Now it's just fine to look at all of this and run screaming: it's a natural reaction and it takes great fortitude not do run screaming. Indeed, it is fair to say that at 7am on 9/11, terrorism was far, far from the average American's mind: social justice was probably more on people's minds, despite the regular attacks, increasing in scale and audacity, carried out against the US by terrorists through the 1990s. We can't go back to 1998, no matter how much we'd like to (and I personally wouldn't like to) because we have an enemy that will not go back.

And until that changes, refusing to face up to foreign policy realities has one of two results: electoral defeat, or thousands of enemy dead.

I'm enjoying watching this conversation very much. It is rare to see such well written, intelligent comments on one site — this is how the guys from ComingAnarchy must feel everyday!

Aaron, you may enjoy http://themetropolistimes.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/11/21/defeating-islamofacism.html. He seems to be coming from the same place as you:

” Whether they agree with the federal government's invasion of Iraq or not, most Americans want liberalism to spread across the globe. We want to propagate the ideals of Western culture to other nations, with the belief that if they adopt respect for human rights the world will be a far better place. It is also our belief that we will succeed.

The success of American values has little, if anything, to do with winning military victories. The best way to expose unfree nations to freedom is through peaceful cultural exchange. Attempts at tyranny inevitably fail when the would-be subjects are exposed to a working model of liberty and freedom. “

The six-shooter has been put away for the evening.

I think you did a fair job in your first paragraph of illustrating a general tendency among Democrats/Liberals/Progressives of the locus of what motivates their interest in public policy and politics. It's deeply on the domestic side of things and its rooted in the culture of your party. Tip O'Neill, to cite one example, despaired of Presidents in his memoirs who like Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford no sooner took the oath of office then they suddenly became overly concerned in O'Neill's view about what went on in Namibia.

O'Neill was at heart a local pol gone national but the Democratic Party and Liberalism formerly and regularly produced formidible thinkers on Foreign Affairs – Lippmann, Kennan, Nitze, Acheson, McCloy, Rusk, Ball, Bundy, Jackson and others. That's not true today – your foreign policy heavyweights are few in number and some like Hamilton and Brzezinski are getting long in the tooth – rising stars in your party like Obama, Ford, Hillary etc.do
not find it advantageous, like JFK once did, to be seen at the forefront on FP issues. Not if they want to win the primaries – all articulating coherent and forceful view of foreign policy
will get a Democratic candidate is the loathing of half of the party as either ” Republican-lite” or a ” Can't win in November crackpot”. Better to be oblique.

This is, in my view, quite bad for the country. It's even bad for the GOP because there's no sense of fear that the ” other guys” will come up with something better and a license to be irresponsible or cavalier has developed. But mostly, it's bad for the country because the United States is not a compartmentalized entity. We are connected to the world and it to us. It's a feedback loop.

While we say ” terrorism” we really aren't talking about Abu Nidal or Yasser Arafat or the IRA but a transnational insurgency that is waging what we would call a guerilla war if it were happening solely within one nation's borders. Moreover, this Islamist insurgency is coinciding with the decay and collapse of the westphalian nation-state system. Every nation-state, including our own, draws its stability and legitimacy and security from the health of the system as a whole, at least to some degree.

Rogue, failing and failed states are indicative of that system 's failure and the entropy being generated endangers the capacity of the state to engage in the redistributive and regulatory activities that are the focus of your interests because the loyalties of citizens begin shifting elsewhere – to parties, supranational bodies, tribes, religious sects, corporations, gangs, ethnic groups, mafia networks etc.

As a result you have leaders attempting to write new rule-sets and staking moral claims – Bush to preemption and traditional conceptions of sovereignty and war – the EU and NGO
activists to transnationalist ,maximalist and undemocratic conceptions of International Law – and Islamists like Bin Laden to Sharia universalism. Which system of though gains global preponderance is going to deeply influence the internal politics of ” law abiding” nations the way European and american conceptions of economics and government influence states today.

So, in the long run foreign policy matters and this war is an epochal testing ground for the 21st century.

I may differ from a number of Americans on this subject, but I am not worried at all about terrorism. It is simply not my priority. Much like I do not stay indoors during a thunderstorm for threat of lightning, I do not abstain from flying or large venues for fear of terrorism. I'm concerned over our disparate castes in this throbbing economy. I am concerned about racial tensions in the South and California in regards to immigration. I am concerned about pollution and global warming. I am concerned about divorce rates. I am concerned about financial sector fraud. I am concerned about casual dismissal of hard science to benefit businesses that may be gone tomorrow on a dozen signatures, at the expense of a planet that's been here for millions of years. I am concerned about religious intolerance and sexual discrimination. I am concerned about deficits and education. I am concerned about peak oil and the ocean currents shutting down. I am concerned about everything but the one thing that concerns Bush.

You mentioned loose nukes. I watched with great interest the presidential debates. The moderator asked what the greatest threat to America was. Bush said, of course, gay marriage (sorry, couldn't resist, he said “Terrorism” ) and Kerry said “nuclear proliferation” I wanted to cheer. There are greater threats to our way of life than a dozen or a hundred or a thousand people being hurt and killed in an isolated attack. There are loose nukes out there, and there are unfriendly countries with openly acknowledged nuclear weapons programs. Some fundamentalist cavemen might hijack some planes, but they'll have a hard time getting nukes on them if we account for them all and stop the countries in development before we have to do it the hard way. Adding fuel to anti-American fire by invading a country on the pretense of punishing a single man has only worsened our position in a future utopian flat earth. I think with half the 300 billion we've spent in Iraq could've found every ounce of uranium on Earth.

I think we could have easily accomplished our goals in Iraq by massaging the sometimes-friendly Saudis into becoming a world leader in business investment, with open processes and aggressive anti-corruption policies. And as they watched their neighbors join the modern economy, the ME's capitalist eyes would be bigger than their fundamentalist stomachs. Give them something to live and strive for and they will no longer kill each other over who Mohammed's heir should have been. Give the Israelis and Palestinians a decent living and the number of business majors over Muslim studies majors will explode, rather than cafes and buses.

The much reviled IRA eventually lost steam and petered out because their cause became irrelevant. I think another generation of constant warfare plus the slow infiltration of westernized ideals would do more for us in the ME than a military presence has done. I applaud the decision to find bin Laden in Afghanistan. But Iraq was misguided. Ignoring Iran and North Korea is misguided. 2000 dead or a million dollar missile into a uranium enrichment facility?

I fully expect this to be shot full of holes, as I'm typing as fast as I am thinking. This is what will prevent people like myself and Mr. Dean from ever becoming President, but I think it makes for good conversation

Cheers!

I will abstain from criticism of your own invective blog posts on a number of subjects, but I would like to hear a cogent criticism instead of a regressive elitist dismissal

And it may be inaccurate to believe that Bush is waging the war so that somehow jihadists will not wage their war in our turf. That is attaching an idealism to Bush that is completely lacking in my opinion. And that is somehow missing the nuances that are taking place with the War in Iraq, Afghanistan, as well as the War On Terrorism. The War in Iraq, just isn't about Neo-Con “adventurism,” but the manifestation of the Military-Industrial complex that Ike warned us about those many decades ago before he left office. As anyone that has been following events, tipped off by the Downing Street Memos, the Bush administration has been less-than-honest in its actions and motivations. And the belief that the war in Iraq is merely an extension of some “culture” war is inaccurate – after all, whose culture is it? Ours, or THEIRS, meaning the upper-tier elite that is responsible for controlling the finances of the World?

In short, what I am trying to ask is this: IS the war really being fought for US, or for THEM, whoever that may be? And do we really have to believe that somehow 1998 was the highest we could attain, or do we really have much more potential as I, and many fellow idealists, really believe that we could achieve? Do we really want to believe that the Nanny State, the Corporatocracy, that existed in 1998 and is currently enlarging under Bush and the Bushoviks, is the best we can do?

Dear God, I hope not. I think you are on the right path, but ydig a little deeper!

Regards,

~Baculus

Aaron,

To continue our discussion in a less heated vein, regardless of how you view the Bush administration ( and I have my own problems with how they have screwed things up) or their case for war, Iraq was always about something far larger than just Iraq – i.e. changing the strategic dynamic of the ME to one that is not a long-term security threat to the West.

Is that worth the lives of 2000+ American soldiers ? In the age of loose nukes and jihadist terrorism it is. These states must change because the spillover costs of their dysfunctional political culture cannot be contained or quarrantined by any measure I can see. That doesn't mean regime change across the board but it does mean pressure because we cannot tolerate the export of disorder, terror and subversion from Arab dictatorships who require a safety valve of forcing trouble-makers to emigrate.

You discuss Iraq being what most call ” the flypaper strategy”; I think this was an unintended consequence and the Neocons would have much preferred a smooth and quick occupation of Iraq followed by a takedown in Syria. If that grinds up the terror network's resources that might otherwise be used elsewhere – and there's evidence that may be the case with the shift to female suicide bombers – that's a plus for us but given the current structure of the military keeping 150,000 troops engaged isn't feasible for us. Either we find a way to do what we are accomplishing now in Iraq in terms of stabilization with fewer ( say 50,000) or we return to a Cold War sized military with an 18 active Army divisions and 300,000 Marines.

Nor do I think the Mullahs in Iraq will fare any better than their Iranian counterparts who have lost the allegience of their own people and are now losing the loyalty of even their own security services. You will soon see satellite dishes and internet cafes in Karbala just like you do in Teheran. Iraq to some degree is always going to reflect Islamic values because 90 % + of Iraqis are Muslims but an Iraq where the politics are as democratic as in India is an Iraq that is the Arab gateway to a long term ME liberalization.

And with that – I'll wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving !

Aaron has been my best friend since I met him in middle school. Today, Aaron introduced me to Ming Wah, a Sioux Falls institution which I had never entered before. It was delicious — easily the best Chinese food I have ever eaten in Sioux Falls. Aaron is also my blogfather, running a site that allows a geographically distributed community of Dakota State alumni keep in touch. He is responsible for a web presense which allows me to keep up with many good friends…

… one of which is Biz, a rampant bibliophile. A blog of nothing but book reviews by Biz would be fascinating and continuously updated. He is also a natural horizontal thinker and a passionate citizen-midevalist of both western and eastern cultures.

Mark Safranski runs ZenPundit (http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/), the best blog ever. That's not an exageration. A trained historian, he is also a genius and a brilliant thinker of both systems and psychology. The sorts of people he is in regular contact with is mind-bogling.

Because we don't physically see or hear each other online, it can be hard to tell how “serious” the other person in the conversation is. Aaron, Biz, Mark, I hold you all in very high esteem. You are all men worth emulating.