I don't think we'd have invaded Afghanistan short of an actual attack. Between natural partisan opposition and pre-9/11 reluctance to engage in massive, prolonged military adventures, I doubt that a GOP Congress would back a Gore administration's Afghanistan War over one foiled attack. Remember that Clinton was raked over the coals and accused of "wagging the dog" for blowing up a few suspected al Qaeda targets in the late 90s. A full-scale nation-building campaign in Afghanistan would never happen short of an actual, successful terrorist strike.

Posted at August 15, 2006 12:58 PM in response to Gore Means War

That article was ignorant and absurd, and in fact a perfect example of the kind of racism that's become so pervasive in these discussions. Read here for an explanation from someone who actually knows what he's talking about.

Posted at August 11, 2006 7:10 AM in response to Racists Among Us

No, I'm saying that antisemitism is frequently and commonly recognized as a negative and destructive influence in American culture and politics, while anti-Arab prejudice really isn't. This is also, I'll note, pretty much the exact same point Matt Yglesias made in his post some fifty-odd comments ago - you know, the post you said was "old news" and yet don't seem to have actually read.

Did you actually read anything I wrote previously, or are you deliberately misconstruing everything I write?

Posted at August 8, 2006 4:42 PM in response to Racists Among Us

What bigotry/racism is?

For starters, antisemitism - which brings us right back to the whole point of Matt's post. At this point I have to conclude, with all due respect, that you're either incredibly slow or simply arguing for the sake of arguing.

Posted at August 8, 2006 11:42 AM in response to Racists Among Us

It's not that it's "new". It's that it's rarely owned up to publicly. Thus it's worthwhile for pundits (like Matt Yglesias) to start talking about it instead of pretending that the only reason countries like Iraq and Lebanon get invaded has to do with terror and "democracy promotion."

Posted at August 8, 2006 10:55 AM in response to Racists Among Us

The significance is that as a culture we've developed a hypersensitivity to antisemitism, to the point where critics of America's Israel policy are often accused of antisemitism, while no one ever calls supporters of America's mideast policy on their overtones of anti-Arab bigotry. Not all racism is treated equal here.

Posted at August 8, 2006 10:04 AM in response to Racists Among Us

How right-wing is Real Clear Politics? I've heard the name bandied about but I've never actually been to the site before now, and like Matt I agree with what Carson says here - in fact, I'd say what he says more stridently than he puts it... I think Dems are shamelessly selling out good foreign policy on this issue for a few cheap political points.

Posted at July 27, 2006 12:44 PM in response to What's the Deal With . . .

totally withdraw from supporting either Israel or Palestine, and frame it as not the real important issue in the Mideast.

And how do convince Arabs and Muslims in the Mideast that it's not important? As it stands now, as long as Palestinians are suffering we take the blame for their misery, and that fuels the fires of anti-American terror. It's really in our best interest to see a peaceful, stable Mideast; I can't imagine the lack of imagination necessary to not see that.

Ask yourself the same question so many ask of chickenhawks about Iraq. Are you so invested in either side here to send your son or daughter to fight in it?

Who's talking about fighting? This is about diplomacy. America is the only country that can pressure Israel into backing down and making a deal. Nobody outside the Weekly Standard/New Republic war porn axis is talking about Americans fighting in this.

Posted at July 14, 2006 3:32 PM in response to More Israel/Lebanon

Once again, even if America decides to ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that doesn't mean that Muslims throughout the rest of the Mideast - you know, where they have all that oil, and where all those al Qaeda people keep coming from - are going to ignore it. Quite the opposite, I imagine. We've supported one side in this conflict for decades, and we can't undo that or the damage it's caused just by walking away. It's our mess to clean up.

Posted at July 14, 2006 1:42 PM in response to More Israel/Lebanon

I think Matt's unstated assumption is that American foreign policy should ideally be an attempt to balance our role as the world's superpower (promotion of peace and stability, opposition to tyranny and genocide, etc.) with America's various foreign interests (cheap oil, elimination of threats to America, etc.). The Bush administration has been a solid disaster on both, but it's clear that the various "fighting, war, and chaos" Matt alludes to is damaging on both fronts: lots of innocent people get killed and many more suffer in resulting humanitarian crises while the rapid destabilization of the region leads to increased terror, expensive gas, threats to various regimes we're friendly with and so on.

It should also be noted that we don't really have the option of just ignoring the Middle East altogether (even if it's true that we should've pulled out of Iraq long ago). We've given Israel billions and billions of dollars over the last couple decades, essentially building them up to be the preeminent military power in the region. Even if we think we have no responsibility for what they do with that power, the rest of the Mideast certainly doesn't see it that way. Al Qaeda calls America "the far enemy" for a reason.

Posted at July 14, 2006 10:33 AM in response to More Israel/Lebanon