My blind trust of the market is founded in history and fact…unlike the blind trust liberals have for government to produce benifical results.

I choose to conserve energy. But it’s not because it is a moral obligation or because my kids need me too. It’s not because politicians or journalists or liberals say we should. It’s because it makes sense to my pocket book…just as it should be.

This isn’t like lying or committing adultery. It’s economics, and the market can take care of our energy and environment…moral elitism cannot.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=69067f1c-d089-474b-a8a0-945d1deb420b

We moved from a strategy of containment to pre-emption after Sept. 11. So, you are about 8 years late on your whole containment analogy.

Also, the current state of “engagement” has only been made public as policy. We’ve been working with the Iranians for years for capitalistic endeavors. Our current public engagement is to soften the edges on our plan for a long term presence in the Middle East and Iraq. We also are trying to placate the speculation in the oil markets.

I recently visited Washington D.C. and can tell you I thought often about the inevitability of the next terrorist attack.

SC: I admit that the Searcy comment was below the belt, but slander? That’s a little harsh. I wanted to make sure you were approaching things from a “real world” perspective, not behind a school desk. K street? Congrats! That is the first time I’ve heard the lobbyist sector referred to as the “heart of the lion.” Usually it’s a different animal and different part of the anatomy, but enough about that.

David: “Iran is not blind, and they can see that the US is completely unable to launch an attack on them right now because of our decision to invade Iraq.”

I don’t even know where to begin with this. One air-wing on a carrier has enough fire-power to disable Iran in a matter of minutes. We are not unable. The only reason Iran shot off some missiles (”saber rattling”) recently is that the US carriers left the Gulf temporarily. Carriers leaving was a signal that military engagement was imminent. They wanted to show their muscles, however small. I don’t think that Bush is particularly concerned with “political capital” at this point, but I agree it would be unwise to engage with Iran. I think Iran believes this as well. If Iran felt like the US would be so consumed with the war in Iraq, why did Iran cease uranium enrichment shortly after the Iraq invasion? What I find amazing is that you seem so intent on following the party line, that you give credit to Iran for its sudden enlightenment, but give no credit to the Bush Admin.

SC: As for Iraq being disaster…I didn’t address you and David separately, because you two seemed to be so like-minded in your comments, but will do so now. “I just rang in with the implication that the Bush Doctrine didn’t bode well with the international community. There isn’t much argument to the contrary.” I think there was some in the international community who didn’t agree, but there were several countries who supported and continue to support the US. I don’t think that calling Iraq a disaster is accurate just because other countries with entirely different agendas happened not to agree with US actions. The recent successes you spoke of did not happen in a vacuum. Those successes are the result of the continuous efforts in the region since the invasion.

I think Islamic extremism as an idea is a threat. Islam is the second largest religion in the world behind Christianity and growing at a faster rate. Fundamentalism is a small, but potent percentage of that growth. The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan is evidence of extremist potential. I think it poses just as much of a threat as Nazism or Communism, given the access to nuclear weapons that could kill massive amounts of people. Nazism and Communism was able to challenge the ideological supremacy of liberalism because the leaders gathered followers and conquered dissent not just through speeches and writings, but through violence, fear and destruction. Given such a large percentage of the Islamic world is under 25, therefore impressionable, poor, isolated and uneducated, if left unchecked, extremism could very well challenge the west. I believe the world underestimated Nazism and look what happened. If you don’t fear Islamic extremism as an idea is a threat to the West, how many people would have to die before you changed your mind? What would the body count be? It doesn’t just matter if your ideas are better, but if you have the ability to preserve and protect them. Thanks for giving Dubya some credit. He needs all the help he can get.

I’ll certainly check out the article. I’ll be sure to check out other posts. Thanks SC and David for disagreeing without being disagreeable.

First off Karen, I would say that Iraq was a disaster and has only recently showed signs of success. I never said Iraq was a disaster. I just rang in with the implication that the Bush Doctrine didn’t bode well with the international community. There isn’t much argument to the contrary.

I’m sure your husband fought well. And I’m sure you made a great family sacrifice as well.

Secondly, I am talking about the Islamic idea, Karen — not the threat. As an idea, Islamic fundamentalism may or may not be a real threat. 9/11 was a travesty, no argument there. But just because terrorist hit our nation doesn’t make Islamic fundamentalism a dominant idea. It is indeed a security threat, but it doesn’t resemble anything close to the threat posed by National Socialism (Nazism) or Marxist-Socialism (Communism) in the 20th century. These two ideas were competitors at the national level, meaning they had the potential to become the leading ideology for states in the international system. You have to understand that I am speaking on a grand scale of ideals, not merely imminent security threats. My question was “is Islamic extremism a real confronting ideal, so much that it challenges the authority and supremacy of liberalism?” Do you really think it challenges the ideological supremacy of liberalism? I can’t honestly say yes. A threat, Karen? No doubt. But I don’t fear the fall of the West to Islamic fundamentalism.

There is an article written by the international theorist Francis Fukuyama called “The End of History.” I recommend you read this article. It would explain what I mean by a conflict of ideas. On top of that, it’s just a well written article.

Understand this, I am very sad for the people who died on 9/11. I am, in no way, stating that terrorism isn’t a threat to the life and liberty of Americans. Furthermore, I would never want to do anything that would diminish the value of human life. The lives lost on 9/11 deserve all the respect warranted.

And the Searcy slander has nothing to do with the question. But for the record, Karen, I am writing this from K St. Washington D.C. — the heart of the lion, to speak. So, you can’t pull the Searcy card on me.

Lastly, I think my analysis is pretty fair. I am not bashing Bush, or his policies — although there are many things I could say negatively about them. I am stating that it appears that many Western nations are taking on a new type of foreign policy — for the better. So, if anything, I am giving Bush some credit. That’s pretty considerate, don’t you think?

You bring up a valid point that the hard-line approach to Iran and saber rattling may very well have influenced them to cooperate. However, I think that the opposite is more likely to be true. Iran is not blind, and they can see that the US is completely unable to launch an attack on them right now because of our decision to invade Iraq. We are too tied up in Iraq and we lost too much international goodwill going in and there is far too little political capital within the US to support such an option. So, if Iran can see those things, it should make them even less cooperative which makes this shift in policy even more impressive.

Nobody means to belittle the casualties or the sacrifice of anyone in these conflicts. But personal connection is not necessary to judge something as good policy or not. In fact, personal connections have a way of clouding good judgment.

The market can do a lot of things, but it is not perfect, and only ideologues or the pathetically uninformed could have such blind faith in it. Free markets are notoriously short-sighted (hence bubbles and recessions) and fickle. The free market needs additional encouragement to move in the direction of renewable, sustainable energy that can help secure our needs for the future and to ignore that is sort of like how GWB ignored the looming terrorist threat until 9/11 hit him square in the face. We don’t have to be 100% reactionary with this one because we can see the end of oil in the future and we can see the beginnings of environmental depredation right now.

You think gas is high now? Pass cap and trad or a carbon tax and tell me what you think about the price. I want cleaner cheaper energy…but I want a free market too and the liberal idea have yet to combine both.