I've heard Hitchens on another subject before. He struck me then as a "reformed" leftist, i.e., one that got mugged by his own beliefs and had beat a retreat to a defensible position. But it wasn't a rout, it was a well-thought out retreat with admissions where he believed he was wrong before.

That was a powerful editorial and I quite liked it. I might go a bit further though. I'd consider giving the rich boys in Saudi Arabia a push. And I'm not really happy with Egypt. We could give Mubarak a push too. Both have, in my opinion, allowed their anti-Western press free reign to rake us over the coals simply to deflect opposition to their own regimes.

How would we know the difference if either regime failed? The only thing that gives me pause about giving them a shove is the likely replacement governments would be hell-bent on getting mass-destruction weapons and would use them on Israel in a heartbeat.

I think this is really one big issue: do we (the U.S. and the West) really believe democracy is good for everyone vs. creating governments hell bent on destruction because of some mystical dark age beliefs. We tried allowed or at least looked the other way while Pakistan and Saudi Arabia arranged a government for Afghanistan.

Is democracy for everyone? Can everyone handle democracy with its respect/tolerance for minority views (we have a hard time at it ourselves)? Can there be an Arab democracy? Is that even possible given the Muslim restrictions on women and hatred of the Jews?

We get raked over the coals by some apologists for not supporting democracy everywhere. What does it mean to support democracy in a country when the people would gladly hand power to a bunch of religious Nazies? Do we push over the government and allow the people to suffer from their choice? The Afghanis are not particularly thrilled with the Taliban now that they have to live under them. The young Iranians are not religious zealots and do not appear to entertain rabid anti-Western views. If a religious regime necessarily has a short shelf-life because they are a bunch of bigoted insufferable fascists, but are in power enough to cause the problems the Taliban have caused, do we support a people's right to have their chance at trying out such a regime and possibly causing WWIII?

Just to play devil's advocate here, shouldn't our safety be enhanced if we were able to bring about what is best for them? How do we know what is best for them? We believe democracy is best, but we cannot know that without recourse to philosophy, shared values, etc. This argument breaks down into a "do what we say because we're right", precisely what seems to be pissing off a number of the non-electorate in some of these countries.

I do not think we could occupy the problematic nations. We couldn't afford it and they would fight tooth and nail.

I do think, however, that there is a problem no one wants to think about. What if the Muslim nations decided that this planet isn't big enough for themselves and the West and the West must be destroyed. I heard on European Journal on PBS an interview with some muslim idiot in Britain who claimed this was the proper outlook for all right-thinking Muslims. What does the West do in this instance where unremitting war to the death has been declared upon it, its people, and its religions? The Noam Chomsky's of the world would have us declare defeat with honor and commit suicide claiming we made them do it. But how do we survive ourselves without killing most of them, throwing what we like to think of as our western values out the window in the process?

I did not mean to imply that most Muslims are on an anti-Christian crusade (snicker). But I did mean to pose the question of what should be our responses if the situation were to degenerate to that point. I do not think it is a moot question simply because demogogues are still capable of leading masses of people. Hell, Mao was a disaster for China but he's still thought of as a god over there. And he had no religion. What if a charismatic Muslim leader pulls a Hilter style stunt and leads the Muslim masses in the style of Hitler? bin Laden has such delusions of grandeur. The rest of his storm troopers are no better. Bush had it right, we've seen this man's incarnation before.

I do not think it is likely that bin Laden or some other Hitler will actually succeed in radicalizing the Muslim faithful, but I still do not believe it is an idle question. And it is one we should be mindful of and not inadvertantly aid by short term interests. The enemy is thinking in long term strategic terms. I believe we must think equally in long term strategic terms.

Most of my comments in the previous note were rhetorical, not statements of fact or belief.