That’s what Cathy Young writes that civil libertarians are about terrorism.

Not that the moonbats will pay much attention, but the Lancet report from 2004 claiming a hundred thousand civilian casualties in Iraq as a result of removing Saddam has been further discredited.

The other Michael, Michael Totten, reports from Baghdad:

The other Michael, Michael Totten, reports from Baghdad:

The other Michael, Michael Totten, reports from Baghdad:

The success of the surge. And the continuing efforts of the Dems and the media to make Iraq into another Vietnam.

[Afternoon update]

Max Boot has to educate Henry Kissinger on the fact that Iraq is not Vietnam:

Skilled diplomacy can consolidate the results of military success but can seldom make up for its lack. In Iraq, there is scant chance that any American legerdemain can convince internal factions like the Jaish al Mahdi or Al Qaeda in Iraq, or outside actors such as Iran and Syria, that their interests are congruent with ours. While the U.S. pursues stability and democracy, our enemies are merrily capitalizing on mayhem to carve out spheres of influence and bleed us dry.

The only thing that could conceivably alter their calculations is a change in the balance of power on the ground. That is what Army Gen. David Petraeus is trying to achieve. But he is being undermined by incessant withdrawal demands from home, which are convincing our enemies that they can wait us out. Only if the other side faces the probability of defeat — or at least stalemate — can negotiations produce a durable accord.

The success of the surge. And the continuing efforts of the Dems and the media to make Iraq into another Vietnam.

[Afternoon update]

Max Boot has to educate Henry Kissinger on the fact that Iraq is not Vietnam:

Skilled diplomacy can consolidate the results of military success but can seldom make up for its lack. In Iraq, there is scant chance that any American legerdemain can convince internal factions like the Jaish al Mahdi or Al Qaeda in Iraq, or outside actors such as Iran and Syria, that their interests are congruent with ours. While the U.S. pursues stability and democracy, our enemies are merrily capitalizing on mayhem to carve out spheres of influence and bleed us dry.

The only thing that could conceivably alter their calculations is a change in the balance of power on the ground. That is what Army Gen. David Petraeus is trying to achieve. But he is being undermined by incessant withdrawal demands from home, which are convincing our enemies that they can wait us out. Only if the other side faces the probability of defeat — or at least stalemate — can negotiations produce a durable accord.

The success of the surge. And the continuing efforts of the Dems and the media to make Iraq into another Vietnam.

[Afternoon update]

Max Boot has to educate Henry Kissinger on the fact that Iraq is not Vietnam:

Skilled diplomacy can consolidate the results of military success but can seldom make up for its lack. In Iraq, there is scant chance that any American legerdemain can convince internal factions like the Jaish al Mahdi or Al Qaeda in Iraq, or outside actors such as Iran and Syria, that their interests are congruent with ours. While the U.S. pursues stability and democracy, our enemies are merrily capitalizing on mayhem to carve out spheres of influence and bleed us dry.

The only thing that could conceivably alter their calculations is a change in the balance of power on the ground. That is what Army Gen. David Petraeus is trying to achieve. But he is being undermined by incessant withdrawal demands from home, which are convincing our enemies that they can wait us out. Only if the other side faces the probability of defeat — or at least stalemate — can negotiations produce a durable accord.

Randy Barnett has further thoughts. I found this interesting:

I realize that some fraction of radical libertarians, whose opinion I respect, believe that there is no such thing as a just war, but most radical libertarians (including most critics of my WSJ op-ed) allow the legitimacy of a defensive war and oppose only wars of aggression. Some antiwar libertarians who oppose the Iraq war as aggression, for example, supported the war in Afghanistan on “self-defense” grounds. And those who didn’t say they would support a war that was truly in self-defense. They simply deny that the war in Iraq fits that description. Yet if they also accept stance (1), as they appear to, then ON THEIR ACCOUNT because a defensive war is waged by an illegitimate government and the rights of innocents were inevitably violated, it too must be opposed.

I’ve never quite understood the arguments of those who claim that they’re not anti-war because they supported the war in Afghanistan, but that they were opposed to removing Saddam Hussein.

Why did they support the war in Afghanistan? Was it, as described above, because it was a “defensive” war? If so, what does that mean? Was it to prevent further attacks? Or was it to avenge 911?

If the latter (and much of the rhetoric seems to indicate that), then it wasn’t a defensive war, except possibly in the limited sense that by making an example of the Taliban we could discourage other regimes from similarly harboring our enemies.

If the former, then it was a preemptive war (that is, we were going to remove a regime, to prevent it from supporting any further attacks). But we’ve been told by this crowd that preemptive wars aren’t acceptable. For instances despite many threats made against Israel (and the Great Satan–us) by Iran, and its continuing development of the means with which to carry them out, we are not allowed to go to war with Iran, because that would be “preemptive” and we’re supposed to wait for them to strike the first blow, as happened with Afghanistan.

Now it turns out in hindsight that the threat from Iraq was exaggerated (though not as much as many war opponents assume), but at the time, we considered it sufficient to need to be preemptive (not to mention all of the ongoing violations of the UN resolutions and truce agreements that Saddam continued to ignore). In that sense, it was a defensive war. So when war opponents claim that we have a right to defensive wars, but practically only allow it to happen after it’s too late to defend ourselves (as occurred with 911), just what do they mean?

The one against corruption.