On a personal level I reject dualistic thinking.  It serves a purpose no doubt, and
occasionally it is required for survival, or at least basic self interest.  Having said that, there is a dualistic filter
which I apply to political and in particular foreign policy considerations:
does this process lead to genocide?

It is of course, the “nuclear option” of philosophical consideration.  Applying it to domestic political policies such as education, or taxation, or civil liberty, is an exercise best left to times of quiet reflection and meditation, and not open discourse.  However; on foreign policy matters it is a question that must at least be posed at the ideological level.

 Douglas Feith’s ideological input to “P.N.A.C.,” and his role in the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and his role (and the role of those influenced by his ideology) in the ongoing U.S. foreign policy issues vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea demand a public definition of his ideological end game.

On a pragmatic level there are only a few obvious matters of self interest that must be addressed with regard to Middle Eastern foreign policy:

-- Energy policy

-- The historic and ideological support of the existence and continued/improved health and security of the state of Israel

-- Economic policy, as it relates to energy policy, but also as it relates to global security and normalization of global trade

--Domestic and Global security

The last point (security) is of course the poisoned fruit of foreign policy considerations.  The adjustment of sensibilities that has been opportunistically forced upon the public since 2001 has made a pragmatic discussion of (inter)National Security impossible.  National security is a magical hammer that can be used to torture logic, reality, budgets, and prisoners with equal effectiveness.

And so it is that I pose an open question to Douglas Feith et al:

What ideal ending of the Iraq war that does not result in (more?) genocide do you propose?

What ideal outcome of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict that does not end in (continued?) genocide do you propose?

What ideal ending to the “Global War On Terror” (terror the tactic having been replaced by terror an ideology?) do you propose that does not end in genocide (nb: collateral damage does not differ from genocide to those that are defined as collateral)?

Will you consider that, even in ideological terms, a failure to identify an end point to all of these endeavors is to embrace a long term policy that leads inevitably to genocide?