I, too, weary of the war but we are faced with something entirely new, namely the specter of "nations of eternal war" exporting that philosophy to our own shores.

G. W. Bush's attempt is to turn one of those nations away from their eternal war. Will he be successful? Don't know. Is a military strategy the correct one? Diplomacy hasn't worked in the past. What's the alternative? Enduring terrorist "successes" and responding to each one in a forceful but focused manner.

For me, living in a nation continually losing innocent lives to fanatical religious zealots is a future to horrible to contemplate and our current strategy is worth the cost.

I agree that to whatever extent our government in past actions has contributed to the current jihadist movement, it is now a cancer that must be dealt with.

What I am doing with this series of posts is trying to get to my on "principled" positions regarding appropiate actions of government and what should be the ideal nature of government, the military, and the appropriate use of war.

So you will have to bear with me. I will address current events, but primarily to explore some phliosophical distinctions. The practical needs of our current situation will come up later.

Hope I'm making myself clear.

I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say. I have always enjoyed your philosophical explorations.

I must say that as you cringe at the term "defend American interests," I cringe when someone approaches war from a philosophical angle because war is about the reality of death. Armies are designed to stop the enemy by killing people and breaking things. If there is a very real, tangible reason to do this, then the war is justified. If we must resort to philosophical musings to defend our actions, then the war is already lost. I think that "eternal wars" are built on philosophical underpinnings.

I hope you know me well enough to understand that I say this with the greatest of respect for what you write. I look forward to see how you express your thoughts.

No problem.

Hi Wit,

I've been following Ron Paul very closely, since he jumped into the race for the GOP nomination. He says some very interesting things about the nature of war and the neo-cons who've been fueling the war ideology. During the 2004 election cycle, G.W. Bush talked about defeating 'murderous ideologies.' He was referring, of course to militant Islamism. However, he's become the poster child for another murderous ideology - neo-conservatism. In a nutshell, neo-conservativism is a big-government Democrat Party politics on steroids. It believes very strongly in the power of the state and that the betterment of individuals only comes as a result of cooperation and obedience to it.

Sound familiar?

"What exactly is an "interest" and why is it a cause to go to war?"

Hello! What an odd question to see on this blog. Odder still that you honestly asked it.

From its context, I infer that you asked it because the larger part of the verbiage issuing from politicians and bureaucrats is but thickly muddled justification enshrouding an easily identifiable error. This piece of boilerplate, however, actually has meaning.

In contrast, a person has morals. He needs, loves, hurts, and dies. Organizations of men, specifically here nations, do none of these. They only have interests, determined by their current memberships. Machiavelli is reviled only because he advised a Prince in being a Prince, the embodiment of a principality, and the acceptance of that precept has been lost. He is still definitive regarding the nature of principalities, and countries.

Citing an "interest" is a refreshing bit of rigor when surrounded by sloppy, emotive, redundancies like "immoral war" which imply that a "moral war" could exist for anything except a theocracy. That said, I am well positioned to address your second question.

President Bush has great difficulty in expressing himself to us. He oversimplifies his points, I suppose attempting to make them clear to the slow witted. Unfortunately, reasonable and thoughtful people would ask "What exactly did he mean?", and we are no longer reasonable nor thoughtful.

Take, for example, "They hate us for our freedom." For a person simply seeking to be one up on the guy talking, it is easy to judge that statement as stupid, and by extrapolation so is the guy who said it. However, taking a moment to consider who "they" are, what "they" believe, it is precisely correct. "They" are devout rigorously orthodox Muslims. They believe that Sharia is Allah's law for all men. We prefer our own laws and we reject Allah's. We, therefore, are escaped criminals. Yes, they hate us for our freedom like we hate our own escaped felons from prison, and other dangerous fugitives from justice, for their freedom.

For Al-Quaeda and their like, they are actually fighting a "moral war". Jihad is blessed and demanded by Allah. All those random bombs, be-headings, and stoneings we see on the news? That's "moral war"! God said so.

Up until September 11, 2001, "they" were thousands of miles away, and all the trouble "they" caused was too. No more. "They" want to fight here. "They" proved that "they" can and will bring their "moral war" to us. This is not an honestly debatable point. "Their" words are matched by "their" deeds.

Which brings us back to our "interests" and causes for going to - not bringing, but going to - war. Explain to me why it would be a good thing for me to live in a Jihad-zone.

Thanks, Ecclesiastes.