Aside from major policy differences, the problem with Joe Lieberman for me and, I suspect, many other liberals is not that he disagrees with his Democratic colleagues ten percent of the time but that when voicing his dissent he so often employs a hectoring, father-knows-best tone that functions to discredit liberal concerns and values rather than by expressing respectful, nuanced disagreement.

His tone markedly resembles a common conservative response to liberal values -- an attitude of ridicule, although it's probably more genteel in its mode of expression. His avuncular delivery actually only deepens the harm he does to the Democratic Party and the core concerns of the left, by making hostility to liberalism seem sober and commonsensical. Anyone who is shocked that many liberals seek a more supportive but no less independent-minded advocate was not paying adequately careful attention to Senator Lieberman's rhetorical choices since the advent of the Iraq war; this rhetoric has differed markedly from that of other Democratic senators who voted to authorize the invasion. Ari Melber expressed some similar thoughts yesterday in a very thoughtful piece.

Bullies, it seems, love power and want to be alive to enjoy it. An overwhelming response may deter them or otherwise affect their future decisions. The received wisdom after Sept. 11, however, was that the US was now facing neither ideologues nor bullies nor (as in the case of the Soviets, perhaps) a combination of the two, but rather nihilist fanatics -- a very different proposition that made this "a new kind of war." But the hawks' attitudes haven't changed accordingly ... even though they were among the loudest intoning such rhetoric. What gives? Maybe such sloganeering was used to some extent simply as a way of frightening people into accepting their policy preferences more than of engaging in analysis.

Anyway, it seems that the massive, crude use of force against a civilian population in Iraq or Lebanon will tend to radicalize the populace while doing little to affect surviving the terrorists in question, who almost by definition are not going to be deterred by even devastating military force but who will at the least gain passive supporters among the affected civilians (who are apt to draw little solace from the fact that Hezbollah or al Qaeda had been the real target). The pursuit of military objectives (killing terrorists, destroying their infrastructure) is undeniably a legitimate application of self-defense for Israel, the US, and other sovereign states that are victims of terrorism. What needs to be questioned, however, is the use of military means to pursue fundamentally political ends against foes who aren't going to be influenced by such actions no matter the military outcome. Israel, more, I think, than the US in Iraq today, probably has political objectives against somewhat-rational actors (Syria, Iran, Lebanon, international opinion), so this line of thought is hardly a definitive criticism. But it's an angle of analysis that I think deserves consideration. One size does not fit all. You can out-bully a bully like Saddam; you cannot deter a fanatic for long. If the president wants a lasting solution, he needs to change something about his approach.

"Allow the torture of terrorists and you will eventually inflict it upon the innocent." It's not just a civil libertarian article of faith any longer, logical though the assumption was in its honest, conservative pessimism about human fallibility; it's being verified. Consider a new, chilling article by John H. Richardson in the August issue of Esquire. "[The task force] was in fact looking for a hardcore Al Qaeda member, al-Zarqawi--but to find him, it was using the techniques reserved for the 'worst of the worst' on ordinary Iraqi civilians."

There's more and worse to tell. This power corrupts. One elite Army interrogator tells Richardson, "And I think kind of an underlying thing was it was fun for people, but they had this guise of like it was always, you know, for the information."

There's more, and worse, to tell. This power, to torture, was authorized far up the chain of command. Read the article for a detailed exploration of this brutal history ... and a few defiant acts of conscience and responsibility by military dissenters and civilian watchdogs, who have helped bring this hidden story partly to light.

When we preserve the rule of law in times of war, we confirm our resolve and moral identity as well as build alliances with those whose initial loyalties and past experiences are different from our own and who may be inclined to view American power with suspicion. The rule of law is hard to uphold in the pressure and chaos of combat. But it is probably impossible to uphold when the military and civilian leadership betray the human, constitutional, and military standards that define American ideals. We are beginning to learn that in the real world, wars are not won by such betrayals, only lost, both at home and abroad. Our media-saturated world is constantly shrinking and we must never forget it. It may not be an exaggeration to say that our reputation is either our best weapon or our enemies' best weapon. A true ticking time bomb situation, in some variants, might justify torture. But allowances for torture should never be codified in law, because it must never become the norm, and yet will whenever mortal troops and intelligence officers are burdened with terrible stress and terrible responsibilities, and have a legal loophole and chain of command to fall back on. Torture is always a failure of our identity, and accountability for that diminishment, in this case, sadly belongs at the top.