Well, it took them a while to ‘get’ this:

“William Burns, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, said the Bush administration has heard complaints from lawmakers and the American Jewish community that Palestinians are the only ones left off a Web site that offers rewards for information on people who have killed American citizens throughout the world.”

http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/010803/reward.shtml

Sherri Mandell wrote an excellent article about this in 2001 called, “Betrayed by the State Department.”

http://www.kobymandell.org/archive20.htm

Hey, where’s Jim Kalb?

He’s over here:

http://jkalb.freeshell.org/tab/

Yes, it appears that Bush finally “gets” it. Effectively, the jig is up. Pat Buchannan and David Frum are basically in consensus on this today. The hubristic march across the Middle East is coming to an abrupt halt. Pat notes that Israel is attempting to force America’s hand in Damascus. This remains a concern. Michael Ledeen is trying to make a case for Iran. This will likely fail. Public and congressional support for the Bush administration’s misadventure in Iraq is waning. Perhaps we can begin to confront the multitude domestic difficulties that confront our nation.

I can’t tell if the question Mr. R just answered was the one asked by Mr. Auster.

An example of what comes to mind if the President ‘gets’ it would be, yes, let this ‘road map’ die the death, get out of Israel’s way and let her deal with the Palestinian terrorist groups according to the ‘Bush Doctrine,’ stop trying to appease Arab nations abroad, and commence rounding up and deporting Mohammedans who are here illegally, and maybe a few more for good measure.

I can’t resist pointing out the how perfectly Johnny R. reveals the antiwar mentality. Unable even to grant that Bush had serious reasons for for the war (even if by Mr. R’s lights those reasons were gravely mistaken), he can only describe the war as a “misadventure,” a merely impulsive, foolish, arrogant act. Therefore it follows that all Bush has to do is to terminate the “misadventure” and all will be well. As though there would be no real consequences from such a precicipate surrender and retreat! The antiwar right, from the beginning of this debate up to the present moment, refuses to engage the actual issues that make war supporters support the war. As Matt once said, their mouths are moving, but they’ve dropped out of the discussion.

Oh, the anti-war right have got some good arguments.

1) Our adventure in Iraq creates the sort of turmoil that fuels terrorism.

2) Iraq will lead to another massive immigration disaster when our major concern at the moment should be closing our border.

3) Occupying Iraq may lead to a disaster where we cannot pull out because the country may become a worse mess than we found it and a vortex of terrorism. And any American retreat without creating democracy (impossible though it may be) will be seen by the Muslim world (and everybody else) as an American defeat.

4) Iraq was a small threat, but not a great enough threat to waste our effort on when the real enemy is radical Islam.

5) Wars in general are risky undertakings, and it is wise to be rather conservative about when it is time to go about them – as much as it is true for domestic policy. The unknowns about Iraq made it a radical war, not a conservative one.

I will note that arguments 2, 4, and 5, are entirely those of the right. The left would not have anything to do with them. And they are very much pro-American arguments.

Thrasy’s arguments 2, 4, and 5 are all good, reasonable arguments and I’ve made them myself. But (here I go ad nauseam again) Thrasy and his allies on the antiwar right refuse to consider when a threat would rise to the level that would make war necessary DESPITE those arguments; they refuse to take seriously the reasons that made people like me feel that this war was called for. They don’t understand the tragic dimension of this situation. Remember, I’m not so easily turned around by present difficulties in Iraq, because I had expected much worse disasters to ensue from the war. Thankfully, most of them have not occurred.

But all the antiwar side can add to the debate is, everytime something bad happens, to cry, “See? We were right! It’s a disaster! Bring the boys home.” They do not engage in a debate about the pros and cons, because they have NEVER engaged in such a debate. They simply look for confirmation of their views. They are against the war, period, and so leap eagerly on every setback (real or imagined) as though that definitively made their case and nothing further needed to be said.

Yet much of their “evidence” is untrue. Thus The American Conservative has repeatedly made sweeping statements that the Iraqis “detest” our presence there—despite the well-known fact that many of the Iraqis want us there and are overjoyed to be free of Hussein. These realities don’t exist for TAC, because they don’t fit its worldview.

I know what Mr. Auster is talking about when he refers to the overbroad arguments, the search for confirmation, leaping on setbacks. But I see the same thing in the National Review’s pro-War coverage. I think it is the nature of the political rags, and I hope the fact that most men will never be able to weigh the views of the other side does not prevent us from having an honest discussion about the matter.

As I see it, the anti-war right’s basic argument about war is an incredibly strong one. Guard America’s borders, and avoid other types of involvements. I do believe in Huntington’s clash of civilizations. I do understand the battle between Islam and Christianity. I have read Mr. Auster’s arguments on the subject. But I do not think he has made his case for an overall offensive policy rather than a defensive one.

As far as the specifics of Iraq, I never thought we would encounter much resistance in the military conquest. Still, Baghdad crumbled in a wonderfully unanticipated way. I thought that we might have had to kill many Baghdaders.

The occupation has not been much of a surprise. Given Iraq’s financial situation in the years leading up to the war, and given the status of the American arguments about WMDs I am unsurprised at what we have found: evidence of efforts by Saddam to get around U.N. resolutions without being caught, and no evidence of success at actually achieving real WMD stocks. I did think that we would do a better job of providing basic safety for the citizens of Iraq after the war: shooting looters, for instance. And I thought we would do a better job with getting the electricity, water, and oil flowing. I still hold out some hope for a positive political system to be set in place, perhaps even somewhat democratic. But I am not holding my breath, and I do not have much hope for stability after we leave.

In the end, though, what has our money and blood bought us? How much less risk of chemical or biological terrorist attacks is there? A rather slight decrease, I would say, for a number of reasons. And probably not for long. How much less risk of acts of terrorism is there? I think that risk has increased. I had hoped that we would have scenes of liberation and dancing in the streets after Baghdad fell — that would have done us incredible good as far as terrorism was concerned — but there was no PR on the scale that was needed.

Let me take this moment to address Thrasymachus’s reasonable concerns.

“1) Our adventure in Iraq creates the sort of turmoil that fuels terrorism.”
The alternative was a state that funded, trained and armed terrorists.

“2) Iraq will lead to another massive immigration disaster when our major concern at the moment should be closing our border.”
Foir the most part, I have seen Iraqi refugees in the US RETURN to Iraq. That is good news. They can Americanize Iraq.

“3) Occupying Iraq may lead to a disaster where we cannot pull out because the country may become a worse mess than we found it and a vortex of terrorism. And any American retreat without creating democracy (impossible though it may be) will be seen by the Muslim world (and everybody else) as an American defeat.”
Asuming that we are in a quagmire, we are in this situation now. Hence the calls for Americans to leave are calls for Americans to defeat themselves. (There is something incongruous about Pat and friends sounding like 1968 hippies.)
Our only solution then is to win by creating a federalist system in Iraq with a set of checks and balances. Switzerland may be the correct model.
Absolute Democracy should not be the goal (nor would I support it). Instead we should try to create a federalist system that repsect both Islamic mores (but not law), while keeping the varius ethnic groups in competition, not conflict.
Where is Madison, when we need him?

“4) Iraq was a small threat, but not a great enough threat to waste our effort on when the real enemy is radical Islam.”

You have to start somewhere. The US did not invade Germany or Japan in 1942. We hit North Africa and Guadalcanal.
The problem is that we are not expanding our military. I figure we need 9 to 12 more brigades and 3 more carrier groups.

Hitting Iraq gets rid of one regime and gives us a prime location. It also allows us to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia. This will allow us to preassure the Wahabbist regime or even invade it in the future.
Remember, we are now sitting between SAudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria. I’d say that is the place to be. If we succed in Iraq, Iran will fall by itself.

“5) Wars in general are risky undertakings, and it is wise to be rather conservative about when it is time to go about them – as much as it is true for domestic policy. The unknowns about Iraq made it a radical war, not a conservative one.”

I think the knowns made it necessary. The ties between it and terrorist groups made it a legitimate target.
Who else should we have hit?
We are hoping to overthrow, not invade Iran.
North Korea is untouchable without the approval of China.
Saudi Arabia, and the Sudan are playing a cute game with the Fifth Column of Tranzis in the State Department.
That left Libya, Syria, and Iraq.

“As I see it, the anti-war right’s basic argument about war is an incredibly strong one. Guard America’s borders, and avoid other types of involvements. I do believe in Huntington’s clash of civilizations. I do understand the battle between Islam and Christianity. I have read Mr. Auster’s arguments on the subject. But I do not think he has made his case for an overall offensive policy rather than a defensive one.”

I am a fan of Huntigton, but I fear that he sees only black and white. Competitition and even some level of conflict between civilizations are a given. However, this does not mean that open conflict is a given. Rather, we can shape the modality of the conflict.
Today, we conflict with Japan with tariffs not bullets. The same is true for Germany and Russia.

A relatively free Iraq and Iran would not deal with the US through terrorism.

Ideology matters. Utopian ideologies like Communism and Islamism direct countries into open conflict with the US. On the other hand, liberal regimes simply whine in the UN.

Moreover, the various civilizations are not united. It is in our interest to prevent the unifiations of hostile civilizations, especially under a hostile utopian ideology. If the Muslim or even the Arab would were united under a Calphate, they would pose a true and direct threat. Today, the disunted regimes and Islamist groups use terrorism, because that is their only weapon.

We can also create ethnic divisions in the Muslim world. There is no reason that the Arab block, the Turkic block, and the African blocks should get along, much less unite.

As I noted in my previous post, we CAN act in a postitive way to lessen the inherent threat.
The question then is what happens if we do not.

I believe that if we walk away, the Islamists will unite the Arab world and much of the greater Islamic world. Their goal will be expansion into Europe. The armies of Mohammed swwept the Iberian and Balkan penninsulas once before. Don’t image they won’t do it again. There is a growing Fifth column of Muslims in Europe.
While the threat of Muslim immigration also holds for the US, there is no reason why we cannot both prevent a Caliphate abroad and defned our borders and culture at home.

If America follows an isolationist course, it will be the Howard Deans and Dennis Kuciniches who will dominate America, not the Pat Bushanans.
A failure to stand up to for the West will only be the triumph of multi-culturalism.

On the issue of terrorism in general, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, comrade Rowan Williams, taking a break from promoting more socialist government and higher taxes for Britain, claims that Americans need to recognise that terrorists can have “serious moral goals”.

He said that while terrorism must always be condemned, “it was wrong to assume its perpetrators were devoid of political rationality.”

And…

He said that in ignoring this, in its criticism of al-Qa’eda, America “loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality.”

So, which part of Al-Qaeda’s goal of uniting the Muslim world under a new Caliph, wiping Israel off the map and killing all the worlds Jews, and waging unceasing jihad against the West and Christians everywhere does comrade Williams think is serious, moral and rational?

All I can find to say is that this man is evil, truly and deeply evil.

Yeah, but you know, the Islamosphere is just so _reasonable_, all we have to do is take their concerns seriously and we’ll all get along fine:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100234,00.html

According to the Muslim Prime Minister of Malaysia,

“Jews ‘invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy’ to avoid persecution and gain control of the most powerful countries.”

Yeah, you remember those famous Jews: Democritusstein, Hobbesstein, and Lockestein.

This from the moderate, “nonviolent”, pluralistic respectable world-leader types in the Islamosphere. Oh yeah, Robinson is just so right that underneath the appearance of conflict are “legitimate” political concerns. What a genius.

I appreciate Ron’s thoughtful approach to these issues.

Does Shawn have a link to those appalling quotes by Rowan Williams?

And, Matt, let’s not forget Rousseaustein, Voltairevitz, Dantonevky, Maratstein, Robespierstein, and St. Justarowitz!

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech of this past Tuesday was reported here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/15/wbish15.xml

Text of the speech, “Just War Revisited,” is here:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/031014.html

The quote referenced included:

“The terrorist, [Weigel] says, has no aims that can be taken seriously as political or moral; but this is a sweeping statement, instantly challengeable. The terrorist is objectively wicked, no dispute about that, in exercising the most appalling form of blackmail by menacing the lives of the innocent. Nothing should qualify this judgement. But this does not mean that the terrorist has no serious moral goals (what about the Irgun?)”