To claim Newsweek is working for the other side is the height of repugnant blogging. And this claim that they lied is itself a lie. Newsweek reported what a government source told them. And the truth is currently not known. But have your field day - as the rightwing agenda is clearly about repressing free speech.

You don't blame Newsweek for the riots?

Then you have no leg to stand on. Do you think that Afghan youth rely on the "traitorous" U.S. news media when deciding when it is a good time for a riot? They hate America, not because of our media but because of a combination of their own homespun media and the U.S.'s inconsistant and hypocritical actions in the Middle East. Abu Ghraib explains the riots. Guantanimo explains the riots. 30,000-100,000 dead Iraqis explains the riots. Leaving Afghanistan without enough security and support after bombing it to smithereens explains the riots.

Now is about the time that the right has to come up with an excuse for the war going bad. They have come to realize that 300 Billion dollars, almost 2000 dead Americans, and 10,000 injured is too big a price for the Iraqi boondoggle. It must be the media's fault. It couldn't possibly be that we made a giant colossal error by invading Iraq and leaving Afghanistan? Could it? If this were post-war Germany, you'd still be talking about how great a leader Hitler was. Sometimes you need to realize that the U.S. makes big mistakes. It doesn't make you unpatriotic, it makes you willing to make things right.

I'm simply amazed that the White House thinks it has the moral authority to criticize Newsweek after the ridiculous amount of intelligence it got wrong about Iraq and fooling us into war. Tell me with a straight face which is worse: What Newsweek did or what we found out in the Downing Street Memo that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy [to remove Saddam from power]". Or perhaps those cabinet officials in Blair's government are unreliable sources as well. Hmmmm.

pgl:

Admittedly, "lie" may be a bit hyperbolic. I just could not think of a better word for it. This goes beyond irresponsible reporting, as it is effectively spreading enemy propaganda. Newsweek itself admits it has no verification of this; it was publishing a rumor. Words have consequences, and with the rioters themselves pointing to this report as the basis of their rioting, Newsweek has a lot to make up for. It is not a game when people get killed.

kj:

I call Godwin's Law. You lose.

Gosh, if all it takes to be objectively on the other side is to *say* bad things about the military, imagine what would would happen if the military actually *did* bad things!! It would mean that the military and White House are "objectively on the other side," even more so than the stab-in-the-back Streisand/Franken-run media!! BTW, your post was really well written, Jeff; it just required a few minor edits:

"Reporting every fact and rumor [postively] reflecting on the [threat of WMD] extensively and hyperbolically, putting out puff pieces about the [welcome our troops will receive], and suppressing both [unfavorable internal intelligence reports] and [continued UN inspections] - these behaviors are consistent parts of the [White House/right-wing Jingosphere's] story line, and they are damaging to our war effort and aid the enemy's war effort."

It's not just saying bad things about the military. It's repeating enemy propaganda without first making sure that it's true. Over and over and over again.

You know, if the military lies - some of what was done in Viet Nam comes to mind - or abuses people or whatever, that needs to come out. It needs to come out because it needs to be fixed.

But what Newsweek did amounts to making something up specifically to smear the military in a way damaging to an ongoing war effort. That is self-destructive at best (the Newsweek guys are Americans, and thus targets, too), and frankly, yes, the weight of evidence is in the direction of Newsweek, CBS, CNN, the BBC, AP, AFP and others more or less rooting for the enemy to win.

What would it take to make me recant that remark? Easy: if the media would report good news as well as bad news, take at least as negative a stand against the atrocities of the enemy as the foibles of our side, and not report information that could harm the war effort until and unless they had verified it then I would be glad to recant.

And you know, that's their right. I just think that they are idiots who haven't thought through the consequences of their actions. And given that those consequences can include getting people killed, that's just abominable.

In fact, I'm more surprised and nearly as outraged that this is becoming a partisan issue. The attitude of "bad for Republicans, good for America" is repulsive (as repulsive as the mirror image that floated around all too much during the Clinton administration) because it leads to Americans being happy when their government does something stupid, or when our troops or citizens get killed (ask "screw them" Kos!). What an utterly repugnant attitude, and yet it is very common these days.

There is more to life than politics, and while the Republicans generally annoy me, the Democrats disgust me. I am not a Republican, but I am an anti-Democrat. And I'm an anti-Libertarian, too, at least as far as voting goes, until the war is over.

I want us to win this, at the least cost and with the best long-term prospects for avoiding repetition. From what I can tell, a large section of the West (both media and partisans) are only interested in us winning the war if it helps the Democrats electorally.

Bah!

Damn you Godwin's Law!!!



I also wish we could agree to a sequel to Godwin's Law where if you accuse someone of rooting for the enemy, you lose. I'm sick of this ridiculous argument that those on the left along with the MSM (somewhere right-of-center) are rooting for the enemy. I actually want to win, whatever that means in war. I guess winning for me means safe-guarding U.S. lives and ensuring a strong defense while working to promote the best of our values around the world. Bombing Iraq and releasing an insurgency while participating in questionable interrogation techniques is doing the opposite of that.



Newsweek exposing the Pentagon's mistakes is necessary to stop them from using these tactics. Does anyone actually doubt that a Koran didn't get flushed down a toilet at some point? I mean, I've seen 4 other reports by U.S. media before Newsweek brought it up. Or is the point that even if it is true, it shouldn't be reported because it might relect badly on us. My answer is it should reflect badly on us. Then maybe we'll stop doing it. It is amazing how accountability has only been enforced on the media while this administration has gotten off scot free.



Why won't the pro-war people argue our policies on the merits. I know you all don't believe that the rioting occured solely because of the Newsweek article. You do realize that it is the anti-american sentiment that Bush has exponetionally made worse that is the reason. I know you do. That is the real reason these people died and that is where the argument should take place. So either defend Bush's policies that have created this increased anti-americanism or join the reality based community and understand that 300 billion dollars, 2000 dead Americans, 10000 wounded Americans and 100,000 dead or wounded Iraqis and Afghanis is not worth what we have "accomplished" in the Middle East. We wasted our resources and although the media was complicent in letting this happen, it simply isn't their fault. And to blame Newsweek for these deaths while exerting no anger for the hundreds who died as a result of Bremer shuttering al-Sadr's newspaper back in March 2004 or no anger over the 40 who died when we bombed an Iraqi wedding party is a ridiculous partison double standard. What did more to hurt our cause? Newsweek reported and there were unintended and tragic consequences just like there are to endless bombing runs and poor administrative decisions. They should be open to criticism, but let's not pretend that the media's crimes somehow exceed those of this Administration. War is a time for increased criticism and accountability, not the opposite as so many pro-war people think.



And by the way, military recruiting is going very poorly. I encourage those who believe so strongly in this war to sign up. It's the least you can do for getting us into a war that apparantly, so few want to fight.

kj,

For me, winning means that the enemy is no longer trying to kill us because he has been defeated or has decided that the cost of trying to kill us outweighs the benefits.

I don't want to get into a debate on the Iraq war; it's too off topic. I'd be happy to debate that elsewhere, though. Your call.

And actually, I do doubt that a Koran was flushed down the toilet, for two reasons. First, it would be counter-productive, and our guys aren't generally stupid (there are exceptions, but fewer than generally portrayed). Second, I want to know where I can find the top-secret toilet technology capable of flushing a Koran whole or in parts. Even page by page, the toilet would stop up pretty quickly.

One thing you should be aware of, kj, is that the enemy instructs their people to lie in court and if they are released, telling certain stories designed to inflame Muslims against us. It's a recruiting propaganda schtick that the enemy has. So any time I hear stories like this, I require more substantiation than "some anonymous source claims to have seen it written in a report somewhere" or "some jihadi claimed it happened".

On the argument of not reporting it even if true, I go back and forth. I personally wouldn't report something that is true and unpleasant, unless it was unconstitutional or damaging to the war effort to not report it. I feel an obligation as a citizen to not hamper the war effort, and feeding enemy propaganda machines hampers the war effort. And for that matter, I don't see anyone arguing about what Saudis do to Bibles when they find them, so is the harm in damaging some religion's holy text selective? (Being a Pagan, I don't have a holy text, so it's a little hard for me to get worked up about it in either event.)

But I can see the other side of the reporting issue, as well. If a procedure really is morally wrong (again, I don't think that applies in this case, even if true), then there is a certain temptation to publish even if the war effort is harmed in the short term. It's a judgement call. Newsweek has terrible judgement. At the least, such reporting should be verifiable and include named sources. Some responsibility is in order here; people's lives are literally at stake.

At the moment, I have to run to a meeting on building a community park, so I'll just say about the rest of your comment that I largely disagree with your premises.

Oh, and I would sign up if I were young enough that they'd take me. I tried.

Okay, I'll try to stay away from the war, but I think the whole hoopla over this thing relates directly to pro-war people finding an excuse for things that have gone horribly wrong in the MidEast.

I disagree that flushing the Koran would be counter-productive. These guys are holy warriors, true believers. Going off on their holy text is an interrogation technique that may yield some of the same results that say torture would. Those results would probably be worthless, but it is likely to have an effect on many. Check out this Juan Cole post for an interesting story from a military officer (it's at the end): http://www.juancole.com/2005/05/guantanamo-controversies-bible-and.html


But, let's say I'm being too hard on the Gitmo interrogators and they didn't flush the Koran. How do you explain the lack of outrage at all of the other reports of desecrating Korans that have come out over the past 2 years. Go here for a rundown: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/17/104253/423.


To blame Newsweek for something that obviously stems from much more than a simple article is much too simplistic. Can you honestly tell me that Imran Khan couldn't have used any number of reports to make the case that the U.S. wasn't respecting Islam? The situation was ripe for the protests or they wouldn't have happened. This whole thing is a sideshow to deflect from the real problem: policies which breed anti-americanism and thus the riots. Abu Ghraib is real. Bombed out Afgani and Iraqi wedding parties are real. A Taliban on the comeback is real. The Newsweek story is a smokebomb to distract lobbed by hysterics like Michelle Malken claiming "they have blood on their hands". Please. There are tens of thousands of dead civilians because of the Iraq War. Child starvation is now twice as bad in Iraq as before the war. The list goes on. Somebody does indeed have blood on their hands.


Of course, much good may come out of this as this propels torture, mistreatment, and the undercutting of our American values back on the front page. It is likely now that the press will confirm these Koran reports and Newsweek will only be accused of jumping the gun on what turned out to be true. Nobody likes to harm the war effort, but protecting our American values supercedes that. Besides it is those who have engaged in and allowed breaches in the Geneva Convention that have harmed the war effort. Without the support of Muslims, there will be no victory in the Middle East. I prefer to blame the Actor rather than the Messenger.


By the way, I'm pretty much a Pagan myself so the whole holy text thing is nuts in my opinion. Sometimes I wish religion would go away and then maybe we'd have a better shot at real communication and peace. Thanks for the responses.

Of course these riots stem from more than a simple article. I know that; you know that; Newsweek should have known that. There is an undercurrent of anti-Americanism in the remnants of the Taliban, in Hizb ut-Tahrir, in the Pushtun tribal areas and so on. And Khan and others fed that with the Newsweek report, which is why media organizations have a particular responsibility to be absolutely certain that they are reporting the truth. Knowing that the enemy spreads propaganda along these lines, and uses American and other Western media reports as one of their primary battlefields against us (they see their path to victory as making us quit, as we quit in Viet Nam after securing a military victory, and thus gave up the victory), Newsweek still published a thinly-sourced story that quite closely echos enemy propaganda, during a time of war. I stand by my two theses: they should be ashamed, and they are acting in the best interests of the enemy by that kind of reporting.

However, there's a deeper issue coming up in what you are saying, and I'd like to explore that.

Since you want to win the war, it is logical that you believe that fighting is worthwhile. I assume further that your goal is the same as mine (and most Americans I know or know of): there should never be another terrorist attack against America on the scale of 9/11. Given this, and given that no human enterprise is ever without flaw, I'm curious, kj, what you would have done in the President's place, and how you feel that the level of risk/reward would have been different in that case.

I think our premises are different, and you believe many things that I do not (such as whether or not the Geneva Convention has been breached in other than trivial ways, and whether the allegations about desecration of Muslim symbols is true). So rather than going in circles about such events, I'd like to take it from a different angle, and explore the alternatives. And to be fair, I'll start.

I was frankly astonished at our success in Afghanistan. While it was obvious that that had to be the first step, after 9/11, I did not figure that we had better than a 10% chance of defeating the Taliban within a year, and not better than a 50% chance of ever beating them. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that everyone agrees that Afghanistan had to be the first step, and that anyone then President would have had the same success.

OK, so at the end of the Afghan campaign (by the Summer of 2002), here is how I read the situation: the Taliban is defeated, and revealed to have had a much shallower base of support than anyone expected; al Qaeda is largely disrupted and driven from Afghanistan, but not defeated and certainly able to reconstitute; the Afghanis will survive with their own forces and a rather small US troop presence (less than a division, most likely) and will form some kind of representative government in time.

Here's my call, based on what I was thinking at the time: the next target is the oil. The jihadis need two ingredients for their poisoned stew: recruits and money. The money comes from oil, and the recruits come from the patient application of the Saudi money in particular over a period of decades in spreading Wahabism via madrassas, and from Iranian and Iraqi money in financing terrorism against the US and Israel in particular.

The root source of both raw materials needed to sustain jihad, then, is the oil that produces the wealth, and that oil lies almost exclusively in a band around the Persian Gulf itself, well within the range of our littoral combat capabilities and thinly-defended. Reducing the Iraqi, Iranian or Saudi governments is unnecessary, as is destroying their militaries. Seize the oil, and the whole jihadi program falls apart over a period of a decade or two. Everyone still needs the oil, so it would still find a market despite world outrage, and this outrage could be tempered by the US effectively setting up an organization within the UN to use the money to the benefit of the people of the effected countries, without allowing it to be used for terrorism.

Obviously, this is before I knew about oil-for-food corruption, UN assistance to Palestinian terrorists, and the like.

Still, the kernel of my idea at the time of how to procede was based in realpolitik: remove the funds and the jihadis collapse; make deals with whomever remains in power after that to stay away from the oil in return for not being overthrown and being able to use the money for peaceful purposes.

President Bush, frankly, shamed me. The idea of a deeper root than money - an ideology of tyranny and internally-directed terror that prevented people's natural desire for freedom from being recognized - that had eluded me. And it shouldn't have; I'm a child of the Cold War, and I know (and knew then) that the USSR had been defeated by simple ideology, that all people want to be free. I didn't apply that knowledge to the Middle East, and shame on me for it. And kudos to the President for seeing it, and acting on it.

We can argue about the wisdom of invading Iraq vs. other targets or other methods, but I am curious as to whether you would argue against the idea of actively promoting representative governance and an end of tyranny abroad, and if so, how. In other words, back to the original question: what would you have done differently from the President after 9/11?

Hell no I wouldn't argue against promoting representative governance. In fact, the part of me that thought maybe this war will turn out okay when we entered into it in 2003 was relying on the bringing democracy to Iraq idea that was 3rd fiddle for most. I was 99% sure that Iraq had no links to terrorism and 99% sure that Saddam had no significant WMDs (I did think he at least had a few chemical weapons). In other words I knew that he was absolutely no threat to us. But I was, at moments, enthralled with the idea of bringing democracy to Iraq. Ultimately, had I been President, I would have sought other methods for reasons that are too clear now.

What are those methods. First and foremost, homeland security gets priority. Identify vulnerabilities and close them. The airline stunt was clever but easily stopped, and, of course, can never work again. Our biggest problem is terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons, so homeland security means securing weapons in the former Soviet Republic and other nuclear armed countries, contributing billions to better security protocols in those countries, and work toward the decommission of as many nuclear weapons as possible. Other WMDs, although scary can scarcely do much damage including dirty bombs which probably would kill no one.

Of course fear (through small bombings and deployment of low damage WMDs) is part of the tactic so you must step up immigration and visitor protocols so radicals aren't allowed in the country. This requires cooperation with other nations and also building trust with our Muslims at home who would be our best defense against any possible bombings here at home.

In terms of foreign policy, you take some of that 300 billion dollars we have spent on this war and you give it with no strings attached to the institutions that democracies need to begin and to thrive. Free Press being number one. Al-Jazeera is great for Democracy even if they make bad stuff up about us all the time. Of course avoiding the perception of influence would be a huge challenge but smart people could figure that out. Build schools, even mosques. Fund scholarships for Muslims to study in the U.S. and Europe I have no qualms funding anti-government groups in the appropriate countries as long as we are sure that we couldn't do worse than the current dictator, i.e. no more Chile's or Congo's. Form broad alliances of course.

And most important, hold your people accountable. That's the worst thing about this administration, their insufferable loyalty. Some people like loyalty, I find it to be the root of ineffective administration in the private or public world. Loyalty is for family, community, and country not for government and enterprise. And the higher up you are, the more that is true. It is unbelievable how many times this Administration has totally screwed up and there is no accountability by anyone, the press, the voters, the President.

For me, war should only be used for direct threats. Afghanistan seemed right to me then and seems right now. Our enemies were there and those enemies represented a clear threat to us. We smacked them around and made them scatter. Since we broke that country long ago (with major help from the Soviets) we should have guaranteed its success before moving on. We bailed and screwed up majorly by not nabbing Osama, which would have been a crushing blow to jihad. Instead there will always remain a symbol of how one can attack the U.S. and get away with it.

My other big gripe with Bush is how he has left us strategically impotent against the greater threats of Korea and Iran, who ultimately could sell WMDs to people who would use them. The whole world knows that we have no ability to do anything militarily now, except bomb (which I admit is something, but really not enough). We are so weakened, it's painful. And for what? Is democracy flourishing in the Middle East? Hardly. Have we sped it along? Possibly, but we could have just as easlily delayed its inevitability. History will clue us in, and perhaps I'll be proved wrong. I doubt it.

I'm convinced, now more than ever, that democracy arises only from within. In order for democracy to work, the vast vast majority of the people have to view it as somewhat legitimate. It takes a small minority to screw it up for everyone. And when democracy is imposed from the outside, there will always be an excuse to delegitimize it. We can provide the bricks for building a democracy as I listed above, but we can't build it. The people themselves need to do that.

Thanks for the conversation. It's a good one from my vantage point.

Sorry for the delayed response. I, too have been enjoying the conversation.

I don't really have a problem with any of your basic policy prescriptions. I think that strengthening both homeland security (to the extent possible, given that adequate defense of a free, distributed society against terrorism is impossible) and the institutions of self-governance and liberty abroad are worthwhile.

Since I don't think that we broke Afghanistan with help from the Soviets (it was the other way around), and I don't think that we left too soon or had too few troops on the ground (judging by the demise of the Taliban, the difficulties encountered by HT in Afghanistan, the gradual dismantling of the warlord armies and extension of central control, and the presence of a representative government in Afghanistan), I cannot agree with the conclusion that Afghanistan stands as a symbol of how to attack the US and get away with it - more the opposite. Al Qaeda was decimated and the Taliban overthrown and destroyed as a result of attacking the US. That's not "get[ting] away with it."

I do agree that one of the President's major failings in the aftermath of 9/11 was to continue the military with its current size and slowly-reforming structure. I think that the President should have sought a declaration of war, properly phrased, and should have began the expansion of the military. It would take four to five years to bring the military back up to its strength at the end of the Cold War; we could have been three years into that process.

That said, it's a myth to think we can't fight elsewhere. First, our two most likely spots to fight when it's not our choice are Taiwan and Korea. In both of those cases, it is our air and naval power that is needed, not our ground forces. Our air and naval power are basically unengaged in Iraq.

Second, we have right now the best-trained Reserves and National Guard we've ever had, because all of the major heavy combat elements of those forces have been deployed at one time or other during the last couple of years. The President is limited in how frequently those troops can be called up (I think it's 24 months out of every 60), but only so long as there is not a declared war. If we need to suddenly activate and deploy enough troops to double our ground combat power, this would take a declaration of war and about six months. The two thirds of our active duty ground forces currently not in Iraq could be used to hold any adversary during that time.

But that wouldn't be necessary, because if we chose the fight, we would have the time to activate and deploy units. If we didn't choose the fight, it's likely to be, as noted above, in a place that doesn't require our ground troops.

And yes, we can provide the bricks, as can Europe and Japan and some others. But only we can tear down the tyrannies that smother democracy (and, in the case of the Middle East, are one of the proximate causes of the flourishing of terrorist ideologies). Democracy cannot arise from within until the tyrannies that smother democracy are destroyed. (How do you have a democratic revolution when protestors are killed along with their families, you cannot obtain or keep weapons, you cannot move freely around the country, and you cannot express your thoughts in speech or print without the likelihood of being killed along with your family?)

What is most interesting to me about what you wrote is the dog that didn't bark. You talk about putting forth more effort in Afghanistan, strengthening homeland security and supporting democratic institutions abroad. You talk about redirecting the money spent on the war (without consideration, at least here, of how much of that was incremental spending and how much of it is things like salary that would have been spent even were the army simply sitting in garrison) to those purposes.

What you don't talk about is defeating the present enemy. The enemy is no longer in Afghanistan in substantial numbers. He is in Iraq in substantial numbers, drawn there by the presence of US combat forces in an Arab nation and the threat that a democratic Arab government poses to jihadi organizations. If we were not in Iraq, where would he be? What would he be planning? And how would we be fighting him if we left war only for direct, immediate threats?

Saudi Arabia is the source of the ideology of hate that fuels the jihadis, and of the money that spreads the ideology through indoctrination of children all over the world (even in the US). Does that constitute a threat worthy of war? If not, what should be done?

How about Iran, which like Iraq prior to the invasion funds, trains and harbors terrorists? Moreover, Iran appears to be developing nuclear weapons at a rapid pace (somewhat slowed, apparently, by negotiations with the Europeans, but then N. Korea broke out and became a nuclear armed state under such a regime of negotiations). Are they a threat worthy of war? If not, what should be done?

What about N. Korea itself, nuclear armed and likely to sell nuclear weapons (once it's assured its own deterrence against attack) to terrorists and other anti-American nations? Are they a threat worthy of war? If not, what should be done?

The thing is, I cannot see how we can put the nuclear genie back in its bottle. In twenty, thirty or fifty years, any semi-industrial state will likely be a nuclear power if they choose to be. The only defense I can see against that is to ensure that either no nations choose to be nuclear powers (unlikely) or that no nations that are nuclear powers choose to use those weapons or sell them to terrorists or anarchists or other groups that might use them.

The only way I can see to do that is to ensure that any state that is not so large, industrialized and interdependent with the world as to be unwilling to use or sell nuclear weapons (the Core states, in Thomas P.M. Barnett's PNM theory) is not a tyranny. In other words, we must as a matter of long-term survival spread representative governance around the world. We must overthrow the tyrannies in the Middle East, and South Asia, and probably Africa. Ideally, we can guide these states peacefully into free societies, as happened in S. Korea and Taiwan and eastern Europe.

If not, we must be prepared to do so by force. It would be nice if the Europeans (who have the same interest, even though France and Germany in particular don't seem to realize it) came along and helped with either effort. I don't expect that to happen.

Basically, our long-term survival depends upon ending tyranny in the world, and no one is likely to help us through the entire arc, except perhaps Britain, Australia and probably Poland.

We might fail, and we might fall. But I see no alternative other than to try.

You are right about Afghanistan in that the Soviet's broke it and we helped. I should have reworded that .

I realize that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were decimated, but the problem is that they weren't obliterated in Afghanistan. The Taliban still exists in Afghanistan and Al Qaeda leadership obviously survived in Afghanistan and escaped. That's a huge victory for Al Qaeda who was smart enough to know that we'd come blazing after them if they succeeded with their 9/11 plan.

The question is not whether or not the U.S. will retaliate and decimate you. Everybody knows we will. That's the easy part for a military like ours. The real question is whether we'll be able to help fill the vacuum with institutions and ideas that will sustain a representative democracy and keep the extremists on bad cable (like in this country). I don't think we invested enough in Afghanistan to ensure such a success and that should have been the #1 priority rather than trapsing off somewhere else to start another war. It seems to me that too many people have fallen for the "Everybody wants to be free" tagline that Bush uses. Sure, but Everybody wants to be secure before they want to be free. THere are very few Patrick Henry's among us humans. Our resources, showered upon Afghanistan could have built an undoubtedly sustainable democracy free of reliance on poppy trade, full of schools and universities, without the influence of warlords. We didn't ensure those types of things so now Afghanistan may fail. That was stupid. And even more stupid is we could have done all these things with the approval of the world community. The world supported Afghanistan and would have even helped pay for it.

And this brings me to a larger point. We don't need to overthrow tyrannies willy-nilly as you seem to be suggesting. There are plenty of tyrannies that will fall naturally or of which there are overriding moral concerns (cough, cough, Sudan) that we (and maybe even the hesitant world community) could jump into. This gives clear moral authority. The reality with Iraq, is that we didn't have clear moral authority. Saddam sucked and he killed tens of thousands of his own people. But the problem is he hadn't been killing people (in any number) for years and his last batch of genocide came when we idiotically didn't back the shiite opposition after the first war. Then we had the moral authority.

And I think the proof that we lacked moral authority lies in the rationale drummed up for the war. It was all based on threat (certainly another thing that provides clear moral authority). Saddam supposedly had WMDs that he wasn't afraid to use and links to terrorist that he is likely to sell them to. But that was crap and the administration knew it as evidenced by much, most lately the downing street memo.

So without clear moral authority, these little democracy building adventures are destined for failure. It is morality that rules the day and moves us forward. Without it being clear, it's virtually pointless. Now of course, you may argue that we do have moral authority in Iraq. And you may be right and I may be wrong. But you cannot argue that we have clear moral authority going in. The world (including roughly half the people in the U.S.) are against this war. That is not a clear moral authority. However, in Afghanistan we had it. In Darfur we'd have it. In Bosnia we had it. We had it after WWII. We didn't have it during Vietnam.

And this clear moral authority isn't simple to define but one can usually tell when they have it. If the threat is clear you have it. Terrorists fly planes into buildings killing thousands. You have it. Japan bombs Pearl Harbor you have it. If the genocide and death is overwhelming you have it. What Saddam did to the Shiites after the first Gulf War would have qualified as would the Holocaust as would Darfur as would many situations in the recent past in Africa. I also think moral authority presents itself (although perhaps less so) when tyrannies fall and vacuums in power result in violence (recent Haiti events seem to fit). In other words there are clear times for us to intervene and we should intervene first class, no holds barred, only the best hotels and restaurants (a bad metaphor for sparing no expense on building the democracy).

So I'm with you on building democracy, but we don't get to pick where. We jump in where appropriate. WE picked Iraq. And sure many terrorists are there terrorizing people but they have gained power and effectiveness because they have melded into the Sunni insurgency (supported by too many regular Sunnis because of our lack of moral authority). We increased their power to kill us. I believe, that without the Iraq war there would be less terrorists and less dead Americans (not to mention innocent civilians). Do you believe otherwise? And since the success of Iraq democracy is very much in doubt. I see very little accomplishment except seeing Saddam in his skivvies.

Last note on military strength. Okay, we can still bomb North Korea if necessary. But then what. We kill Kim Jong and now we have another broken country on our hands and no troops to do anything with it. Fortunately for humanity but unfortunately for military escapade, we have a moral responsibilty to help the people of the country we bomb and leave with a political vacuum. That takes troops of who we are greatly overtaxing. Check out the recruitment numbers. They are pathetic. Why? SHould I wax poetic on moral authority again?

Whew! I probably won't check back again until Monday. Hope I'm making sense.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on Afghanistan, since it's now in the period where history will sort it out. From my perspective, the Taliban exist in Afghanistan only in the sense that Neo-Nazis exist in Germany: as an irritating remnant of the past, but not as a danger to society.

A lot of the al Qaeda leadership did survive, though the following years have led to many of them being captured or killed as well. The structure of al Qaeda has been largely destroyed, so that the terrorists are devolving more and more into local cells without the central organization, direction and funding that al Qaeda provided. Al Qaeda, today, is more of a brand than an effective organization. It will take some time to hunt down and kill the remaining leadership, as well as the new leaders who pop up. In the meantime, we will be dismantling the smaller and increasingly-isolated organizations that carry on the jihadi ideology.

I think you're really off-base in one way, though: "The question is not whether or not the U.S. will retaliate and decimate you. Everybody knows we will."

Actually, that is hardly a given. We spend over a decade not responding to blatant acts of war: the first WTC attack, the Khobar Towers bombing, the attempt on President Bush's (41) life in Kuwait, the African embassies, the Cole bombing, and numerous smaller incidents. The jihadis were convinced we would not respond, and that if we did, they could defeat us in Afghanistan as they had defeated the Soviets. They were simply wrong on both counts.

But they could have been right. Different political leadership could have responded to 9/11 in a very different way, lobbing cruise missiles on one end of the scale, or launching a full-scale armored invasion as the Soviets did on the other. Either would have made life easier for al Qaeda than the rather brilliant idea of using small forces and air power to give the Taliban's existing opponents the ability to defeat them on their own.

It's true that there are few Patrick Henry's among us, sadly. That said, I think that the major problem with people seizing freedom for themselves is the fear of certain death at the hands of tyrannical regimes. Once the regimes are removed, people seem to want to put representative institutions and governments in place. We need to help with that, certainly. I see no evidence against the Bush administration on this score: they have been very forthright in putting forth institutional changes to build and secure free societies. Perhaps they could do more, but doing so would inevitably bring charges that we are trying to make over their societies in our image, cultural imperialism, yadda yadda.

And to your larger point, which is, I think, at the core of the debate over what to do and how to do it going forward:

We don't need to overthrow tyrannies willy-nilly as you seem to be suggesting. There are plenty of tyrannies that will fall naturally or of which there are overriding moral concerns (cough, cough, Sudan) that we (and maybe even the hesitant world community) could jump into. This gives clear moral authority.

N. Korea, meanwhile, is busy falling apart on its own, saved (for the moment) only by massive food and energy aid from outside. The S. Koreans, certainly, don't want to have to absorb the disaster that is N. Korea, and China doesn't want a unified free Korea on its border. For this reason, we will get nowhere in negotiations with N. Korea, and our only action here is to prevent, by any means necessary, N. Korea from selling its nuclear weapons to terrorists or terrorist-supporting states.

But moral authority is an interesting concept, as is legitimacy, and you use moral authority and legitimacy mostly interchangeably. As far as I can tell, what you are saying is that moral authority is only possible with legitimacy, and legitimacy is only possible with global public acclamation. Given the divergence of interests around the world, and the different moral standards prevalent in different societies, I wonder how "moral authority" could ever be found? Certainly, some actions will be more popular than others, but I cannot see how an actions popularity has anything to do with its rightness. Indeed, given the cravenness, greed and self-interest of 99% of humanity, I can see a plausible argument that any popular policy should be more subject to scrutiny than an unpopular policy.

I would argue that we gain moral authority from acting in accord with a natural rights theory of governance and individual liberty, both at home and abroad. Where we find governments instituted among men that do not preserve the fundamental rights of their people, we have such moral authority. In addition, we have the moral authority to act in self defense: all living things have a moral right to preserve themselves from harm from another. Iraq doesn't fit into the second class, really, despite the daily acts of war from Saddam (firing on our aircraft), even though that had to be the case we made. Why? Because the UN is largely made up of kleptocratic tyrannies, and most of the representative governments there were more or less on Saddam's payroll through oil-for-food. So we had to make a self defense case to the UN, because the UN would not accept a moral case. The UN is simply not a moral institution; if it were, Sudan and China would never be on the commission entrusted with ensuring that member countries observe basic human rights standards.

So while it was a self-defense case that was primarily made for attacking Iraq, it was primarily a moral case that I supported. The President and the administration made this case as well, just not as forcefully. And judging by the reaction of Iraqis other than the tyrants previously ruling Iraq and their imported terrorist allies, I'd say that the Iraqis themselves don't feel brutalized. And frankly, I care no more for the opinions of the opinion of the tyrants previously ruling Iraq than I do for the opinion of the Japanese about US occupation after WWII (though I note, the Japanese seem to think that worked out pretty well, too).

Although I could say more, I think it time I checked out of the argument. You get the last word. Points well taken and I appreciate your insights. I always feel best of my many blog surfing hours when I engage (intellectually not barbarously) with someone I disagree with.