War: Answering Derek

This is my response to Derek's comment here.

(1) No one (well, hardly anyone) is suggesting leaving Afghanistan, the invasion of which was a measured response to the attacks of 9-11

Europeans are having difficulty maintaining NATO’s presence in Afghanistan. Several nations put severe limits on how their troops are deployed. Canada debates its presence in Afghanistan the way we debate ours in Iraq. U.S. marines have suggested transferring from Anbar to Afghanistan partly to deal with the waning Allied support there.

(2) I would like to see Gerson's plan for actually saving his "flawed democrats of Iraq," with expected costs, etc., before signing on for an everlasting occupation of their country... which they do not want us occupying

If Iraqi’s elected government wants us out, we will go. “Everlasting occupation?” Who says? “Costs, etc.” What “etc.”? It’s all about costs. Liberals want to spend money at home to support worthy projects here, not waste money building democracy in Iraq. Here’s the point. We are at war with Islamic extremists, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, everywhere these forces choose to fight us. It’s an asymmetric war, meaning our costs will be much higher than theirs. Do we fight or not?

(4) The "war on terror" can be won every day by vigilant police work, rights-respecting intelligence gathering, maintenance of our open society, and the peaceful spreading of freedom, capitalism, and democracy

Yes. But what do we do when confronted with organized terrorism, such as the Iran-backed Mahdi militia? All the tools you mention, plus bullets, I believe.

"[it’s] false [to assert] the Iraq War has actually been creating the terrorist threat we seek to fight..."Wrong. It has and it does. The evidence is overwhelming - from surveys of actual muslims, including jihadists. Gerson's counterargument is evidence-free. Why in the world would you excerpt it?

Sigh. Gerson notes that bin Laden used U.S. actions in Iraq in the 1990s to help justify 9.11—Osama didn’t need our overthrow of Saddam to oppose us in Iraq. Osama's attacks came first. We are responding to his war; of course, we would prefer a world at peace. Gerson says flatly that if bin Laden beat us in Iraq, militant Islam would be strengthened around the Muslim world. I so believe. It’s o.k. for you to disagree, but key observers are on my side. Here’s just one post that makes my case (from no friend of Bush).

hardly anyone) is advocating paralysis. What about diplomacy?

Right now, the national foreign policy debate is between those who wish to have “the stick,” “arrows in our quiver” a part of our diplomacy (Clausewitz: "War is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means") and those who are so fed up with Vietnam + Iraq that they want war eliminated as a U.S. foreign policy option. The latter group believes that somehow, one can engage in diplomacy without using the threat of war. What’s so difficult for observers like Gerson to understand is how in the post-9.11 era—when we face others determined to kill as many Americans as possible—we can possibly base policy on foreswearing the use of force.