After a weekend of drunken jubilation, President Bush has awoken to an awful hangover and some Iranian named Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani lying in his bed.

Early returns from Iraq's elections suggest that Iraqis overwhelmingly voted for a slate of candidates supported by Shiite clerics and overwhelmingly shunned a slate of candidates led by the U.S.-backed moderate, Ayad Allawi. Sunday's historic elections offer several reasons for enthusiasm, but what matters more than people voting is for whom they vote. A vast majority of those ink-stained fingers marked their ballots the way the ayatollahs told them to.

Theorists imagine the success of a democratic Iraq becoming contagious in theocratic Iran. Reality offers a dramatically different possibility. Rather than democracy overwhelming theocracy, a more likely scenario involves the relatively secular Iraq becoming infected by the oppressively Islamic Iran. Should this happen, no doubt we'll never stop hearing about the noble intentions behind the big-government scheme to alchemize subjugated Muslim Iraqis into New England-style town-meeting members. This is the refrain of all world-savers and do-gooders: I meant well.

Our primary enemy is Islamic extremists, not tyrants. Did we just wage a costly war to replace the latter with the former?

Totally off topic, but I noticed that Boortz plugged your book in Neal's Nuze this morning.

FANTASTIC BOOK

Back to Ward Churchill for a moment. Now here is a leftist who truly hates America. Daniel J. Flynn wrote a book about these cretins. It's now out in paperback with an added chapter. I started reading it yesterday, and I recommend it highly. Why the Left Hates America, by Danlei J. Flynn. Click on the link to order from Amazon.com.

This experiment with democracy that we’re waiting to see take root in Iraq may not come to fruition the way that our leaders think it will.

I think we all hope that it does and, if so, it could be the best of all Worlds for Iraq and the U.S.

But, these are people who have been lorded over for years by religious and dictatorial leaders and who have been socially wired to accept and expect to be herded.

If the intent of the Bush administration is the test the waters with trying to instill a democratic form of government and then support that fledging government with the help from our military almost indefinitely, it will only lead to more disaster for our troops and more economic hardships for our country.

To be sure, once our troops stopped taking territory as an aggressive focused military force and started becoming police officers, there to keep the peace, it was time to leave.

I want to ask what may seem to be a naive question. Why is it a "bad" thing for us if Iraqis vote themselves a theocratic Islamic government? I can think of a few reasons it may turn out to be bad but the manner in which the Iraqis see fit to govern themselves domestically (or what food they decide to eat) is none of our business nor necessarily any threat to us.

Iran is ruled by theocrats who hate the U.S., agreed. But Iran poses no threat to the U.S., they really only pose a threat to the territorial integrity of Iraq and to Israel. A security threat to Israel is not a threat to us, pace the neocons and Bibby, so why is Iran cause for so much DC hand-wringing?

Here is my underlying premise . . . Islamic radicalism/extremism that takes the form of aggressive terrorist acts against the U.S. or its interests are more directly related to the WEAKNESS of individual Arab states (and African) than a product of STRONG and very Islamic Arab states. Al Qaeda was able to thrive in Afghanistan b/c the Taliban approved of them, yes, but mostly b/c the Taliban's hold on the country was so weak that Al Qaeda propped them up in their struggle against the various regional warlords. Al Qaeda did not thrive in Iraq b/c Saddam had done a good enough job keeping control of Iraqi territory and he was not willing to risk destruction (as Afghanistan did) by catering and feting international terrorists whose agenda is to undermine the various Arab states. The terrorists speak in pan-Arab terms and do not recognize the territorial integrity of the various Arab nation-states.

So I don't see the problem with Iraq/Iran/Egypt, etc., being theocratic as long as they control their territories and ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary within their borders. We have leverage with strong states to secure their borders themselves (out of national self-interst or the self-interest of the oligarch/autocrat in charge), with weak states like Afghanistan we had no such assurance.

Or am I completely misunderstanding the realities of non-state terrorism and Wahabbist Islamic extremism?

Brian: I am prone to think that theocratic islamicist governments are more prone to encourage terrorism against us. Three reasons: 1. they often need a scapegoat for everything sucking in their country; 2. it is just part of the ideology that they hate our civilization; 3. they want to undermine nontheocratic states in the area, and thus our support for nontheocratic states in the area.

Saddam had a reason to control them inside his country, because they would threaten his secular rule, but theocratic governments have no such incentive.

Granted that a strong Islamic state has more ability to "ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary within their borders", but they also have less motivation.

Don't you think?

"Or am I completely misunderstanding the realities of non-state terrorism and Wahabbist Islamic extremism?"

Yes and yes.

The distinction between state and non-state terrorism with respect to a regime like Iran is blurred. Iran funds terrorists for terrorist ends. Such terrorists are not employees of any branch of the Iranian government. Are they state sponsered or not?

The Taliban's support for Al Qaeda was not from a position of weakness: "We'd love to give these guys the boot, but just can't manage it." They shared an ideological kinship. And there is no reason to think that Iran does not share that ideology. Saddam's Iraq is a different story. It was ordered around the tyranny of an individual for the sake of personal power.

Perhaps the "democritization" of Iraq can be viewed as a slow developing weapon - i.e., the best way to destroy Islamic culture is to secularize it through excessive individualism and liberty. It's worked wonders for our own culture.

Brigid,

I do think that it is possible I just am not aware (or simply uneducated in this regards) of any cases that really bear that assumption out. Specifically, what Arab governments are theocracies technically speaking? Afghanistan was one and Iran is one but are there any more? Most Arab governments do use aggressive rhetoric promoting anti-Americanism, and even praise some terrorist acts (although to be clear I am differentiating between approving of terrorist acts against Israel and approving of terrorism against the U.S.). However, these same governments are generally not technically theocracies. Most are military dictatorships or Islamic republics or monarchies. So I do not know if there is a real relationship between theocratic rule and anti-Americanism, let alone active support for terrorism against us.

As I said in my first post I think the crucial aspect that made Afghanistan a country we needed to invade was its failure as a state, which allowed international terrorists to operate freely, not its theocratic government. Iran, I am maintaining against the council of the neocons, is a theocratic state that does not actually threaten us directly. If there was evidence that Iran was a breeding ground for international terrorists complicit in attacking the U.S. then the story may be different. But Iran's theocratic regime has enough control over its populace and territory to ensure that such internationalist actors like Al Qaeda do not undermine their sovereignty.

I think the assumption is that Islamic theocracies will not be nationalist and conservative of their local power but will instead be globalist in outlook (like Al Qaeda is w/ its greater Arab nation concept, and much like the original communists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) and I am not convinced of this.

Thomas Sowell is really good when warning of the consequences when valuing only good intentions on domestic policy.

Likewise, Buchanan does the same thing with foreign policy. Troops should never be sent off to war based on any domino effect theory.

(my post is kind of crappy, im in a hurry - it's friday)

Exactly Robby, that is what I am disagreeing with, the domino theory as applied to Islamic extremism.

The neocons were historically wrong on communism, they really screwed that up, and now I am consistently asked by "modern conservatives" why I can't see that Islam poses the same threat communism did. I think the burden of proof is on the neocon's side to demonstrate the supposed similarities between Islamic extremism and communism which justify an interventionist strategy.

Brian: First, neocons take their being right on communism as evidence that they should be trusted here. In what way were they wrong on communism, specifically?

Second, I guess anti-US and -Europe terrorists don't come from Iran as much as from nontheocracies. That I take that as your real strong point. But my guess would be that the presence of Iran spurs on these terrorists, because they have the desire to turn all of area into Iran. I guess we could just get out of their way -- but would this get rid of their anti-US and -Europe terrorism, or would it perhaps encourage them to restore more traditional military hopes against the Occident?

Brigid, I believe the Neocons were very critical of Reagan for being too soft, essentially admitting at one time that we had lost the war against communism. I'm having a hard time remembering from what book that came from.

IMO, the subversion is likely to run in the other direction: from Iraq to Iran.

Other than sheer Chicken-Little-ism regarding Ayatollah Sistani do you have any evidence that the Shia of Iraq are taking on the radicalism of the theocratic minority that runs Iran? Who's reality are you speaking of? Iran tried, and Moqtada's little party didn't really gain too much traction outside of the poor and disenfranchsed, mainly in the slums of Sadr City. He's seen the true marginalization of his movement and while Shia Islamists wield SOME influence, its nowhere near the nightmare you portray.

Corner's Michael Ledeen puts it fairly well:

It's hard to imagine the MSM getting stupider, but there they go again...a raft of articles today on the "pro-Iranian Shi'ite list" in the Iraqi elections. It's totally wrong. The Iranians dread the Iraqi Shiites, because the Iraqis, from Sistani to Chalabi to Hakim and on down, all oppose the Iranian heresy of the "Supreme Leader," a cleric at the top of the state. The traditional Shiite view is that such an event can only take place when the "12th Imam" returns from his disappearance--more than a millennium ago--to claim rightful leadership of the entire Muslim world. Until then, people in turbans should stay in the mosques, and the state should be governed by non-clerics. Sistani, Chalabi, and Hakim all said they were opposed to clerics in the government. Chalabi said--loudly and publicly, IN TEHRAN--that he and all the members of his list were opposed to the creation of an Iranian-style Islamic Republic in Iraq, and Chalabi also said, publicly on television, sitting next to the Iranian Ambassador to Baghdad, that Iraqi freedom was due to the brave leadership of George W. Bush.

Despite their tricky recent statements endorsing the Iraqi elections, the mullahs know that the Iraqi democratic revolution is a mortal threat to them, and to their heretical version of Shiism. They are now quaking in Tehran, not--as the "expert" commentators and reporters would have us believe--drooling over new-found control over Iraq. If Najaf reestablishes its traditional role as the center of Shiism, the Iranian mullahs will be even further discredited. And that will be quite an achievement for a group that is already fully despised by its own people.

Brad,

I fully admit to not having much insight into the realities of non-state terrorism, etc., so you may be correct that I am all wrong here.

As for the Iranians sponsoring terrorism, as far as I have read, they have supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Palestinian intifada. Those movements are aimed at Israel and are more a problem for them than for us. It is a diplomatic issue for us but not a casus belli.

I don't dispute that the Taliban shared a common ideology with Al Qaeda, I will assume they did as well. But I also was not characterizing them as really interested in getting rid of Al Qaeda but too weak to do so. What I do think was the case is that they were too weak vis-a-vis the various tribal warlords and local leaders with whom they were constantly protecting themselves against to maintain power. In this situation I think Al Qaeda was the Taliban's ally. Therefore, when Bush rightly made his blanket ultimatum that all countries either help us or be considered friends of our enemies, the Taliban had no choice but to stand with Al Qaeda and defy the U.S., b/c I think they were in a lose-lose situation as far as their ability to maintain power went.

I think I am agreeing with the theorists who say that basically a "civil" war has been developing and going on in the Middle East for several decades now after the decline of western imperialism and that therefore strong states are the best protection of American interests in the region, not necessarily democracy.

Great point about secularizing their culture to undermine Islamic civilization much as our elites have subverted Christendom. Forgive me though if I have mixed feelings about carrying out this Hegelian dream. :)

Hey Brigid,

Yeah I just threw that out w/o explaining it.

The reason that I say they were wrong on the Cold war is they were far too belligerent and militant (nothing much has changed) and disconnected from the reality of the situation.
They bought into the domino theory too much and were bitter over Nam so this led the neocons to be instrumental in perpetrating the Iran-Contra deals which almost brought down Reagan. The recklessness of the neocons on that score showed they cared little about risking destroying Reagan's presidency (much as pushing the invasion of Iraq did for Bush).

They were adamantly opposed to arms negotiations (if you look at some of George Will's old columns from the period he is a great example of the neocon attempts to undermine Reagan's efforts) as well as having talks with Gorbachev at all. Reagan knew better. Quayle in the Senate threatened with fellow neocons (Cheney for one, Rummy in the WH for another) to sabotage the various arms treaties that Reagan was negotiating, etc. It is easy to forget the extent to which the neocon right thought that Reagan was a coward at the time for his strategy of *dealing* with the Russians and Gorby.

During Reagan's funeral services I was impressed by Quayle's honesty. When he was asked to reflect on Reagan's importance and his fight against communism Quayle admitted that they had had bitter disagreements when he was a Senator and that Reagan proved to be right in the end.

The neocons also howled for blood when Reagan removed the Marines from Lebanon after their barracks was bombed. He recognized it had been a mistake to send them in their in the first place but the Neocons were apoplectic that Regan would be such a turncoat.

So the neocons are torturing history when they turn Islam into the next cummunism, and their current adoration of Reagan whitewashes their own past.

Brigid, I'm 112% in love with you.

Brian:

I have to take issue with your statement about withdrawing troops from Lebanon. While going there may not have been wise, OBL himself has cited our "defeat" in Lebanon as giving the signal that we can be defeated, we can be driven out and that we couldn't stomach casualties. OBL drew a line from Lebanon to Mogadishu, Somalia to Kosovo as giving the signal that the US was in fact a "paper tiger" that could in fact be attacked and manipulated through terrorism. Thus the neo-cons were right to a degree. Also - if the Marines were given an ounce of leeway in regards to Force Protection (as in being allowed to chamber a round) the bombing of that barracks would never have happened.

And if we didn't have a barracks in Lebanon then there wouldn't have been a barracks to bomb, and Binny wouldn't have mentioned it at all. To suggest that things would have been better if Reagan retaliated in some way is to claim something that cannot be known, at least in part. With Iraq we known the result of rushing headlong into foolish conflict and the result is not good. Thank you Reagan for your foreign policy of prudence.

As his name implies, Obi Juan is wise.

I strongly disagree with the fearmongering in this blog.

The Iraqis have elected a party with Shiite Islamic roots, so what? This does not constitute some unholy alliance with Iran, as you would have us believe. Until you can come up with any conclusive evidence whatsoever to suggest that this new Shiite party is going to take it's cues from the Mullahs, you need to stop making these claims. Even assuming this Shiite party wants to establish a dictatorship (an as yet unsubstantiated claim.) It is going to be a little hard with 14 permanent US bases in Iraq, and a strong Kurdish and Sunni vote. The Baathists took power in Iraq because they opposed a extremely unpopular Iraqi king, and because they had garnered support from both France and the USSR's eastern bloc. By the time anyone was paying attention the Shiites had cemented their own power. Sorry, but you are going to have to offer some evidence to back up your fearmongering before it can be taken seriously.

Obi Juan: Thanks, but that is mathematically impossible.

Brian: Thanks for the explanation of neocons and Reagan foreign policy. It is normal neocon triumphalism to talk about Bush as the new Reagan, and to emphasize Reagan's bluntness about and confrontations with communism. You made your case. I shouldn't be surprized that they are so full of it.

"And if we didn't have a barracks in Lebanon then there wouldn't have been a barracks to bomb, and Binny wouldn't have mentioned it at all."

I can't believe you guys don't realize how Chomskyan you're sounding. Many of you seem to want the worst outcome to occur (aside from asdf, who wrote, "I think we all hope that it does and, if so, it could be the best of all Worlds for Iraq and the U.S.") in order for your isolationist view to be vindicated. It sadly seems like you are adopting the habits of leftists.

Ben: Very typical neocon retort, to call the pre-neocon conservative position on foreign policy "isolationist" ... Definition, please! Neos use the word the way 1990s lefties used "homophobe", "racist" and "sexist." I guess "isolationism" now just means rejecting nosey, busybody armed interventionism. OK. Parallel: am I a "recluse" for not breaking in to my neighbor's and rearranging her furniture?

And, as should be obvious, for a neo-wilsonian to be calling the foreign policy views of Washington and Adams "leftist" is quite silly.

Wow Ben,

I take all my opinions back, I don't want to be called names like "Chomskyan," "isolationist," or "leftist"! Trying to maintain intellectual integrity, prudential rationality, and logic aren't worth the risk of being called names.

Maybe I could kick a muslim in the groin to prove to you that I am of the "right"?

"Ben: Very typical neocon retort, to call the pre-neocon conservative position on foreign policy "isolationist""

Are you denying that paleoconservatives are, generally, isolationists? Are you forgetting Pat Buchanan's views on free trade, immigration, and interventionism? Hey -- be an isolationist if you'd like, but at least have the intellectual courage to admit it and defend it on its merits.

"Parallel: am I a "recluse" for not breaking in to my neighbor's and rearranging her furniture?"

No, the real parallel would be if your neighbor is beating his wife each day, and you can hear her screams, yet you choose to do nothing.

"I take all my opinions back, I don't want to be called names like "Chomskyan," "isolationist," or "leftist"! Trying to maintain intellectual integrity, prudential rationality, and logic aren't worth the risk of being called names."

Brian, my Israel-loathing chum, no one suggested you take your opinions back. I was simply pointing out that for all of your (collective) seething hatred of the left, you all sound increasingly like them.

-ben

Ben: You still haven't provided a definition of isolationism, and my point was that the way it is used by neocons is so loose as to be the only justifiable position.

Prove me wrong by defining isolationism in a rational way, and then we can tell you whether we are isolationists or not.

"You still haven't provided a definition of isolationism"

Okay, sorry. I'll just use the definition accepted by Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: iso·la·tion·ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
: a policy of national isolation by abstention from alliances and other international political and economic relations

By the way, I can't believe I forgot to mention...

"to call the pre-neocon conservative position on foreign policy "isolationist""

Do you recall what the "pre-neocon conservative" position on World War II was? Hint: isolationist.

OK. According to your definition of isolationism, I am not an isolationist, nor would be your favorite punching-bag Buchanan, nor I assume would Brian (the wise Obi Juan will have to speak for himself). We don't believe in abstaining from all "international political and economic relations." Again, this is like calling me a recluse for not breaking into my neighbor's house to force her to cook my way.

Also notice: the pre WWII conservative position also doesn't fit this definition; and also, "pre-neocon conservative" doesn't imply "preWWII", since the neocon hordes didn't take over the word 'conservative' until pretty recently.

So just say you disagree with us, don't call us 'isolationist' unless you have a different definition at hand.

So Buchanan, who endorses the view that we should have stayed out of WWII, isn't an isolationist? The guy who wrote a book against globalization and "American imperialism" isn't an isolationist? Someone whose magazine supported a 5-year moratorium on immigration isn't an isolationist? Who the hell *is* an isolationist, then?

No mainstream person is an "isolationist". Don't act surprized, Ben. I'm just applying your defitinion. If you want the word to capture Buchanan or others in his ballpark, then you should reject Webster's defintion and attempt your own.

Ben you are so impressive.

Now you add that I "loathe Israel" to your intelligent list of insults.

I won't bother defending myself from your taunts anymore as you are silly and it strikes me as immature to get involved in that.

So I will just point out how your use of isolationist as an insult is nonsensical as you apply it by defending Buchanan, whom you seem enraptured by.

Buchanan critiques the machinations of FDR et. al., to get the U.S. involved in WWII, but that is pre-Pearl Harbor. FDR's manipulations that got the Japanese to attack us are well documented and worthy of criticism, nothing isolationist there.

He also defends Lindbergh and the America-firsters for their anti-involvement stance, again pre-Pearl Harbor. I have never seen or read him question our involvement in the war once we were attacked, and by rightly fighting Japan we were going to end up fighting Germany. He has said that it seems in hindsight that we should have let the Nazis and the Soviets slug it out until they were completely exhausted but this comments on the fact that the cold war began after WWII, the Soviets slaughtered many millions, and oppressed half of Europe for 40 years after the Nazis were defeated.

As for his economic nationalism and stance on immigration, I fail to see how being skeptical of globalization or open borders is isolationist, your assertion seems groundless. For one, isolationism, as the definition you provided indicates, means the nation rejects binding alliances, how is an immigration policy an alliance? Are you suggesting that the only option that isn't isolationist is an absolute cosmopolitanism that believes in one world government, economy, no borders, etc.? Are you saying that having an allegiance to one's own country and its interests is backwards and indefensible? Odd. I suppose Kant would agree with you but you need to argue for that claim.

I want to add that Obi Juan is indeed wise, as is Brigid.

By the way, has anyone ever noticed how people who bust out dictionary definitions in arguments almost never know what they are talking about?

Are we capable of doing more than playing semantics games? It seems that we are not.

How about we try to forget who is or isn't an isolationist and look at the actual issues? Middle East nations have been using terrorism as a proxy to strike at the United States since the 1970s. We can choose to simply apprehend Osama Bin Laden and then go back to business as usual.

What will we have accomplished? Nothing. The source of rampant Anti-Americanism and hatres in the Islamic community is their own oppressed situation. If we are to believe it is simply a "different culture" than why is it that muslims living all over the world integrate fine, while those under the thumb of totalitarianism are attacking the United States and her allies?

It is clear that the problem here is not just Bin Laden, or just Al-Zarqawi, but the Middle East as a whole. We took out Iraq, a strong first step. Now negotiations are meeting new succeses between the Israelis and the Palestinians. A strong second one. Next needs to be Iran. With the Saudis and OPEC rapidly losing control of the world oil market, Iran has established a near energy monopoly in Europe.

Democratizing Iraq gave us the surrounding buffer states, and the strong base we need to attak Iran militarily. It gave us the oil we need to attak Iran economically. And finally it gave us a true democratic experiment in one of the Middle East's most prominent nations to put up as a alternative to the Iran-style oppressive theocracy that has been the status quo throughout the Middle East since the 1979 revolution.

The point of view you guys are touting was wrong on World War II, it was wrong on the Cold War, and it continues to be wrong on the War on Terror.

Briefly...

"By the way, has anyone ever noticed how people who bust out dictionary definitions in arguments almost never know what they are talking about?"

I was asked to provide a definition of a term I thought would be understood.

Also, brigid's description of Buchanan as being "mainstream" is laughable. If Buchanan is mainstream, so is Ralph Nader. Both have been abysmal failures as Presidential candidates.

What a debut for Ben-T! Welcome. Having said that, this statement is crazy:

"Muslims living all over the world integrate fine, while those under the thumb of totalitarianism are attacking the United States and her allies."

I guess you haven't been reading the news from the Netherlands.

The fact that extremists exist all over the world does not negate the simply fact that the VAST majority of the world's muslims living outside major conflict zones such as the Middle East, integrate fine into their societies.

So I don't really understand your point.

The question is NOT: "What percentage of muslims who move to the west become anti-Western extremists?" Rather small, I suppose.

The question is: "What percentage of those muslims who plot against and attack the US using terrorism, live in totalitarian regimes?" Also rather small, I suppose. I suspect that most anti-US muslim terrorists live or have lived in the West.

Maybe you would see my point if you read the news from the Netherlands.

Sadly, you don't need to go as far as the Netherlands (or much of the rest of Europe). I live in New Jersey, and one of the sidebar issues in the aftermath of 9-11 was the celebration of those deeds among certain immigrant populations in our larger cities. Not a lot of candy giveaways and firing of pistols skyward, but a not-insignificant bit of smiling and high-fiving, underreported lest we offend our law-abiding Muslim neighbors. (Besides, we had Michael Moore to cheer out loud in the paper on their behalf.)

Ben L,

The basic point Brigid and I are making is that you are terribly anti-intellectual since you seem incapable of rising above ad hominem attacks on those you disagree with. We both understood that you meant "isolationist" as an insult, what we are pointing out is that it is a meaningless epithet as used by you and you have been unwilling or incapable of making it a reasonable description of our position.

You are only compounding the problem by now throwing around the idea of being "mainstream" as something that Buchanan and Nader are not. Again, you are simply acting like a leftist (as you accuse of of sounding like) by your refusal to argue logically or rationally but instead carrying on in hyperactive taunting mode.

Somehow being "mainstream" in one's politics means being a viable candidate for president? That is a strangely constricting test that seems to mean that Bob Dole is outside the mainstream, among others.

Why exactly are Nader or Buchanan extreme in your estimation? I would consider the Sam Webbs (CPUSA) or the George Rockwells (U.S. Nazi Party) of the nation extremists, but not a Goldwaterite conservative or a progressive consumer advocate.

Basically you are being a boor.

"We both understood that you meant "isolationist" as an insult"

Brian, you have not understood my posts correctly. This is partially my fault, for I should have been clearer. Anyways -- no, I'm not a fan of isolationism myself, in part because I think it is a self-destructive concept. However, as I said before, I was simply accurately labeling your viewpoints. I never claimed that they were devoid of merit. I just think that no meaningful discussion can occur unless we are absolutely clear about what we support.

Nightfly made some good points. But again, I point you all in the direction of Sharansky. If you want to understand why we are doing what we are doing -- and why Bush says what he has said as of late -- you really ought to get his book. He presents the argument better than anyone else I have seen, and he addresses many of your grievances.

-ben

I hate to continue to derail the discussion, but, one more thing:

"That is a strangely constricting test that seems to mean that Bob Dole is outside the mainstream, among others."

It actually does not. Neither Buchanan nor Nader would ever stand a chance of getting the support of a Dole. Of COURSE you can name others who are far more extreme than Buchanan and Nader. My point was simply that their ideas are not widely supported. (Again, it doesn't always follow that an unpopular idea is a bad one.) Just represent your standpoint honestly and accurately. That's all I ask! The real debate here is between isolationist modern-day America Firsters and interventionist neoconservatives. Both groups have merit to their arguments.

Ben L-- From now on I will call your position: "trigger-happy optimistic international do-gooder busybody-ism." The reason: "I just think that no meaningful discussion can occur unless we are absolutely clear about what we support." This is fair, as long as you keep calling us "isolationists."

Your definition of it doesn't apply to us, so come up with a new term, or a new defintion. Or better, I would like to hear reasons rather than misapplied epithets. Really I would. Because I don't understand your optimism.

He doesn't need to offer evidence. You are making an assertion that the war will fail and Iraq will have a theocracy. You have the burden of proof.

"This is fair, as long as you keep calling us "isolationists.""

I truly don't understand why you are so fearful of this word.

Answer these questions:

Should we ever send troops into a country that has not directly attacked us? (For example: to alleviate a humanitarian crisis)

Should we take protectionist measures to cut down on outsourcing and minimize our involvement in the global market?

Should we seal our borders for a few years to cut down on immigration?

If you answered no, yes, and yes, then I think it's fair to describe your position as "isolationist."

"I suspect that most anti-US muslim terrorists live or have lived in the West."

Yes, but the reality is that violent anti-American sentiment thrives in and is supported by (financially and otherwise) tyrannical Islamic regimes. Once Muslims in the Middle East have the opportunity for a better life, they will be much less likely to raise their children to become bombs.

I am optimistic because, to co-opt a phrase from Reagan, I know that the west will transcend Islamo-fascism. It has been accurately said that our power is not simply in our military might, but in our ideals. I believe that no *mass* of human beings, if given the means of a free and democratic election, will vote themselves into slavery. It's a ludicrous idea.

Of course I am worried about the outcome of the election. My view is that if the Iraqis and the Afghanis squander the opportunity we so graciously gave them, then never again should we attempt to help Middle Eastern Arabs.

In other words, I would be absolutely willing to admit I was wrong to support this action, if the worst case scenario becomes a reality. On the other hand, many of you seem unwilling to grant the possibility of your being wrong about your position. In fact, I e-mailed Dan Flynn asking him [something like] this question about a month ago: If in 5-10 years, Iraq is a stable, thriving democracy, will you admit you were basically on the wrong side of history? He essentially said no, because he feels that even if the best outcome occurs, it is not our role to police the world.

Do you understand the position you've all placed yourselves in? There can be no success in your eyes. Even if no terrorist attacks ever occur on our soil again, and the Middle East becomes a bastion of freedom and our eternal allies -- truly the ideal outcome -- you will not second guess yourselves. And that is pitiful.

Ben-L: Pitiful yourself. Your defintion of isolationist was shown not to fit us, yet you continue to cheat by calling us isolationsists. This is a basic failure of reasonableness and of courtesy in an argument.

Look: we are allowed to be opposed to national building on principle -- in the same way that I oppose, say, the income tax, on principle. This doesn't mean that we think that occasional nation building enterprises can be "successes" in some sense; it means that we think they are inherently unjustified.

Please answer the three quick questions.

OK, silly:

1. As a rule, no, we shouldn't attack any country that hasn't attacked us. But there could be exceptions. You may call it the "isolationist" position, I call it "just war theory."
2. I don't think we should "minimize our role in the global market", but some mildly protectionist measures would be more fair to low-skilled American workers, and it would help provide for national security.
3. You mean right now? I wouldn't say "seal" but I do think that we should cut down on immigration drastically, especially from certain cultures. Immigration is heathly, but not at this rate, and not while we pretend that immigrants from all cultures are equally prepared to participate and add to our national life.

Now that I played you silly game, will you provide a DEFINTION of your term, you trigger-happy optimistic international do-gooder busybody?!

"we pretend that immigrants from all cultures are equally prepared to participate and add to our national life"

We aren't pretending; that's a couple hundred years of American life. The first generation immigrants often group together in cultural enclaves and the successive generations assimilate more and more, partly because of intermarriage. God Bless America.

"will you provide a DEFINTION of your term"

I've provided one sufficient definition. You just refuse to believe (for some reason or another) that the term applies to you. Everything is not black and white. On a spectrum with isolationists at one end and interventionists at the other, it is clear where we stand. This is a good thing.

-ben

Hi
the US wants eat world alone and dont want have any copartner to do it and The US want attak to iran for achievement polotical world and Iran's oil but Iranian people belived thaht they can beat us in defence their country and they belive God is their soul mate in this war. in result for US beter to dont attak to Iran becuse he will wage earner a hard defeat