Not to get into an apocalyptic rage, but your so-called ideas are too idiotic to take seriously. I know you take them very seriously, which is why you're so ridiculous. But before you get into your mode of the bane "right-leaning" readers, you should get your facts straight. If not, the result will not be "apocalyptic rage," as you require. You'll just be laughed at as the ignorant useful idiot you are. It resents the presence of U.S. soldiers near Islamic holy places in Saudi Arabia. It is angered by U.S. support not only for Israel but also for corrupt Arab regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. And it seeks to weaken U.S. influence throughout the Middle East.1. The US military withdrew from Saudi Arabia years ago. Although this was one of al Qaeda's original grievances against us, our withdrawal has not changed anything with respect to the war they declared on us. Can you explain that? Moreover, Muslim so-called law, which formed the background for al Qaeda's original grievance about the troops in Saudi Arabia, prohibits the presence of infidels on the Arabian peninsula, which, according to them, is "holy land." Now you're extending the reach of Muslim so-called law by saying that the US shouldn't even be near the Muslim holy places. Even al Qaeda itself didn't dare to demand such absurdity, probably trusting that useful idiots like yourself would do it for them. Are you happy with your role as a Muslim stooge? 2. "It is angered by U.S. support not only for Israel…" Yes, indeed, they're angry about that. Have you ever thought about why? It turns out that Muslims inherited the ancient belief that once a land is conquered it belongs to the conqueror forever. This belief justified many a Roman war, for example, once anyone conquered land that they had previously conquered. Muslims conquered the land in the Middle East and effectively exterminated the cultures that had lived there since ancient times. Who speaks Aramaic today, for example? It used to be one of the world's most popular languages. This land was re-conquered by the state of Israel, which cannot stand, according to Muslims belief. Once god has acquired a land for Islam, it cannot be relinquished. Ever. This is why Muslims rejected the original UN partition plan and why they reject a Palestinian state peace process after peace process. They can't accept it since it means recognizing Israel along with it. This they cannot do without violating a principle tenet of their so-called religion. Now you propose that the US withdraw its support from Israel so that Muslims are not quite so "angered." This presumably will generate "peace" and "resolve a conflict" without violence, which is why it figures in your useful-idiot credo. I'm sure you're right that this would make Muslims very happy. But you're wrong that it will generate "peace." Once the US withdraws its support for Israel, Muslims will have a free hand to re-conquer the land, exterminate the state of Israel, commit genocide against the Jews there, in accordance with their beliefs, etc etc. That should make them happy for a while, right? But then, who will you blame for the slaughter and subjugation of Israeli Jews then? For sure, you'll continue to blame the US, but how? One might think that you can't blame the US for withdrawing since you wanted the US to withdraw in the first place. But you'll think of something, I'm sure. 3. "it seeks to weaken U.S. influence throughout the Middle East." Very true. But why on Earth would you want to let them do it, or even make it easier for them to do it? We naturally want to weaken fanatic Muslim influence throughout the Middle East; they want to increase it. That's why we have a war. You want us to side with them and weaken our own influence and increase theirs, so as to achieve "peace" or whatever is in your little head as an ultimate goal. Leaving aside the absurdity of your proposing that your own nation give up and declare defeat against an enemy that has declared war on us, why do you imagine that this will achieve "peace?" It will not. The reason is again found within the Muslim so-called system of belief. Muslim law divides the world into the "Abode of War"and the "Abode of Islam." Muslims are tasked by god to wage war, or jihad, against the "Abode of War" until it is annexed into the "Abode of Islam." If we withdraw from the region, it will not generate "peace" but only more war, in accordance with Muslim belief. In this case, Muslims will be incomparably strengthened because we will have withdrawn from the region, leaving them a free hand to impose their own version of corruption on today's corrupt Muslim governments and, most importantly, acquiring state resources with which to continue the fight against the "Abode of War." I can't understand why a nice Jewish boy like you would entertain such ideas. What would your mother say? Are you so blinded by progressive group-think that you simply can't think? Or what? Waiting for your explanation, most respectfully…

So, "part of the success" in stopping suicide bombers is due to the efforts of the IDF? The other part is because the PA is such a "great partner." If I was Israeli, I'd be entitled to think that all the success is due to the IDF, because without it, the PA would never have stopped funding and inciting the suicide bombers. Or do you think they just got tired of this tactic, or that they decided that it violates the laws of war? Therefore, Israeli "obsession" with security is fully justified. If it were us, we'd call it "self defense" or "survival" and tell anyone who thought different to get a life. One other "factor" is relevant here: the invasion of Iraq. Before the invasion, Saddam was funding the families of suicide bombers to the tune of $25 thousand each with his ill-gotten wealth scammed from the UN Oil-for-Food program. No more Saddam, no more suicide bombers... I know that it would be a post hoc fallacy to say so in so many words, but still, it does bear thinking about, doesn't it?

The politics of political invective aside, you're missing the point I'm making. There is a basic philosophic difference between conservatives and so-called progressives: the one thinks that society's problems have no real solution. They only admit of fixes that will consist of tradeoffs; "progressives," on the other hand, will always search for the solution, no matter what, and fail to consider what unintended consequences may arise because of it. These are basic ideological differences. They are not suceptable to your dichotomy between "thinking" conservatives and the others (emotional and visceral conservatives?) just as "progressives" cannot be divided in such a way. Conservatives share this basic ideology, as do progressives on the other side. This division between the "thinking" species and the "nonthinking" one is just part of your demonization of the other. If they can't or won't think, then why should you consider their views with any seriousness? You'll just try and "explain" stuff to them, like Obama does, in frustration because they never seem to get it. You might be surprised to learn that they do get it but they just don't like it, for their own ideological reasons. The opposite is true for "progressives" when a conservative wants his or her support for something. The thing to do is not to deprecate anyone's ideology, as long as it falls within the democratic process, but to search for some common ground with which to negotiate the policy differences. People are usually quite willing to negotiate policy but will never negotiate ideology or interests. These are part of their characters.

Another way of thinking about the right wing is that theirs is a lazy approach: since the United States knows what's right, what other should do, all the US has to do insist that others snap into line. The right looks at other nations as objects of American foreign policy, rather than as being free agents themselves. This is just silly. It's just a lukewarm demonization of the opponent. It's therefore just a short step for you to arrive at true demonization. Why not just go all-out and call the "right" "capitalist running dogs," "kulaks," or whatever? Why even bother to analyze anything when you say you know that the "right wing" is lazy, "zero sum," and otherwise unworthy of any serious thought? Is this what passes for analysis these days amongst the "progressive community?" For your consideration, the right is defined by its real-world orientation. They do not strive to achieve a so-called solution to a political problem. They know that any "solution" will carry unintended consequences therefore they will seek the most favorable trade-off they can get and later strive to improve their situation. The left (or the progressives as you like to call them) will look for the solution, which they will seek to impose on the situation willy-nilly, as your approval of Iglesias's line about "achieving broadly acceptable solutions and collective action" shows. It doesn't matter that you love to preen about your desire for world peace, or "working together with others to address problems, reduce conflict and abuse, and increase peace, prosperity, and empowerment. (your bold)" That's just fluff. As much as you pride yourself on your enlightened morality, it sounds no different than the candidates for Homecoming Queen saying they want to work for world peace. At least they're beauties and they're just in High School. What's your excuse?

Could this "cult" possibly be caused by the fact that 22 Arab and/or Muslim states are officially at war with them? Could it be caused by the fact that daily incitment to violence and hatred of the Jewish state, and of Jews worldwide, is promoted by the autocratic governments of those 22 Arab and/or Muslim states? What do you suggest, then? Should Isreal "reach out," make more concessions, etc etc, in the hope of vanquishing such intrenched hatred and enemity? How about one-to-one, people-to-people cultural exchanges, like Nixon's "ping-pong" diplomacy with the PRC? That would work, wouldn't it? Except for the fact that any Israeli or Jew is officially banned from stepping on so-called Muslim land... So, instead of getting all kumbaya over Israeli obsession with security (and who wouldn't be obsessed in such circumstances?) why don't you write about Arab/Muslim obsession with their rejection of the Jewish state?Why not insist that they cease and desist their offical anti Semitic propaganda campaigns, which would probably have made even Goebbles blush a bit and think, "Why can't we get away with this stuff here, in Germany? Germans are such pussies!" Of course we know that Goebbles had in Haj Hussein, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and the father of Arab/Muslim "resistance," a powerful voice in the Arab world, but that's not the point.

Could this "cult" possibly be caused by the fact that 22 Arab and/or Muslim states are officially at war with them? Could it be caused by the fact that daily incitment to violence and hatred of the Jewish state, and of Jews worldwide, is promoted by the autocratic governments of those 22 Arab and/or Muslim states? What do you suggest, then? Should Isreal "reach out," make more concessions, etc etc, in the hope of vanquishing such intrenched hatred and enemity? How about one-to-one, people-to-people cultural exchanges, like Nixon's "ping-pong" diplomacy with the PRC? That would work, wouldn't it? Except for the fact that any Israeli or Jew is officially banned from stepping on so-called Muslim land... So, instead of getting all kumbaya over Israeli obsession with security (and who wouldn't be obsessed in such circumstances?) why don't you write about Arab/Muslim obsession with their rejection of the Jewish state?Why not insist that they cease and desist their offical anti Semitic propaganda campaigns, which would probably have made even Goebbles blush a bit and think, "Why can't we get away with this stuff here, in Germany? Germans are such pussies!" Of course we know that Goebbles had in Haj Hussein, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and the father of Arab/Muslim "resistance," a powerful voice in the Arab world, but that's not the point.

I'm not sure that that's a fair or productive question for debate. We were always committed to withdrawal, from the beginning. That's the meaning of Rumsfeld's failed "light footprint" strategy. It's a different question altogether whether we should commit to a fixed date for withdrawal. In any case, the SOF agreement we signed under Bush commits us to a fixed date, no matter what we say and no matter whether we think it will lead to increased violence and increased political instability. So, again, this is not really a fair question for debate about the Surge. You cite McCain's "hundred years" statement as a real proposal from the Surge's "most vocal proponents." This is also unfair since he was obviously engaging in hyperbole. He was exaggerating for rhetorical effect. I'm sure he would agree, though, that we remain in Iraq until the situation is sufficiently stabilized. I can't see any valid objections to this, since to do otherwise would be to jeapordize everything we've achieved so far as well as to make all the sacrifice a dead letter. With the above as a background, if we had had a fixed date for withdrawal back in 2006-07 (when the Surge was designed and implemented) it would have increased its chances of failure. The Sunni sheiks, for example, would never have agreed to ally themselves with us if they weren't convinced we would be there for the duration. "The duration" is not a fixed date. Today, the Iraqis themselves have imposed a fixed date on us, whether we like it or not, so this debate is useless. Aside from that, if you want to speculate about how Iraq's political situation could improve, you have to begin with the fact that, as chaotic as it may be today, it shows a degree of stability and progress that was unimaginable back in 2006--again, this is when the Surge was designed. For example, a secular Shia has won the parliamentary elections with the support of a majority of Sunni voters. Back in 2005, this same secular Shia was humiliated in the elections and the situation went downhill from there until it reached horrific levels of violence. This is progress, or would be, if people were not so blinded by their Bush hatred (or whatever) that they can't give credit where credit is due. You can argue that whatever progress has happened in Iraq is not due to the Surge but rather to the "Iraqis themselves" or whatever other factors you seize on to justify your opposition to the most important strategic decision in a generation, etc etc. You'd be much better off by just admitting you were wrong back then and "moving on," i.e., learning from your mistake. That's how the real world can be your classroom. If you continue to deny the success of the Surge, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, then you'll just end up digging your hole that much deeper. You'll end up with some radical position that even you, today, would reject. It's a lot better to be a man about it and admit you were wrong. You'll see it's not all that bad. It won't kill you. You'll find that afterwards you'll be all the more willing to do so in the future. This only means that you'll have a more "objective" point of view. You'll be a better analyst. So, to try and answer your question, I say that the political situation in Iraq today is very positive, considering the problems the Iraqis have and their history and culture. It was never going to be a negotiated transition to democracy like the Acuerdos de Moncloa back in the '70s in Spain. It has to be an Iraqi/Arab transition. This will always be, to us, chaotic and violent because, to us, Iraqis and Arabs are chaotic an violent under normal circumstances. Given the cultural chasm that separates us, I say we've done a very good job of respecting their culture and keeping our hands off the transition. For example, back in '05, Bush was against holding the elections in Janurary because he knew that "his" candidate, Allawi, was bound to lose. He bit the bullet on that one and took the consequences. The consequences were horrific but he ended up pulling it out of the fire in other ways, i.e., the Surge. The election of Allawi's coalition today forms a neat coda to the situation, showing that, yes, in fact, the Surge did succeed.