"Global terrorism is thus a phenomenon largely of our own making."

Who said that? Victor Davis Hanson? George Will? John Weidners? No, that was said roughly a year after 9/11 by a man thoroughly on the Left - Alan Dershowitz. He said it in an interview on Slate discussing his book Why Terrorism Works.

I have no point here. I'm merely reminiscing about a time when it seemed like the Left was "getting it" and I was bristling with confidence that the War on Terror would truly be fought - and fought to win. I think that lasted about three weeks.

Oops - that interview was on Salon, not Slate.

Very interesting.

I'm coming to think that almost all my thinking and blogging since 9/11 stems from my bewilderment at the reaction of the broad Left to that attack.

Of course I anticipated lots of foot-dragging, and I would never expect a Noam Chomsky to rally 'round the flag. But never did I dream there would be tens of millions of Chomsky's. Worldwide, hundreds of millions. This is serious civilizational craziness.

What followed has been five years of peeling the onion.

Old riddle; "When you peel an apple, you get to the core. What do you get when you peel an onion? Answer: Tears.

(The riddle is something I remember from an odd and interesting European art film from 1971, La Salamandre. In my youth I would occasionally go to the movies.)

Yes, I once asked rhetorically (I believe on this blog) how many Democrats Cindy Sheehan spoke for when she said, "This country isn't worth dying for." Clearly it was more than I would have thought.

Even so, the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores of the world do not bother me. I can live at peace knowing there are stupid people out there. What bothers me is that their kind consistently punch so far above their weight. They have far more influence than their numbers would suggest.

ps: I had forgotten Cindy Sheehan's name. I had to google "War Protest Mom" to find it. That is a sign of progress that made me smile.

A year ago you might have just said "Cindy," and been understood...

I believe the current custodian of Absolute Moral Authority is Obama. Or maybe Charlize Theron. It's hard to keep up.

"You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, `You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

I'm not sure how you get from that to

"It would be far better to fight—beat him up if you can—and then reach out to him and try to make him a friend."

But one thing I am sure of: far too many people take the easy way out and choose violence. As Gandhi noted, non-violence is not for cowards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you really want to discuss this, and not just jab at me and run away.

You are taking an "easy way out" by just quoting scripture and pretending you've made a decisive point. But there are lots of situations where yielding to extortion is not the Christian thing to do. (I have a sneaking suspicion that even Quakers do not yield their property to just any brute who demands it.) It is morally wrong to abet or encourage immoral or criminal acts.

In the prison example, yielding up the candy bar (besides being catastrophic folly) is morally wrong, because you are rewarding and encouraging evil. In this case the strong preying on the weak. You would bear responsibility for the damage to the soul of the bully, and also for future attacks on other weak people. You would be committing a sin.

Also, in moral choices, the virtue of Prudence is critical. At least we Catholics think so. Lots of things are good in one context or quantity, and sinful in another (think wine). You are mooting here the possibility of Christian non-violence in a situation where it would do no good, and probably do harm. (I'm extrapolating; as usual you are not saying what you actually advise or believe.) Even Gandhi carefully applied his non-violent demonstrations where they would be most efficacious, and, more importantly, chose opponents who were open to appeals to conscience. He knew the British, and how they would react.

Is violence here the "easy way out?" No, it's doing something dangerous, rather than taking the easy out (at least in the short term) of handing over the candy bar. And in doing so, it is restoring the moral order within this tiny sphere, and perhaps creating a situation where generosity or compassion could actually be helpful, rather than just confirming the hooligan in his predatory ways.

Also, of course, in this sort of situation standing firm quite likely would NOT lead to violence, but rather, the clear willingness to fight would defuse the situation and PREVENT violence. The bully probably doesn't want a hard fight, he wants to torment the weak.

Analogous things are seen all the time in the realm of nations. The whole history of our relations with the Islamic world in the decades leading up to the present conflict is stuffed with candy-bar parables. For instance, we now know that the Iranian revolutionaries had no plans to hold the American hostages for long. It was the refusal to stand up to them by Carter that led to the endless crisis. Which in turn had the expected results, advertising to a whole region that crime and extortion pay, and that the forces of law and order were hollowed out. And strengthening the position of the worst elements in Iran. Carter pretends that his policies were in the nature of Sermon-on-the-Mount Christianity, but, as so often these days, that is just a cover for nihilism and leftism. And the end result will probably be enough corpses to carpet the State of Georgia.

And I think your pacifism is just a cover too. You don't really believe it. If you did you would write. You would be writing rings around me! You fear changing your world-view, and are making excuses. But a certain journey won't even begin until you start to let go.

If I may be permitted a bit of snarkiness....?

Dave, just remember that even Christ Himself had only four cheeks.

It's a sad fact that there are some people in this world who only understand one thing and one thing only: force. You don't like it; even I don't like it. But there it is. *shrug*

You may argue that even those people can come to understand something other than force. You may be right. But the only way to get them to understand something other than force is to make it clear to them that force isn't going to get them anywhere. And until they acquire that understanding, "making nice" to them is actually doing them a disservice, and may be said to be un-Christian.

Would slavery have been abolished without warfare? Would Nazi aggression have been deflected? It's easy to preach the virtues of inaction while others pay the price.

In the War on Terror, US forces do not inflict indiscriminate slaughter on muslim populations. Our enemies do that. Islamists insist that our weakness is that we love life, and they love death. While fascists set off car bombs in crowded markets and chop the heads off busboys and truck drivers, the United States seeks to midwife prosperity and civil government in the Islamic world.

Maybe it won't work. Maybe Islam is incompatible with free enterprise and democracy. But out of love for the innocent and weak, we have to try. Should we love our fascist enemies so much that we consign a world of muslim victims to their bloody hands? And when they have had their fill of carnage among their own people and turn to us, as they promise, what should we do then?

Sorry for the double. [Your sin is as if it never was. --ed.]

What will happen? The men will fight, the Eloi will whine.

Dave, do you realize what a terrible disservice you do to your point of view when you do one of these cowardly Upbraid-And-Run attacks? You swing in, tell John how unchristian he is, and then never respond to substantive arguments. Time and time again. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing, but I can tell you that to my mind, it reinforces my belief that passifism is a psychological tool you use to feel better about yourself, and not a practical way to organize the world.