicans touting essentially a promotion of the status quo. Yet the Democrats, while clearly not endorsing this view, have yet to offer anything substantive in terms of alternatives.

Murtha's plan has been the one exception and that has largely gone by the wayside.

Today (8/1) Congressional Democrats drafted a letter to President Bush stating that the American people favor the implementation of a process which would call for the gradual extraction of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Yet it provides nothing in terms of how to achieve this goal. It should be common sense that when your political adversary (in this case the president)does not share your viewpoints, merely calling upon him to not only adopt your cause but also draft the specific measures of your own agenda seems self defeating.

In essence, the Democrats call on Bush to lay out a withdrawal plan. That is not a progrssive way to go about things.

The Democrats must take the initiative, no matter how inherently reluctant they may be, and propose their own specific plan not only to the president but also to the public. That, in and of itself, would create the line in the sand for this upcoming election.

Actually America's main concern was to block Communism, and later to block the Soviet Union.

By the 1970s a "two pillars" strategy was in place with the Shah of Iran as one pillar and the House of Saud as the other.

The Iranian pillar turned and devoted itself to fighting the Great Satan.

The Saudi pillar became a breeding ground for jihadi terrorists also fighting the Great Satan.

With such astounding success, reality-based thinking came to be used as a sarcastic derogatory reference to completely disasterous counter-productive policies based on half-baked ideas about geopolitics with no understanding of the most important "actors" - the people.

Remember it was "realists" who put a billion dollars of CIA funding into Al Queda to fight the Soviets and encouraged the Saudis to put in another billion and open up wahabi/salafi madrassas for training jihadis around the world.

Unfortunately they weren't carted off in tumbrels as CIA Director Woolsey advocated after September 11, but they now have plenty of time in retirement to write papers for think tanks and op-eds passing on the wisdom of the accumulated experience of the old and bankrupt foreign policy establishment and warning how democratic transformation of the region is a disaster opposed to everything that the US so brilliantly stood for under their wise leadership.

RogerGathman
Arthur,
Actually, my last paragraph is content full -- its content concentrated on the ridiculousness of the swamp metaphor. Incredibly, you are using the metaphor of the swamp as if it explains terrorism - hence, the idea that stagnancy -- oh, the stagnant water of the swamp - "breeds" terrorists. They are like those pesky mosquitos. Unfortunately, this reverses history completely. The terrorist groups that threaten the U.S. came from three situations: the civil war in Lebanon, the war in Afghanistan, and the war between the Palestinians and the Israelis. In none of those cases was there that terrible stagnancy. The puddles of water and lakes of blood were churned up to such a fine froth that even neo-cons could rub their hands, knowing that out of mass murder arises freedom lovin' free marketeers. But ... that didn't happen. Instead, civil war, nicely aggravated by American arms sales and interventions, such as that mounted in the Reagan years, "bred" the attack in 94 on the WTC -- designed by an islamic warrior whose flights around the world were paid for by the CIA, and who was living in new jersey on a visa signed by a cia official in Sudan -- and in 2001.

To think recognizing Iran is sucking up to the mullahs shows just what a serious problem reality presents for Americans. Far from sucking up, it is the only way that Americans can actually effect, through the use of 'soft' power, changes in Iran. This is even true for those people radically opposed to the regime, since it is much more effective to protest human rights abuses in a country we recognize than in one where those protests are mixed with macho threats to overthrow the regime -- thus fatally diluting the moral stance.

So, going through this one two three again:
1. There is no gain from destabilizing in the hopes that this makes the Middle East less 'stagnant," and thus prone to terrorism. The opposite has happened historically, and it will keep happening.
2. The U.S. cannot pretend to represent one interest in the Middle East -- democracy. It has state interests that interfere even with other democracies -- hence, its enabling of the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, to a degree that makes Syria look like a good neighbor.
3. All talk of how the U.S. has to rush into violent situations with armies in the Middle East depends upon continuing to allow the Executive Branch to use the U.S. volunteer army pretty much as its own mercenary force. The average U.S. citizen has no interest in and should have no interest in that kind of aggression. Liberal foreign policy should concentrate on reigning in the forces that are always intent on "American Greatness" projects overseas, since they inevitably result in fiascos.

Ok, this longer post from Valdron does not have the sneering tone of the earlier post that made me decide not to bother responding, so I'll take it seriously.

Sneering? Not at all. Lighthearted, humourous, gently sardonic. Look, my country didn't elect a congenital idiot, so I got no stake in the matter. The fact that the most powerful country on earth, the fact that a country which should be the moral leader of the planet, elected a vicious retard... Well, that's either grounds for tragedy or comedy. I could weep or laugh, I think I'll choose to laugh. I suspect that the Iraqi's tend to weep.

Personally, if you are going to elect an idjit, you should expect to be mocked. So put on a smile, boyo, and laugh along with the rest of us, life is short and the ending is always the same.

Just to clarify though, Valdron appears to view the islamist parties that are likely to come to power in free elections as an expression of theocratic fundamentalism and terrorism.

Nah, you got it backwards. What we got here is a social and political movement. And what that movement says in a nutshell is this:

"Our existing societies and governments (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, et al) are corrupt finger puppets of the west, the attempt to westernize and modernize (Syria, Iraq, et al) brings only failure and corruption. We need to reform our society, in part by rejecting western concepts and values, but more importantly, returning to true Islamic values and ways of life. If we do this, then Allah will favour us and life will stop being so shitty."

It's not a complicated philosophy, as philosophies go. It's rather backwards looking and poorly prepared for the issues and problems of modern life. On the other hand, its riding high, precisely because its rivals have fallen into disrepute.

Now, as with political fundamentalist Christianity, there's a whole range of opinions and positions on the continuum. There are some Islamists who believe that they can take power peacefully simply through the clarity and cogency of their ideas. Others figure that its the ballot box. Still others see different sorts of revolution or violent social transformation. Not all of them look towards a Khomeini style direct theocracy, or a Taliban style order. Some of them are more Sistani oriented in outlook, they believe in a separation of the religious and secular, with the religious leaders guiding (directing) the secular leaders.

As with any big movement, there are a great many perspectives and points of view fighting it out. This is one of the reasons why the traditional monarchists find it possible to accommodate or reason with them. Because some of these perspectives allow or adopt the traditional monarchists. It's a change of finger puppetteers.

What we call the terrorists are the radical foam on top of the beer. These are the ones who figure that the best way to achieve their goals is through violent social transformation - ie, blowing things up.

But even the terrorists are sort of windbags. Think about it. All these long winded manifestos from Zawahari, Zaquari, Bin Laden, et al. All the Fatwas, the pronouncements, the sermons, the exhortations.

The Japanese Red Army, the Baader Meinhoff bunch, even the Symbionese Liberation Army didn't go on and on like that.

Y'see, what is going on, is that these 'terrorists' are participating in the ongoing debate in the Arab world. It's the debate that goes 'wow, our society is really frakked, what should we do about it?' They're deeply into that conversation, and they're expressing particular points of view as to what is wrong and how to fix it.

They're just a lot more dramatic about it, that's all.

Trust me, if Osama got what he wanted... The west out of their lives, reformed fully Islamic societies full of happy faithful muslims, living honest virtuous lives the way Allah intended, he wouldn't care about the west.

I don't think they're on some Jihad to overrun Europe and America. Nah. Maybe they dream about stuff like that. But in practical terms, Osama's view is that you've got your boots on his throat, and he wants it off.

And there are other Islamist perspectives that don't even particularly blame the west. They don't want the west. But they're blaming their own societies moral laxity for teenagers listening to Christina Aguilera. Y'see, they look at you as crack dealers, but they're old school, and they figure if people shaped up and stopped buying crack, you'd go peddle somewhere else.

My view is that islamism and islamo-fascism are two different things.

My view is that Islamo-fascism is one of those imaginary, made-up, bullshit words that are used to dress up a turd. In most cases, Islamo-fascism is used to describe a largely imaginary monolithic alliance between Islamist theocrats and secular nationalists. It's a way of shoehorning Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the same boat. In terms of describing reality, or offering realistic analysis its pretty useless. Of course, once it gets up and running, the word takes on a life of its own and often means whatever the writer wants it to mean. As such, I don't cotton to it much.

The suppression of the islamist parties by the tyrannies, combined with the suppression of any progressive parties has left only liberals (who are generally useless) as the legal opposition and completely stunted political development. That is what breeds islamo-fascist jihadis.

Okay, where to begin. You get your real nasty suppression of Islamism in the secular nationalist dictatorships. And in fact, they're so good at it, that the really violent types are nipped in the bud. Basically, there ain't no tolerance.

The result is that violent Islamism tends to get fairly little traction. They'll blow up stuff, and in Algeria, special circumstances allowed them to get a full scale civil war going on. But by and large, they're contained and don't amount to much.

When you look at the traditional Monarchies, what you see is a lot of tolerance for Islamism, and a lot of debate and discussion going on, some of which inevitably drifts into the violent revolution category. These violent folks are unwelcome, but their relatively nonviolent kin are just fine. Because Islamism as a whole is tolerated or even encourged, at provides a base, a sort of soil or ferment, or a kind of protective population, which allows violent ideologies and violent persons to thrive.

It isn't a coincidence that the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi or Yemeni, or that Zawahiri was Jordanian. Those governments are much more accepting of the ideological tenets underlying their violence. Off the top of my head, the only really major Islamist operative from a secular nationalist regime is Zaqwari, Osama's lieutenant, who is Egyptian.

Shia islamist parties already dominate the government of Iraq. The sunni islamist muslim brotherhood is likely to dominate the government of Egypt and Jordan with similar politics to Hamas in the Palestine Authority. These developments create an atmosphere far less conducive to the breeding of jihadis,

Well, in the sense that it gives the Islamist movement what it wants, I'll agree. It's simple economics. If you get what you want without violence, then why go with violence.

What you'll see in those societies is a wave of social and moral reform, hopefully not as extreme or as inept as the Taliban, and a concerted attempt to purge western influence and ideas from the culture.

The really interesting question is how they are then to deal with modern economics, technology, infrastructure and management.

The Taliban just figured that Allah would provide. Hardly a satisfactory answer.

and far more open to actually progressive political development, than the stagnant rule of the autocrats (whether secular or not).

Don't think so. Remember that the whole notion of 'progressive political developments' is tied up with the secular rationalist movements, who are both anathema to the Islamists and currently quite discredited. The Islamists emphasis and profound belief in social regeneration as the key pretty much shuts the door on all that stuff.

Look, its very simple. The Islamists answer to every problem is 'be a better Muslim and Allah will favour you.'

Well, what's going to happen is that isn't going to work very well. You have to deal with the real world, which means plumbers and mechanics, trade relations, manufacturing, balance of trade, agricultural policy, industrial development, etc. etc. Islamism is poorly suited to all that stuff.

But they've only got one answer to any question: "Pray harder, be a better Muslim." And there's only one cause for any problem: "You aren't a good enough Muslim, so Allah doesn't favour you."

Now the result of that is going to be increasingly intense pressure for social reform and regeneration. As things get worse and worse, the pressure to 'pray harder' and the penalties for not being a sufficiently good muslim are going to get more and more extreme. It could get really ugly. I'm talking purges and terrors and wacky stuff like Mao's Cultural Revolution.

The current enormous boost to Hezbollah is undermining all the autocracies and closing the sunni-shia divide exploited by the sunni autocracies.

Don't think so. It's mostly undermining the myth of Israeli invincibility. But most of the region's regimes don't see it reflecting back on them. The closing of the Sunni/Shia divide is mostly that everyone wants to cheer the winning team.

Naturally the old foreign policy establishment regards this as further proof that the Bushies are blundering idiots, but it would require rather more than mere stupidity for the Bushies to imagine that the current attack on Lebanon would have any other effect than to boost Hezbollah and undermine the "moderate" regimes.

Well, I certainly agree that the Bush regime is more than merely stupid.

I think your position is that "Golly Gosh, no one could be THAT stupid."

To which I reply, 'Au Contraire, friend Lester, as a historian of sorts I can tell you that the ultimate dephts of human stupidity have never been truly plumbed, although your coward-in-chief seems devoted to Olympic class diving.'

What I was referring to is the (vacillating and inconsistent) withdrawal of US support from the stability of tyranny using the excuse that the opposition was islamist, communist, pro-Soviet or whatever the US was worried about at the time.

Well, I gotta say that the whole foreign policy thrust was to ensure obedient docile stable states.

Communism was never a real option. You go and look at the early Baathists, they were purging communists left and right from lists supplied by the CIA. Nasser, Assad, Hussein, all those guys were emulating the west in any way they could. They wanted to make their cities into Paris or New York, not Sebastopol or Yursk. They liked and approved of Democracy, Free Speech, Civil rights and all those good things (in principle, it was sort of inconvenient). Their alliances with the Soviets were sort of rebound things, when they couldn't get support from the west and America.

Y'see, the reality is, these repressive dictatorships are in there because they work for us. We like them. They're docile and obedient and generally, they look out for our interests. All we have to do is make sure the guys at the top get their cut, and everyone's happy.

Now, I don't particularly see the Bush administration as being particularly worried about terrorism. Maybe it's just standard incompetence on their part, always likely. But on the other hand, I don't see the sorts of systematic steps taken that suggests an overall strategy to deal with the problem.

What I see is a tendency to use it as an excuse to advance a pre-existing agenda... which is the elimination of rivals, consolidation of power, domination of the key resource and exclusion of other powers or local powers from the region.

Basically, its World Domination 101, but implemented by the Keystone Kops. What Lester sees as the signs of a greater and wiser Master Plan are in fact the clueless flounderings of goofballs up to no good.

I'm not a big reader of Chomsky, sad to say. Life is just too short. My problem with the Neocons is that they seem to be a group of people who know a hell of a lot about each other, and about the contents of their desks, but not all that much about the rest of the world. Me, I grew up as a carpenter and a mechanic, and I got a sincere appreciation for the real world. Truth to tell, I'm on first name basis with Mr. Reality (Fred).

Still, I'll take a look at those links, but I gotta say this. Superman can take a lump of coal and polish it into a diamond. That's cause he's superman. But not even Superman can take a turd and polish it into anything but a turd.

And Lester... crack a smile once in a while. Didn't you ever hear the story about the guy with the silver screw in his navel?

1. The House of Saud is certainly at least as hateable as the mullahs of Iran and in my view a much higher priority.

I don't know why everyone is so down on the House of Saud. Near as I can tell, they've probably got the best shot of naturally evolving democratic institutions.

You guys need to think back and remember that English Democracy, or American Democracy, didn't happen overnight. Rather, it was a long, slow process of the people in charge expanding their circles and sharing more and more power with ever expanding and changing constituencies.

The Sauds weren't the warlords of Arabia. The Turks were kicking those guys asses. The Sauds were the politicians of Arabia. They succeeded, and they continued to succeed, not by conquering their rivals, but rather by: (a) Marrying them into the family; and (b) Buying them off. What can we say, it worked.

So, they're corrupt, venal, totalitarians. Anyone looked at the Bush administration lately?

The difference is that the Sauds, just might possibly, be politically astute enough to adapt to changing times and growing demands by sharing power. No more than they have to, no more often than they have to. But they've got the culture of bargaining and compromise.

If you're hoping for home grown, grass roots Islamic Democratic institutions, that's your best bet.

2. Your aim of preserving or restoring the less bloody middle east of the 1990s is unacheivable. Things were only going to get worse, the question was whether to just watch them get worse and the question now is whether to make them dramatically worse by cutting and running.

The permanent apocalyptic refrain is that the world is always coming to an end, yet somehow it never does.

The reality is that most people in the middle east just want to get through the day and have a nice life. There's not a lot of radical interest in rocking the boat. So left to itself, the region will gravitate towards some form of stability, though it may be stability that doesn't suit our interests.

As for Iraq, the reality is that America is creating the civil war, America is dismantling the country, and the best thing you could do for those poor bastards is to cut and run.

American power is not protean, nor is it infinite. American power and actions have run headlong against my pal Fred (Mister Reality to the rest of you), and Fred never loses. The world is not a video game, there is no reset button, no do over, no extra lives or bonus points.

The Bush administration in a hamboned quest for domination, and embarked on a series of blunders which will inevitably seriously damage its power and influence in the region.

A sensible course might be to recognize this and go for damage control. The Bush response is likely to simply continue hanging on or doubling down until the wreckage is complete.

5. As opponents of the war have often complained, the US doesn't have any plan to impose on Iraq and has very little influence on events there. There was no way that Paul Bremer who does not speak Arabic could ever have attempted to impose anyhthing.

Well, actually, Bremer did indeed try his little aryan heart out to impose American will and ideology on Iraq. Flat tax rates, dismantling and privatizing the state industries, privatizing the oil industry and transferring control of oil resources to the provinces, removing all tariff and trade barriers, removing all barriers to foreign purchase of Iraqi assets...

Who is kidding who? Iraq was conceived as a laboratory for pet Neocon economic theories, as disastrous as they were. Take a look at the Transitional Administrative Law, or the various plans.

Politically, Bremer designed several puppet regime set ups, designed the electoral process and manipulated it in a way that they hoped would perpetuate American dominance.

Finally, the intention was certainly there to achieve American economic domination of Iraq by controlling and doling out reconstruction projects and reconstruction monies exclusively to American (with crumbs to a few selected allies) companies and economic interests. The intentions with respect to military domination and the long term use of Iraqi bases or brutally obvious.

I think that we can all agree that wmd's were a dishonest and false motive. Saddam Hussein's human rights record, while appalling, was not the trigger. I'm skeptical that humanitarian impulses were at the heart of it. The factual record seems to be one of rape, pillage and plunder...

To be fair, I don't believe that the United States set out as its primary purpose to rape the shit out of the Iraqi people. The more realistic agenda was regional/world domination. However, incompetence has pretty much ended that dream, and rape and plunder happens naturally in these circumstances.

And as for 'sneering', Lester, Lester, Lester... what am I going to do with you?

Anti-American slant, moi?

Just because I point out that you guys elected a pathologically sadistic coward who had no qualifications or abilities and was dumb as a post to your highest position?

How does that make me anti-American.

Once upon a time, we had this guy, Stockwell Day, as the leader of our oppositon party. Stock believed in Fred Flintstone. That is, he believed that the Earth was only about 6000 years old, that Dinosaurs coexisted with man, Evolution was false and that every word of the bible was inerrantly true.

If we had elected him leader of our country, we would have fully expected the world to laugh its head off at us, and we would have deserved it.

There would have been nothing Anti-Canadian about it.

Well, we dodged that bullet.

You didn't.

Simple as that.

There are strategic reasons for not leaving Iraq -- ceding it to Iranian influence or domination being the primary one.

But, as an American, I object to the unsubstantiated claim that mine and my fellow citizens' political actions are governed to the largest extent by our psychological immaturities.  Just ain't true.  After all is said and done, Americans are surprisingly rational and pragmatic folks.

Despite my low opinion of them, I would have thought they also realised that is because cutting and running would be a severe setback to democratic transformation of the region

I'm sorry, but I'm just not seeing that the United States has any interest whatsoever in a 'democratic transformation' of the region, has taken any coherent steps in that regard or has any clue as to how to go about it.

You will recall that Garner wanted to have elections, and that he got booted for it. Bremer reversed Municipal elections and kicked out a bunch of elected officials, he then fought the quest for elections tooth and nail, throwing up a series of 'puppet representative bodies.' The history and conduct of the Iraq experiment provides no faith whatsoever in America's 'democratic' impulses.

Of the countries in the region which actually have elections, there was Lebanon, which Israel is busily destroying, and Iran which had a flawed democratic process, but a democratic process nevertheless, in its own way, no more corrupt than the American process. America ain't sympathetic to Iran.

Which leaves us a handful of micro-lections. A limited vote for municipal positions in Saudi Arabia, an Egyptian parliamentary vote, and some vote in Quatar. That's it.

Meanwhile, the US contemplates bombing the Free Press, adopts torture, secret prisons, extraordinary rendition and all the other tactics of a police state. That's hardly intended to foster a Democratic flowering.

That is they might be partisan enough to wish the US hadn't gone in, and blame the Bushies for having done so, but they know defeat isn't a viable option.

Currently the United States is engaged in what it has called the "El Salvador option." Google it if you must.

The trouble is that the "El Salvador Option" did no truly work, even in El Salvador. It didn't really work in Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador. It didn't really work in Vietnam when it was called the "Phoenix Program."

The main effect is to kill lots and lots of people and pretty much demolish a country. But its record of achieving specific goals is pretty poor. Essentially, 'victory' has consisted of killing lots and lots of people, getting bored and wandering away, and letting the survivors work out a deal while you aren't looking.

But that's it. After the "El Salvador Option" America is busted. They got nothing else to throw into the game.

Failure is the only option. Failure is the inevitable conclusion. Failure has already occurred, it's merely going to take a lot more killing to realize it.

Seems more likely to me that you simply don't have any alternative policy at all, and don't see any need to find out anything about Iraq, because you only wish to make cynical remarks rather than actually propose any kind of policy.

"Pot!" cries the Kettle, "thou art black!!! Black as a black cat in a coal mine in the middle of the night!!! I am shocked!"

"I never noticed," replies the Pot.

Would rate this five if I could. I strongly believe that the fight against terrorism is severely hampered by the amount of hysteria associated with it, and the resultant inability to think about problems clearly and rationally, and put them into perspective. The irrational approach not only prevents a sensible solution but probably makes the problem worse.

Right now it seems we're "fighting" terrorism on the terrorists' terms -- no wonder it's not going so well.

Just because I point out that you guys elected a pathologically sadistic coward who had no qualifications or abilities and was dumb as a post to your highest position?

Ahem.

He wasn't elected. Appointed is the correct term.

Minor detail, but, important to those of us who didn't elect the guy. 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Actually the sponsorship of Al Queda started with Brezinski in the Carter administration and was continued by Reagan. But I agree its another topic.

I'd say both parties had similar attitudes to the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and their bipartisan policies bought neither security nor stability.

But that too is getting increasingly remote from Rachel's topic.

PS Only had a quick glance at Valdron's latest but doesn't look as though there is much point attempting to take him seriously again when I do have time. Its back to the sneering.

I'll just respond to one point for now, hoping that clarifying that might result in less talking past each other.

The terrorist groups that threaten the U.S. came from three situations: the civil war in Lebanon, the war in Afghanistan, and the war between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

I disagree.

The US intervened in Lebanon and got chased out by killing a couple of hundred marines. That wasn't threatening the US and it wasn't terrorism. It was defence against US aggression.

Palestinian defence against Israeli aggression has included some terrorism (though killing far less Israeli civilians than the Israelis have killed Palestinian civilians). It doesn't threaten the US at all, although US support for Israel has certainly been used for jihadi propaganda.

The war in Afghanistan was not the source of the Al Quaeda terrorism that does threaten the US. The term "Afghans" was used in jihadi circles to refer to Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc who were encouraged by both the US and Saudis to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. These people became "The Base" (Arabic "Al Queda") for what is now a serious "blowback" threat to the US.

Naturally the US tends to apply the term terrorism to anybody fighting it, however the strategy of "draining the swamps" relates to the very specific problem that a very serious threat has arisen from wahabi/salafi jihadis that breed specifically in stagnant Arab autocracies.

These are the people whose attack on September 11 made it necessary to review US policy in the Middle East and recognize how much damage had been done by the previous policies.

Sub-contracting US policy making to Israel and its local lobby has resulted in people who are fighting against Israeli aggression being confused in US discourse with the jihadis that really are a threat to the US.

That is still a major problem in public debate, with the confusion actually deepening at the moment due to highlighting Hezbollah for the purpose of adapting Israeli public opinion to accepting defeat of Israel's attempt to seize the West Bank from the Palestinians.

However the fundamental orientation of US policy is against the wahabi/salafi jihadis rather than either the "Palestinian terrorists" Israel used to carry on about or the Hezbollah who are so dramatically in the news at the moment. The US is not at war with either but now does have a strong interest in getting Israel out of the West Bank because US backing for Israeli expansionism has been a major factor in jihadi propaganda and in propping up the Arab autocracies by allowing their regimes to deflect attention from their own inadequacies and blame their problems on Israeli aggression backed by the US.

Hence my claim that what appears to be spectacularly stupid blunders in going to war with Hezbollah is actually part of the preparation of public opinion for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (in the same way that the Xmas bombing of Hanoi made no strategic sense whatever except as part of preparing public opinion to view the Paris Peace agreement a few weeks later as "peace with honour" rather than defeat).

The US intervened in Lebanon and got chased out by killing a couple of hundred marines. That wasn't threatening the US and it wasn't terrorism. It was defence against US aggression.

Palestinian defence against Israeli aggression has included some terrorism (though killing far less Israeli civilians than the Israelis have killed Palestinian civilians). It doesn't threaten the US at all, although US support for Israel has certainly been used for jihadi propaganda.

The war in Afghanistan was not the source of the Al Quaeda terrorism that does threaten the US. The term "Afghans" was used in jihadi circles to refer to Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc who were encouraged by both the US and Saudis to go to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets. These people became "The Base" (Arabic "Al Queda") for what is now a serious "blowback" threat to the US.

Lester, having just worked my way through a long post on this subject, I'm surprised to read you getting it mostly right here. The fact that you do seem to know what you're talking about renders sloppiness elsewhere altogether more inexcuseable.

However the fundamental orientation of US policy is against the wahabi/salafi jihadis rather than either the "Palestinian terrorists" Israel used to carry on about or the Hezbollah who are so dramatically in the news at the moment. The US is not at war with either but now does have a strong interest in getting Israel out of the West Bank

Hmmm. The US public position, stated by President Bush, and a departure from the position of every single previous administration, has been to recognize Israel's territorial claims on the west bank, through the wall and settlements, as 'facts on the ground'.

This was a fairly recent policy pronouncement, within the last couple of years, and the implications were catastrophic. The United States abandoned insistence upon and support for the 1967 borders and gave license to Israel to chip away as it pleased.

In turn, this became the basis of Sharon's and Ohlmert's campaign to have Israel unilaterally define its borders, including the annexation of lands and resources in the West Bank.

Now, given that this was a recent policy initiative, given that it dramatically diverges from the previous policies, given that it has not been repudiated, and that Israel is basing major iniatives in reliance upon it....

I really have to question your statement that "The US ... now does have a strong interest in getting Israel out of the West Bank..."

You seem to be saying that Jihadi pressure is the cause, but the whole Jihadi thing precedes the policy shift.

It may be that you are arguing that the US is pursuing a 'covert policy' at odds with the 'overt policy.' But if that is the case, why move from a basically neutral and consistent stance, to a policy position that is absolutely contrary to your covert agenda and will cause you all sorts of problems with Israel and the Arabs.

It just don't work.

Lester, you are clearly and plainly wrong. I'm afraid you are utterly mistaken and do not, in this instance, know what you are talking about.

because US backing for Israeli expansionism has been a major factor in jihadi propaganda and in propping up the Arab autocracies by allowing their regimes to deflect attention from their own inadequacies and blame their problems on Israeli aggression backed by the US.

Somehow, I don't think American policy on Israel has been geared towards this sort of double blind game on arab regimes. To be fair, I don't think you argued it as a plan, but rather as an effect.

Hence my claim that what appears to be spectacularly stupid blunders in going to war with Hezbollah is actually part of the preparation of public opinion for Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (in the same way that the Xmas bombing of Hanoi made no strategic sense whatever except as part of preparing public opinion to view the Paris Peace agreement a few weeks later as "peace with honour" rather than defeat).

Nice thought, and comforting. I'd really like you to be right.

But all evidence suggests you are wrong.

Hey Arthur,

First off, let me apologize for calling you Lester. Brain glitch, Lester Dent was the writer of the Doc Savage novels, featuring a preternaturally gifted ubermensch unafraid to ignore the rules in pursuit of changing the rules. I think your real allusion is to Arthur Dent, hapless wandering everyman and secret holder to the ultimate question in Douglas Adams hitchhikers novel. As I said, brain glitch, my bad, sorry about that. No offense intended.

I wanted to say I read the various articles and passages that you linked too.

I'm afraid that I wasn't terribly impressed with Chomsky's 'Drain the Swamp' analysis, his discussion was mostly basic common sense stuff, slightly dressed up. Someone looking for the deeper thoughts is going to be disappointed.

I agree with him that his little fanboy missed the point completely, and seemed compelled to harp on it to the verge of being obnoxious. Sadly, neither his article nor his endless rejoinder really made his case. Certain passages from fanboy were kind of queasy, subtly implying that he himself might not truly believe his own arguments. I think that this may have been an impression that Mr. Chomsky got as well. Certainly the intervening period has not been kind to Fanboy.

Fanboy's mistake, and your mistake, is that you both seem to be cherry picking certain kinds of rhetoric from the Bush administration and hangers on and then you guys go through all sorts of contortions to fit this cherry picked humanitarian rhetoric onto Bush's actions.

There's several problems you've got with that.

First the rhetoric you rely upon is only part of a vast stream of rhetoric which sprawls across a number of dimensions, depending upon audience and time. Much of this rhetoric is contrary to or at cross purposes to the rhetoric which you rely upon. This is a contradiction that badly needs to be resolved, but is frankly, merely ignored.

The next problem is that the Bush administration and hangers on have demonstrated a willingness and ability to falsify its rhetoric. That is to say... they lie. So the question is, how do we determine that any particular piece of rhetoric is truthful... ie, represents actual policy and objectives, or represents core policy and objectives rather than subordinated corollary goals. Again this very critical issue is not addressed.

The biggest problem you've got is the actual disconnect between the Bush administrations real world policies and actions, and the rhetoric on which you rely. You and fanboy seem to skate around this problem by either ignoring real world policies, or looking at them in a superficial fashion and carefully ignoring anything (and there's a great deal of it) which is contradictory or inconsistent with your thesis.

I think that's not really a valid approach, and frankly, it verges heavily on academic dishonesty. Certainly it would not get you far in a peer reviewed world.

The better approach in my view, would be to set aside all streams of rhetoric as being of limited probative utility, and then simply focus on the Administrations actions. Consistency of action would then point to certain rhetoric, or certain assumptions, and could allow you to build a picture of the Administration's actual ideas and intentions.

And no, that is certainly not what you or fanboy have done.

One particular thing you've done, which I would argue is a major mistake, is to dismiss the possibility of incompetence out of hand.

Instead you refer to conduct which has the appearance of colossal blunders, but which are unacceptable as such, therefore you go on the search for hidden agendas or motives, which demonstrate an underlying brilliance behind the apparent idiocy.

Frankly, no. As entertaining and peculiar as these circumlocutions may be, Occam's Razor points us towards the simpler solution: Incompetence. Corruption and venality run a close second. But incompetence explains a lot, and explains it efficiently.

Had there been an underlying cleverness beneath it all, the blunders would have consistently run in a certain direction. There is no such pattern, goofery lies all around us.

On the one side, I was being lighthearted when I called Bush an idjit. But there was a very serious dimension to it.

9/11 was not Bush teaching the American people an object lesson in looking beyond its borders. New Orleans was not Bush's committment to urban renewal in a wholesale way. Each of these, and many other incidents, are simply blunders.

The consistent facets of such blunders are an overly ideological bias, an utter disinterest in facts or realities which do not cater to this bias, laziness, inattention, the pursuit of pre-existing agendas at all costs and the inability or disinterest to deal directly with consequences.

These are the hallmarks of a collection of fools, not a pack of machiavellian geniuses.

I suggest that you revisit your analysis from the bottom up.

I also chased down many of these links on Reuel Marc Gerecht, former CIA analyst, iconoclast and now circle jerker at the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank.

A word about the American Enterprise Institute (and its not a kind word). The American Enterprise Institute is not a peer reviewed organization, or an organization which upholds or does more than pretend to academic standards. They are not academe.

This is important. In academe, there is a rigourous testing and sorting process, wherein articles and theories are examined by juries of qualified peers who assess the thoroughness of the work, its methodology, and its soundness. The idea is to find and remedy flaws, deal with weaknesses and keep everyone honest. The AEI does none of this that I am aware of.

Indeed, the AEI's contempt for academic standards is illustrated by John Lott. Now, Lott is not on point to the issues here. But John Lott was a writer on gun control issues who appears to have actually manufactured or falsified data, or who at least can provide no evidence or records persuasive the data was compiled, whose record includes a false 'persona' Mary Rosh, who he used to attack his detractors and support his work, including supplying self testimonials, and who has been subject to ample criticism.

This is the sort of guy who Gerech and the AEI is keeping company with? This is the sort of ethical and intellectual standard that the AEI is prepared to tolerate?

My ass.

There are major credibility issues with the AEI and anyone associated with it, and you ought to know it. In particular, the bottom line is that they're just not up to academe standards. And they don't particularly care.

So what do they care about? Policy. The AEI is a self described 'right wing' think tank. That means that they're predisposed to certain sets of conclusions and topics. The purpose of their research is not to contribute to the body of scholarship, but rather to persuade policy makers and influence public and social policy. So not only are they predisposed, but they have an agenda. Charming.

So, let's turn to Gerech. I found him relatively superficial and unpersuasive. Sorry. I came, I saw, I went home. Vid Vici Bleah.

Gerch has some things going for him. He's not afraid to be counterintuitive. He's quite willing to zig where others feel compelled to zag. He thinks outside the box. His arguments are concise and clear. These are good things.

That said, he's lazy in that he doesn't seem driven to really do the work to test out his ideas. He feels its good enough to brainstorm cool ideas, and I suppose as a boy wunderkind, that's about as hard as he's ever had to work. The result is a running theme of superficiality.

So much for the boys.

Arthur, I've given you the courtesy of finding an idea you've presented to be sufficiently novel and unexplored, that I've been put to kicking it around for a protracted time.

However, nothing I've heard has changed my ultimate view that its just bunk. It's wacky bunk, and counterintuitive bunk. But its still bunk. I just don't see the merit, and I don't propose to continue catering to it. Unless you've got something better than you've presented, I'm just bored.

You've several times accused me of having a sneering tone. I have two responses.

First, I reject the whole sneering thing. It's humour. This includes exageration, hyperbole, use of slang, cross cultural references, ironic detachment and occasional departures into frivolity.

Humour is an effective tool in discussions like these. It lightens up what might otherwise be tedious and dry subject matter. It establishes or attempts to establish a degree of friendliness, emphasizing that while there may be disagreement, it does not extend to personal animosity. It's intended to keep things fresh.

You, Arthur Dent, are as humourless as a Vogon poet with heamorhoids. I hope I don't get banned for that. I have found your comments to be as dry and sere of wit or fun as the Rub Al Khali in a drought. I give up on you.

I also find it ironic that you take issue with my alleged 'sneering' since, in re-reading your various posts to others, you seem to do a lot of genuine sneering yourself. Your dialogue with others is laced with condescension and contempt, you verge on being offensive. I do not believe that you cross the line, and I will defend your right to choose and employ your own style of discussion. But frankly, you write like an ass. So complaining of my 'sneering' is both projection and whimpery.

Now, you do seem to be well read, and you do seem to be somewhat bright. You bring ideas and arguments to the table which have the virtue of being unconventional. I'd advise you to continue, and in the future, I may enjoy further discussions with you.

Whatever.

Hope you are right. He did seem to be capable of discussing the actual issues so I hope he decides to confine himself to what he is capable of rather than attempting further "entertainment" which simply wasn't entertaining.

On the actual issues, things are moving too fast and they are too important for distractions.

Looks to me that Israel will soon find itself at the Litani with no way to exit but a comprehensive settlement that meets Hezbollah's demands (exchange of prisoners and withdrawal from Shebaa farms).

The fascinating thing is that the international force that would replace the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon happens to be exactly whats also needed for quiet in Gaza and withdrawal from the West Bank and Israel has now demonstrated to almost everyone's satisfaction the absolute necessity of proceeding with that withdrawal.

Thanks, but I'll wait for the movie.

The "war on terror", such as it is, should not be conceived as a war against an ideology. Terrorism is a permanent fact of modern life, an ancient problem made more acute in the modern world by the easy availablity of explosives, black market guns and missiles, toxins, and other highly destructive weapons. There will always be people attracted to liberation movements of various kinds, and eager to use violence to achieve those ends - even violence against civilians or innocents. And there always have been such people. What has changed is that in past centuries, the solitary rebel had to get close to his target to plunge a blade into the latter, and could only attack one or two people at a time. Now that rebel can blow up a truck or a building or a plane, and kill hundreds or thousands at time.

Terrorism should be approached with a crime or public health model, as Howard suggests. Our goal is to identify people willing to use violence, and disrupt as many of their plans as we can. And we probably just have to keep doing it - forever and ever. Fighting terrorism should not be a cause or a crusade or a war. It is a job. It is a job that someone will always have to do - hopefully with a professional and no-nonsense attitude, and without the hysterics and hype.

While liberals seem to understand that we can not just eradicate all the terrorists in the world in order to suppress terrorism, some of them seem naively attracted to the goal of eradicating all those bad evil ideas out there - the ones that make people kill innocents for political ends. Forget it.

Public health advocacy gang,

Your points, from a policy perspective, ring very true. Young men searching for themselves will join the Krishnas or the Tamil Tigers, the jihadists or the La Rouche-ists, depending on what ideological grouping with money and an indoctrination campaign operates in their neck of the woods. The ideas in social connection theory, which the Tipping Point popularized, are essential to beating terrorists--and quelling them certainly does need the kinds of social connection theory based solutions that we use to fight contagious infection. (in fact, I worked on precisely this interplay of complexity theory, social connectivity, and jihadism when I worked for Booz Allen).

But from a political perspective, there's an important distinction between malevolent threats--people who want to kill us--and malignant threats--unintentional threats that can kill possibly a lot more of us, like flu and global warming. It's a moral distinction that America feels very strongly in its gut, if you follow opinion polls or talk to red-state Americans (the group we really must convince to come to our side, if we are to take back Congress and the Presidency, a goal I heartily am trying to fulfill).

Pandemic influenza could well kill more Americans than most terrorist attacks, barring bioterrorist attacks. But Americans see the two as fundamentally different--as you realize in your joke line about the "Global War on Infection".

Money wise, we actually are spending a ton to fight pandemic flu, and are highly mobilized as if for war (so this is not a pandering issue--policy wise, we are doing the right thing on at least that malevolent threat. Don't get me started on the right and global warming). But the health metaphor makes red state America think that Democrats are confused as to moral evil. We are certainly not--your point is a policy one, not a moral one. But in political rhetoric, the moral issues matter-a lot--and Democrats have to be willing to make moral distinctions between malevolent and malignant threats if our policies are to be taken seriously.

If I thought there was a real loss in buying into the language of moral threat, I would fight it. But I frankly think that anyone who sets out to kill innocents deliberately--whether they work for Operation Rescue, or Al-Qaeda--is evil, and it doesn't bother me to say so.

Director, Truman National Security Project
www.trumanproject.org

Ellen,

Since 9/11, there have been multiple large attacks in Indonesia, a huge attack in London, a huge attack in Spain (both aimed at our allies in Iraq, and therefore an attempt to undercut American alliances, regardless of whether you back the war in Iraq), and attacks on Israelis in Africa.

That's not "no attacks", that's simply going after American power through alternate targets--targets which severely harm our own power and our ability to garner allies, key to our national security.

As someone working in bioterrorism, I can assure you that the al-Qaeda way is to deliberate and plan for a great deal of time before attacking, and to try to outdo itself each time. Hardly a course we want.

Our security measures have been of some help against al-Qaeda at home. Some have been truly unnecessary--Guantanamo is harming our image gigantically, and has no security purpose whatsoever--same with those closed military trials. But some have been well-targeted.

But don't think, for a moment, that we have somehow beaten terrorists. This is a fight that will be with us for a good long while.

Director, Truman National Security Project
www.trumanproject.org