there is a massive difference between 9-11 and Pearl Harbor.

Although it does seem reasonable to me to connect 9-11 to the Taleban, since they were financed by Al Qaida and providing a base of attack. Afghanistan and probably Afghanistan alone, under the Taleban, had the sort of government that Al Qaida is fighting for. Thus, it seems completely reasonable to interpret an attack against us by Al Qaida as by the Taleban as well. Thus, I regard the Afghanistan war as completely justifiable, and largely successful -- although it may have been more successful if other concerns hadn't diverted military potential and political focus from it.

However, no other government could be synonomously identified with Al Qaida, and our "ally" Pakistan agreed to help us, and has been positively influenced as a result. Democracy is still struggling there, but seems to be better off, the threat of nuclear proliferation lessened, and even the situation with India improved.

Other governments may be tacitly supporting or condoning terrorist groups, or directly supporting other terrorist groups (Iran-Hezbollah), but there is not a national will to wage outright war with America. And no, a popular sentiment favorable to that prospect doesn't count. Japan had invaded several countries, and bombed Pearl Harbor in an attempt to prevent us from intervening, which the administration (probably) wanted to do, but the public didn't.

Also, I think that almost all acts must be weighed very largely by outcomes -- except for a few things that are direct moral imperatives. I'm pretty sure there isn't an 11th commandment to nuke anybody who attacks you. That being the case, we must consider what benefit we would gain from (or what good it would do) to carry out an attack.

Consider the factors: most of the 9-11 hijackers were educated, multi-lingual people with college degrees, not poor rural Afghans or Iraqis. All of the London bombers were British citizens of Pakistani descent. These people, and many others, were able to receive training to focus their anger/theology/whatever because Al Qaida as an organization was able to establish training camps in Afghanistan and other places where they could operate freely.

Thus, it seems that one important thing to do would be to eliminate the free training grounds. We did that in Afghanistan, we are trying to make that happen in Pakistan, while it is interesting to note that the Marines' own intelligence assessment of Anbar province in Iraq is, according to journalist Peter Bergen, that it is basically controlled by Al Qaida in Iraq.

Secondly, it would make sense to eliminate any other means by which Al Qaida is able to operate -- international finance, etc -- which we have also done.

Terrorists are basically glorified radical assassins. Thus, they only need a little training and a willingness to trade their lives to bring about the death of others. The training is one aspect, but the willingness is another. It strikes me as obvious that no closed society can long survive a philosophy of its members blowing themselves up to achieve its ends. It is a spectacular method, but it is also a desperate method. Its potential effectiveness lies, it seems to me, in the extreme responses it can engender, whether of retreat or indiscriminate offense.

Peter Bergen recently lectured in Erie, and I was struck by one thing he said, in particular: that Al Qaida's shtick was basically to say that there is a global jihad, and that a bunch of regional conflicts, such as Palestine, Chechnya, Indonesia, etc, are all part of the same thing. Which seems on the face of it to be clearly absurd. So is the response to say "yes, there is a global jihad," and to call everything we don't like part of it? Or is it to say, "no, these are a bunch of different conflicts, with some limited associations among a few of them." Obviously, Bush took the first tack with Iraq, which seemed from the beginning, to me, to be clearly preposterous. Saddam Hussein was part of the problem in Osama Bin Laden's book -- remember that Al Qaida in Iraq blew up even a Shiite mosque, never mind even nominally secular Arab dictators, such as the House of Saud.

If all the extremists could be killed or disabled, who wouldn't be for it? Few people, I think, given that we authorized Bush to invade a country because it might sponsor terrorists (or be a terrorist).

But where are they? They're in the mountains on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. They're in Anbar province in Iraq. They're in the ghettos of Paris, and the universities of Britain. And yes, in Lebanon and Gaza. But again -- all of these issues are independent, or have independent aspects. Bin Laden has tried to draw them all together into an anti-western global jihad, but his rhetoric doesn't stop each invididual problem from being met. As for Palestine, can anyone seriously suggest that the Palestinian people don't have a right to... a place to live? And is it at all incomprehensible why they might be mad, and susceptible to extremist groups promising to look out for them? Note, too, that both Hamas and even more so Hezbollah gained popular support not by quoting the Koran but by providing effective social services. What does that say about the best way to undermine these groups?

Sorry, this has been somewhat long and meandering, but my point is this: unless God gives me the 67th book of Scripture, I want to know that my war has the potential for good results before I undertake it. I don't think this is a moral imperative, but a wisdom issue. Where, besides Rand (chapter 7, verse 3), does one find a general moral imperative stating: "All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative." Against residents under a government's jurisdiction? Yes. Likely to be necessary and wise against belligerent foreign elements? Yes. But a moral imperative? On the level of nations, it becomes me and my people dealing with you and your people. In other words, very analogous to me dealing with you. Or me protecting my family from you and your family.

I just finished reading the article, having not gotten to the writer's section on invading Iran... I am (nearly) speechless.

The writer says:
"State Islam—Totalitarian Islam—rule by Islamic Law—must be obliterated."

I think his key error is conflating several different sorts of Islamic law, including Iran and Al Qaida's vision. Further, the big differences between Islam and Shinto are that Islam 1) has much more of a popular base and 2) is a pan-national religion.

Also, I don't agree with Mr. Lewis about complete separation of church and state. Christians try to have America's laws reflect their values, and rightfully so, imo, so why wouldn't Muslims do so as well?

"But does that mean that humans should never attempt to administer "justice", because of the fear that someone will accuse them of trying to administer "infinite justice"?"

I never said anything about "fearing" an accusation. I only want to do what is right in God's opinion.

And who says that Iran is sponsoring Sunni terrorists? I find that doubtful. Also, it is a presumption by Western governments that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. Not an unreasonable presumption, I'll grant, but we have a flat denial of this goal by Iran (for what it's worth), and no intelligence estimates of any significance.

I do think it is difficult to formulate a definitive rule regarding interventions, but it seems like it is justified at least some times -- say for stopping invading armies from entering our territory. And what about destroying missile sites that are launching missiles at us, which we cannot destroy en route? Seems warranted. What about shutting down training camps for airplane-crashing terrorists? When the government can be viewed as basically a component of the attacking organization? When there are people dissatisfied within the country, willing to fight with us?

I don't have a completely firm proof, but it seems justified. Also, regarding interventions, I mean only that we aren't arbiters of justice in our own cause. I think it reasonable to intervene in situations on behalf of justice for someone else, even if our reason for choosing THIS justice is because it is in our interests as well. As long as it isn't primarily our interest motivating us, and we are relatively sure of the rightness of the cause. Invading Europe in WWII seems to be one of those things: we weren't being invaded, but it was in our interests to have Hitler stopped. I've heard that invasion, however, called "the greatest thing one group of people ever did for another."

Consider: I'll discpline my children, but not my neighbor, even when he wrongs me. As a priest, I may speak against sin in another's life, but not discipline. As a church body, we may discipline an unrepentant member. If one person attacks another without cause, and I may very well throw a punch if it was necessary or likely to have good effect. That would be taking the cause of the righteous weak against the wicked strong. If my neighbor tries to harm me or my children, I will try to stop him. If he does so repeatedly, I will take pre-emptive measures to make sure he can do so no longer. Fortuntately, if it was a case of physical harm, we live in a relatively well-regulated society, so we would be able to appeal to the police to intervene. If not, we would have to act for ourselves -- but to stop and prevent, not to take vengeance. This is the trickiest part of the line, I think.

If there were no recognized authority, and someone repeatedly attacked your family with physical violence, would you beat him senseless to prevent him from doing further harm? Would you kill him? If there seemed to be no other way to protect my children(the weak), I think I would beat, kill, or maim this person. But not for vengeance. What use is vengeance to me? Perhaps vengeance and aggressive prevention may coincide, but I have no interest in vengeance for its own sake.

interesting... I read the belmont blog, but it was late, so I'll read up later this week.

It is interesting, you know, the seeming difference in attitudes to war between the 40's and now. For the hundreds of years prior to WWII, frequent wars in Europe were the norm, peace the strange thing. America had fewer large conflicts, and only one war of conquest (if you count Mexican-American).

With larger weapons, I think people start to take war more seriously. I can imagine, for instance, knights in full armor in the 1200's being eager for war -- they probably weren't going to die, and it was great sport! Weapons are much more devastating now, and the world more closely connected. Perhaps technology has advanced enough that a war doesn't have to be fought all over the place, but physically only in a few places. It would be too costly to disrupt all the global supply chains. Everyone that shopped at Walmart would feel it, not just a few losing novelty or luxury imports.

I'd say it's generally a good thing that nations are less eager to go to war; regardless of how many people die, it seems that unless a country is completely annihilated and rebuilt, it's difficult for anything really good to come out of war.