Terrorism

Nu is a great Yiddish word that doesn't actually mean anything at all and therefore can mean almost anything you want it to mean. Even if I weren't Jewish, as a writer I would therefore love the word. It offers so much freedom without any of the limitations that actual definitions impose. In this respect it is kind of like modern art. 

Most of the time that I hear it used in conversation it means "so?" This can be what one on-line dictionary describes as the Yiddish equivalent of "whassup?" Or it can be more penetrating, not just a question about what's going on but one about what it all means, something covering all the territory between "huh?" and "WTF?"

Consequently, for most inquiring minds, it can play an absolutely key role, especially for those minds trying to make sense of what's going on in the world. Because the problem with most so-called journalistic coverage of what's happening on the international stage is that it covers the news without actually addressing the nus.

Fortunately however, you have me. At least once a week anyway, while I am writing my book. (Which you could pre-order just like you did Sarah Palin's book if a.) My book had a title and b.) You had actually ordered Sarah Palin's book which I am absolutely certain you did not. Because if you were so inclined I am sure I would have lost you up there at the top somewhere between the word "Yiddish" and the word "whassup?")

This week was particularly rich with nus. And therefore, I thought I would take a moment or two and review some of them with you. You know, to help you grok it all.

So, here goes:

• You've got to admire Eric Holder's intentions with regard to bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial in New York City. We are a nation of laws and our system of laws ought to be up to any test, even one this onerous. Personally, I believe it is. That said, this decision could haunt not just Holder but the country. If defense attorneys argue, as they will, that Mohammed was tortured repeatedly, it could create a profound moral and legal conundrum. Because by some definitions (including my own) he actually was tortured. And if it is concluded that this constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of U.S. constitutional precepts and international law, how will a judge handle it? How will the nation handle it? What do we value more, the law or justice? This is troubling territory and I believe it is politically treacherous ... but it is an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that we are once again committed to holding ourselves accountable to the highest standards in all circumstances. Were we to do this, for all his wrong-doing, Mohammed will be providing the United States with an opportunity of incalculable value.
• When we look back on this past week, there will be a temptation to say it's the week that Barack Obama's Afghan policy deliberations jumped the shark. The fact that he had what was billed as a final discussion regarding four policy options that then produced his apparent rejection of the four and his call for a new set of ideas based on new parameters is being described as proof that his national security decision-making process is flawed. The fact that shortly afterwards two cables from the U.S. envoy in Kabul were leaked indicating his discomfort with sending in more troops so long as the Afghan government remains so unreliable didn't help the picture. But let's go beneath the surface a little...
• Ok, the policy process is clearly flawed. But while we focus on what's broken now, it seems indisputable that the bigger breakdown was actually earlier this year when the administration originally defined its Afghan goals. While the process may be moving too slowly, fitfully and indecisively now, the greater problem is it moved too quickly with too little analysis back then. The Spring's policy was too based on campaign rhetoric and not sufficiently based on a careful assessment of the situation on the ground. It led McChrystal to his conclusions.  It put them in the box they are in now. 
• The reality is that the outcome of Wednesday's meeting was actually the best one we could hope for. Because the president saw the options he had as flawed and shifted the emphasis...underscored later by press secretary Robert Gibbs ... to the exit strategy. He moved the discussion from "what we should do in Afghanistan" to where it should be: "what we can do in Afghanistan." And the only goal we can unquestionably meet is leaving. Think about it: to succeed in transforming the political situation on the ground we would need a commitment of many years, tens of thousands of more troops, tens of billions more dollars, a strong and cooperative ally in Kabul, committed international partners and an enemy that wasn't willing to wait us out. Of those conditions, none are likely to be met.  So figuring out how to exit while remaining positioned to deal with acute regional threats makes great sense. 
• Which brings us to Washington's favorite parlor game of the week: figuring out who leaked the Eikenberry cables. The smart money is on the White House which sees these memos (which conveniently come from an ambassador who is a former on-the-ground commander in Afghanistan) as a way to justify its shift to new goals and to offset the orchestrated leaks from the McChrystal side. For those of you who bought in to the notion of the unprecedented discipline of the Obama team, sorry for the rude awakening.  While the focus should be on the ground war, Washington is once again engaged in a war of leaks.  This is not a weaknesses of the Obama Administration per se...it is more a fact of life given the culture of Washington.
• On other fronts, the White House responded to 10.2 percent unemployment by calling for a jobs summit in December. This is one of the classic responses of a government that doesn't yet have a substantive plan for what to do. It is troubling that another such classic response is to appoint a czar. In both cases the focus is on creating the illusion of action.  Even the president seemed to recognize this when he tried to temper expectations for outcomes from the summit he announced.
• The third in the great trinity of kabuki policy outcomes is to follow a meeting with the call for another meeting. According to recent statements from Secretary of State Clinton and Climate Negotiator Todd Stern, this seems to be where we are headed with the global climate talks despite their tireless efforts to the contrary. We'll try to hammer out something as a temporary face-saver for Copenhagen and then we'll resume doing what we're doing now ... trying to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing world with regard to setting emissions targets and figuring out who is going to pay for fixing what's broke.
• On that front, read the provocative piece in Rolling Stone by Naomi Klein about the issue of "climate debt." Here's my partial solution. The developed world really does have to foot a goodly part of the bill for changes in the developing world related to climate...since we created the problem they did not. We also have limited resources and need to create jobs. Why don't countries like the United States create Green Trade Banks that provide cheap, long-term financing for green energy and climate related projects in the developing world ... provided that the projects involve content from the United States. We generate jobs. They get the capital and the technology we need.
• Think the Chinese are going to lag the U.S. on adapting to climate? See this article on a new study from the government support CCICED arguing that China should cut its emissions 4 to 5 percent per year from now through 2050.
• While college football still can't get its act together for a playoff system to pick a national champion...even with President Obama's strong endorsement of a change...we here at FP hear what the people want. That's why I will soon unveil the brackets for the year 2009 Chutzpah Bowl, pairing off category champions to see who deserves the title of world chutzpah champion. Among the contenders this week: Lloyd Blankfein for his "doing God's work" comment, Eliot Spitzer for going to Harvard this week to give a speech on ethics, Harvard for producing graduates like Eliot Spitzer and then hosting a conference on ethics, and CNN's lost but unlamented Lou Dobbs ... another Harvard grad ... for his years of Mexican-bashing despite the well-known fact that his wife is Mexican-American.  Unlike Lou, we're not xenophobic though so don't worry, the complete brackets will include plenty of non-American contenders. 
• Finally, it tells you everything you need to know about American television that the guy Comcast is reportedly picking to head up NBC/Universal should its acquisition of the media company from GE go through is none other than Jeff Zucker, whose most recent stroke of genius was moving Jay Leno to prime time, a brainstorm that will rank right up with there with "New Coke" among the most bone-headed moves in American business history. 

Well, that's all the insight I can muster this week. Must get back to my book. If only I could figure out as Sarah Palin did how to sell hundreds of thousands of books to an audience primarily comprised of people who can't or won't read. It would take so much pressure off me...

NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images

One message that seems to have been sent by the Obama administration thus far: If you challenge us, we will reward you. If you abuse us, we will reward you a lot. But don't think we're going soft. Beware: If you are a friend or a needed ally, we will punish you. (Or is that three messages?)

It is of course, my hope that this is all inadvertent or better yet, part of some grand plan that can't be understood without the proper security clearances. Or maybe it is just "learning curve behavior." But in any case, the facts to date are unsettling.

Russia undercuts our efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear program. Our response: dismantle the missile shield we had contemplated for Eastern Europe.

Hamid Karzai diddles the elections, abuses his people, and is openly corrupt. Our response: let's discuss how many more troops we want to send in to Afghanistan to help strengthen his power base and while we're at it, let's spend billions on doing work building his nation.

Pakistan limits our ability to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda within their borders, limits our ability to gain credit for aid flows to the country while promoting the interests of radical muslim donors and we open the spigots wider.

North Korea pushes forward with weapons programs and rattles its saber regularly and we seek new channels to discuss ways we can deepen our relationship after each calculated taunt.

Myanmar extends the prison term of Aung San Suu Kyi on trumped up charges and we send a high level emissary.

Iran crushes legitimate opposition, the regime steals and election, it lies for decades about its nuclear program, it strengthens its military capability and calls for destruction of Israel and we announce further talks despite their insistence none of the issues most important for us to discuss are open to discussion. Push us harder through arms collaboration with Russia and we remove the threat of that missile defense.

Meanwhile, our one dependable ally in the Middle East, Israel, faces an unprecedented squeeze, our most dependable ally on Venezuela's border, Colombia, can't get even a modest trade deal finalized, the Poles and the Czechs get the rug pulled out from under them, and so on. We need China more than ever to help with Iran after Russia has gone on the record as seeking a divergent outcome ... not to mention needing movement from them on issues like climate and global economic cooperation ... and what do we do? Slap them with unnecessary, hard-to-defend duties on imported tires.

It's the same here at home. No one fears crossing the Obama administration because the two most likely outcomes are either no retaliation or rewards. (Ask Senator Grassley, who gets concessions by the boatload but still refuses to play along, to name just one.)

I'm just sayin'...

Engagement is a worthy goal. The missile shield was probably of dubious value at best (especially when we started to define it in terms of our own sham cover story that it was all about Iran and not about the real longer term threat, Russia). Defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda and seeking greater stability in Pakistan or Afghanistan ... or Israel and neighboring regions. Indeed, I am a pretty enthusiastic supporter of what I understand the outlines and objectives of the Obama administration's foreign policy to be.

But after a while, independent or uncoordinated actions become patterns and patterns send messages. Are we so isolated from Russia today that we have pushed from memory Pavlov and all that smart stuff he and his dog taught us about conditioned response? Even if that's the case, I thought this team was close to Oprah. Couldn't she or her house shrink Dr. Phil point out what happens when abusive behavior is rewarded?

I know it's still early in the administration. And I remain resolutely hopeful. But as a general rule, I take it as a warning sign when Dr. Phil is in any position to offer useful insights regarding U.S. foreign policy. Worse still, we know what happens to people who fail to heed his advice. They end up on the Maury show. That's no place for a U.S. foreign policy ... all toothless and disoriented, throwing chairs and being accused of fathering outcomes we don't want any part of.

Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images

Frankly, on those few occasions when I imagine Osama bin Laden I prefer to envision him wasting away from some bat-borne illness he picked up in the caves he frequents. That's why thinking of him sitting there flipping through his well-thumbed copy of Walt and Mearsheimer's tedious tome is almost satisfying. Really, who knew there was a Death-to-Israel Book Club? But even more satisfying than thinking of Bin Laden drifting off somewhere between The Israel Lobby's recitation of the obvious and its misreading of America's challenges in the Middle East, was Walt's exquisite response on the FP site.  

While I'm tempted to leave well enough alone, it's hard to ignore the significance of Osama embracing Walt and Mearsheimer's theories. What could better illustrate that the book possesses all the internal logic of an al Qaeda press release than the mere fact of this intellectual love connection?

And what could I write about this development that would be more of a revealing indictment of the Walt-Mearsheimer approach than Walt's own efforts to fend off a big wet one from al Qaeda's head maniac? Watch him twist slowly in a noose of his own manufacture as he begins his response with a brief disavowal and then uses his Osama Moment to move quickly into a reassertion of his own theory. Once again, he recites the list of others who have mentioned that there was an Israel lobby without yet noting that this is simply evidence that his principal conclusion offered nothing new. 

Walt's response gets really good when he then goes so far as to suggest that Osama's embrace of his book only proves his point that the Israel lobby (or is it The Israel Lobby?) is used as a justification by terrorists. Blind to the irony all his book did was weave precisely the kind of fabric of partial truths and old biases that are used to dress up the hatreds of demagogues everywhere, Walt actually has the chutzpah to try use the news that the most evil man in the world is reading his work as a soap box from which to once again sell his argument (and books).   

Of course, even more disturbing to me than the fact that Bin Laden has now been given the opportunity to suggest that he has found support for his arguments from "prestigious academics" is of course, that not just terrorists are reading this book or buying its conclusions. The cold hard fact is that Walt and Mearsheimer have won the moment here in Washington. The United States is getting tougher with Israel and more open to Hamas and their supporters in the Arab world. We are seeking "balance" in the name of "realism." There are two prevailing groups who are driving the argument at the moment: those who see moral equivalency between the Israelis and the Palestinians (see yesterday's "war crimes" report) and those who think the Israelis are worse. 

Walt and Mearsheimer have achieved a near miracle, creating one thing on which both the current Washington establishment and Bin Laden can agree on. Bad as that may sound, at worst I think that is a mixed blessing. Because in the end there's only one sure way to undercut such theories, and that's to try to put them into action.  

Fortunately for all of us, the ultimate antidote to "realism" is reality.  

Which is why I am advising my Israeli and pro-Israel friends to put the Jew back into Jiu Jitsu. (We talk that way to each other at World Jewish Conspiracy meetings.) Let's see what happens when the United States distances itself further from Israel, when we beat up on them and embrace the Palestinians and their "allies" elsewhere in the region ... soon enough we will see that we ended up in support of Israel not because of the power of the Israel lobby or America's deep love of the Jews (hold on while I choke back my own laughter at that idea), but because they were the only country in the region that actually was a suitable and dependable ally and that as big a problem as the Israelis may have been for the long-suffering Palestinians, the Arabs have been as bad or worse. All that's even more true today. So, Israel should go along with the new approach (careful to defend itself against imminent threats, of course) and let Hamas and Ahmadinejad do the heavy lifting when it comes to disproving the whimsy of the realists that all it will take is for us to make nice with the Arab world and all will be well. And at the same time, by losing this argument big time, those who are supporters of Israel will (once again) prove their own weakness in the U.S. political process. 

In other words, go on, try "realism." Make my day. It's the best possible way to discredit Osama, Hamas, Ahmadinejad, Walt and Mearsheimer all at once. 

Now, before I conclude, I have to admit that at least on one level, I do have a little sympathy for Walt. My last book, Superclass, actually attracted a bunch of the same kind of folks who read his work, conspiracy theorists who, much as Walt did himself, start out with a conclusion and then look for evidence to support it (while carefully avoiding countervailing facts). It took me a long time to come to grips with the existence of this readership and realize that even though, in the end, my book disappointed them because it really sought to debunk most of their crazed theories, I played a role in attracting them to the book. I was responsible. And so it is that one can only hope that on some level, this most recent development will help Walt and Mearsheimer come to grips with one of the toughest truths any author can grapple with.

Every book gets the readers it deserves.

AFP/Getty Images

And Dick Cheney thinks he knows something about terror. Republican terror threats are for sissies. Even Tom Ridge is willing to admit ... some of the time ... that they kinda-sorta-maybe were overblown. (Ridge's now-you-see-em-now-you-don't revelations have permanently damaged him. Either he screwed up back in the day by caving to pressure to elevate the threat level or he has screwed up by misrepresenting the situation in his memoirs or he screwed up most recently by caving to pressure to back off the "explosive" admissions that he thought would sell enough books to pay for his retirement.) 

But Democrats have all the luck. They didn't want a national terror threat. They don't even like talking about the "war on terror" (most of the time). But they've got a doozy brewing that makes the country's post-9/11 post traumatic stress disorder induced inclination to look for a terrorist behind every potted palm look mild by comparison.

Yesterday, I walked across the campus of Columbia University in New York and amid the light blue and white balloons and banners fluttering in welcome of new students, amid the registration tables and the orientation sign-up booths, every so often there were large Purell dispensers. No explanatory signs. No instructions, just big honking containers of disinfectant crying out to every passerby to stop and make that next handshake a safer one. The absence of signs made it all the more ominous. Signs weren't necessary as they once were along highways when people were asked to call in and report "suspicious activity."

While this threat was as hard to see as was the one that had the Bushies in a swivet, you didn't need Karl Rove's classified Ouija board to magnify this one, a microscope would do. 

The other day a dean at a major DC-area academic institution indicated that he and others on his team had spent much of the summer developing the distance learning protocols they would employ if H1N1 virus required them to shut down their campus and send everyone home. At around the same time, I received an email from the college one of my daughters attends explaining just how they would tackle swine flu. Today, the city of New York, a city now reporting that perhaps 800,000 of its citizens caught the disease in the first phase of its appearance, announced a new set of guidelines for how they would handle the disease as it appeared again this flu season.

Estimates suggest that perhaps as many as 90,000 Americans could die of the disease this next time around. That may be high. Estimates of the severity of this pandemic have been inconsistent and fortunately, thus far the illness has not taken an extreme toll. But the nervousness is palpable. For example, take this CBS story of a school district in Long Island that has banned touching for the foreseeable future (of course, just after my daughters leave high school is when they decide to ban touching!)

Chest bumps. High fives. Hugs and handshakes. Glen Cove Middle School students Ali Slaughter and Hannah Seltzer say that's what friends do on the first day of school. But when students in the Nassau community return to school next week, the superintendent will be urging abstinence. Everyone from the tiniest tots to the biggest high school football players will be asked to limit skin-on-skin contact in an attempt to prevent the spread of swine flu when it re-emerges this fall.

Thus far, it seems authorities worldwide have responded swiftly to the pandemic and, even if it seems like they are over-reacting, their caution is not misplaced. Flu annually kills 250,000-500,000 people worldwide each year, 36,000 in the United States. And that's not when a particularly virulent strain comes along, such as the 1918 pandemic that killed perhaps 50-100 million people and infected perhaps 500 million.

The 9/11 attacks claimed fewer people than would die worldwide of flu on the average weekend. So, it is quite clear that the current invisible threat is a lot worse than the old invisible threat. But there is another way to look at all this. First, it casts the current health care debate in a different light. Having 50 million people who don't have health insurance (thus more reluctant to see a doctor and more inclined to seek free emergency room treatment) puts everyone else at greater risk. Having hospitals teetering near insolvency and cutting back services does likewise. When you think about the real threats to our homeland security a broken health system (especially in the context of the threats of not just epidemics but biological or WMD attacks) may be at the top of the list.

Next, if this epidemic gets as severe as some people worry, it'll very quickly overshadow Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the financial crisis. It'll become Obama's war and, absent a crisp, orderly, sustained response, his Katrina. There's no sign that's happening yet. It may not rise to that level. The response may be excellent and it could be one of the decisive factors in the 2010 elections in either case. But for the first time in years, a nation that has come to view threat level Orange as normal has started to get edgy over something bigger. Tell me Mr. Ridge, what color should we use to indicate to everyone that the threat could be real?

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Reports late today that Attorney General Eric Holder is appointing career Justice Department prosecutor John Durham to investigate whether CIA interrogators may have tortured detainees in violation of the law have stirred the predictable outcries. 

From Capitol Hill, a collection of Republican Senators produced a letter saying, "The intelligence community will be left to wonder whether actions taken today in the interest of national security will be subject to legal recriminations when the political winds shift." Rumors even swirled that renewed scrutiny of the agency's activities had CIA Director Leon Panetta threatening to resign, though the White House rejected them as unfounded. 

Here's the reality: the Senators who sent up the protest letter have a point. The law should not be allowed to be tossed and twisted with every new breeze of public opinion. The law is the law. And if one administration misinterprets public outrage at a crime like a terror attack as license to overlook the law or to bend it to suit the mood of the moment, it is not an option for the next administration to question that action ... it is an obligation. The whole point of having a legal system is to have objective standards by which to define acceptable parameters of behavior. 

No employee of the CIA has anything to fear if they acted within those objective standards. If the investigation demonstrates that anyone in the government misinterpreted the law for whatever reason and acted in violation of those laws, their actions should be evaluated within the context of the justice system. If they had good legal advice and acted within a reasonable interpretation of the law, then they have nothing to fear. 

Those who fear the investigation are revealing their lack of faith in our justice system ... a trait that happens to have been shared by those who went beyond the boundaries of that system in the name of justice. With some luck the investigation will remind them that by suggesting justice may lie outside those boundaries or by suggesting that fundamental rights may be waived due to circumstances they do more damage to the system than those they were interrogating were capable of.

My only concern: that by defining the investigation too narrowly, the rank and file of the CIA will be sacrificed while those who insisted the laws be bent, broken and ignored will be free to walk away, perhaps even complaining from the sidelines about the process. If this investigation finds violations of the law, we can only hope that the well-respected Durham will follow the actions in question through to their origins and not prosecute foot-soldiers for the violations of their most senior leaders.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The New York Times is getting beat up regularly these days. So, let's take a minute and comment on the continuing high quality of its reporting in Pakistan. There could be few more important stories. There could be few places where it is tougher to report. And yet, week after week, they produce insightful pieces that offer valuable insights into this nation that is ally, warzone, and threat all blended together.

Today's example is the story "70 Murders Yet Close to Going Free in Pakistan" by Sabrina Tavernise and Waqar Gillani. It uses the story of how one of Pakistan's most dangerous extremist leaders is likely to escape multiple murder charges scot-free to illustrate the deep flaws within the Pakistani justice system and the perverse partnership between Pakistani authorities and some very dangerous characters and organizations. (Jane Perlez's story from earlier last month, on how hard a time the United States was having getting its aid dollars distributed in conjunction with our very unappreciative seeming Pakistani "allies," is another such example. And there are plenty of others.)

These stories drive home the message that Pakistani society is hugely complex and deeply conflicted, that this is a largely dysfunctional country in which a modicum of political unrest is the best one can hope for during the foreseeable future. They remind us why it has been conventional wisdom for several years now that this is the most dangerous country in the world. 

They also underscore the absolute fallacy that every nation is "entitled" to its own nuclear program. (And they underscore why we will someday look to the Bush administration's complete caving on sanctioning Pakistan for developing its nuclear program in order to win a strategic advantage in the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban, a mirage at best, as perhaps the biggest of all its big foreign policy errors.) No society allows everyone access to firearms ... even the gun promiscuous USA. We deny weapons to minors, criminals, and the mentally unstable. We limit their ownership to people who have "proven" they can manage them. And look how that's working for us. Not so well. Is it really reasonable that there should be a lower standard for "permitting" the development of nuclear programs? 

The threat of Pakistan is primarily a regional one, unless a portion of its nuclear arsenal falls into the wrong hands. That would create a potential catastrophe to be sure. It's a high-risk scenario with an outcome that should have the United States on guard. But is Pakistan really the most dangerous country in the world?

It comes to mind as one of the other countries that I think is among the world's most dangerous, Russia, has been rattling its rusty sabers more frequently recently. There was the story the other day about its submarines off the U.S. coast, the not so comforting rebuttal today by one of its top generals, its recent naval exercises with the Iranians, its generally non-constructive attitude toward dealing with the Iranian nuclear problem, its belligerent rumblings throughout its near abroad ... the list goes on. And this is a country that has the ability, as the submarine (and earlier strategic bomber readiness) stories suggest, to project force anywhere in the world. It is also a country that has the political clout and through its natural resources the economic clout to become something between a difficult rival for the U.S. and a permanent spanner in the works of the international system. (For a very good take on Russia, see today's op-ed by one of our best experts on the country, Steve Sestanovich, in the Washington Post.)

Despite a new State Department intel estimate saying that the Russian military is less capable of projecting force than it was and is moving toward a "smaller more technical force", it still has a vastly more potent nuclear capability than all but one countries and a vastly more potent military than all but a tiny handful. Such assessments need to therefore be taken in context and always capabilities need to be multiplied by the will to use them in risk calculations.

Russia also has, as Joe Biden impoliticly noted, some problems that could be complicating factors. In short, the bear has the wolf at its door-demographically and economically. Biden interpreted these as factors that might weaken Russia. But they are also the kind of factors that often inspire leaders to dangerous postures and strategies. What is weakening Russia is simultaneously making the country more dangerous.

I know this is not a popular view. But it seems very likely to me that on more fronts and in bigger ways, Russia could be a bigger problem for the U.S. and for the world at large over the next decade or two than Pakistan.

Which begs the question: Which is the most dangerous country in the world? I'll try to answer that tomorrow.

A Majeed/AFP/Getty Images

Today Hillary Clinton made a statement in Thailand that the United States would work to create a defensive shield to help protect Gulf allies from a potential Iranian nuclear threat. Her point is that Iran should not think creating nukes will give them a strategic advantage because we will work relentlessly to blunt any edge nukes might provide.

Seems reasonable enough. Not surprisingly though, Clinton's comments landed in Jerusalem like a dud scud. According to Agence France Presse, Israel's Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor responded:

I heard without enthusiasm the American declarations according to which the United States will defend their allies in the event that Iran uses nuclear weapons, as if they were already resigned to such a possibility. This is a mistake. We cannot act now by assuming that Iran will be able to arm itself with a nuclear weapon, but to prevent such a possibility."

I also agree with this view. That's what I like about the Middle East. It's rife with complexities and no issue has fewer than three sides. What I don't like much about the Middle East is when it becomes, as it often does, that magical fantasy land where passions can be applied to fantasies to produce facts ... or where the insupportable is often the unshakable foundation of absolute certitude. (Which explains a number of religious developments in the region ... but I will gingerly sidestep that discussion for now.)

My recent post on shifting attitudes in Israel and the United States regarding the relationship between the two countries produced among those commenting on it a host of really interesting comments from all over the spectrum ... and some of the nasty/loony stuff we could all do without. 

Of course, item number one in this latter category is racism or prejudice of any sort against any group. Examples of this were visible in a number of the comments, sometimes boldly, sometimes insidiously. The big winner in the makes-ya-wanna-barf contest came from a guy named "briand" who, in reference to a rather overheated pro-Israeli post by AllanGreen, wrote, "If this is parody, kudos! I think the thing I'll miss the most about you Jews is your sense of humor. Not so much the apartheid/lebensraum mentality though." Scroll on through the comments ... there's lots of hatred there, in and among some fairly thoughtful arguments for one side or another.  

Another commenting technique that drives me up a wall is imputing views to me (for whatever reason) that I don't actually hold. For example: I'm no fan of the settlements, think they ought to be dismantled, am not a Zionist, don't support the views of the Likud, and based on his track record to date am no Bibi fan. I also don't think that taking a tough stand against the Iranian nuclear program implies the need to attack and lay waste to Iran. Rather, we need an international program of inspections and enforcement that explicitly asserts the right to use force to compel compliance and offers a multilateral guarantee of providing that force. (Not just in the case of Iran, by the way, but in the case of all future signatories of the new NPT we will start negotiating next year ... an NPT that should offer the framework within which the deal with Iran ought to be included.) 

Another aggravating approach which often undercuts otherwise reasonable arguments is making insupportable assertions. For example, one reader argued that Israel had Iran and Ahmadinejad all wrong, that the Iranian president's comments about destroying Israel were really a deliberate, unfair misquoting of him and that by extension; Israel had nothing to fear from Tehran. Really? Aren't we forgetting 30 years of official pronouncements or the guy who chants "death to Israel" at afternoon prayers? I think it was the same reader who argued another reason to chill out about any potential Iranian threat was that Iran has not attacked anyone in 250 years. This overlooked, as another reader pointed out, the fact that the country has for decades been the world's leading state sponsor of terror...which ought to count for something.    

In this vein, one of the most popular insupportable assertions is that somehow solving the settlements problem or even the larger Israel-Palestinian problem will in turn solve or contribute greatly to solutions for all our other problems in the Middle East -- this despite the fact that many of the biggest problems in the region antedate the founding of Israel by a number of centuries.

In the interest of dispelling this misconception, here, off the top of my head, are 15 major problems in the Middle East that would not be solved by solving the Israeli-Palestinian dispute:

1. The Iranian nuclear program
2. The regional arms race that may be triggered by the advancement of the Iranian nuclear program
3. The Saudi succession problem
4. The problems associated with getting Shias, Sunnis and Kurds to get along in Iraq
5. The problems associated with possible Kurdish succession from Iraq and Turkey
6. The Egyptian succession problem
7. The battle between moderates and hard-liners in Iran
8. Our dependency on Middle Eastern oil and its economic, political and environmental consequences
9. The efforts of Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremists to assert their influence in Afghanistan
10. The efforts of Taliban, al Qaeda and other extremists to assert their influence in Pakistan
11.  Anti-U.S. and anti-Western terrorism not associated with Israel but with the promotion and expansion of Western cultural values and perceived global inequalities
12. The ability of the Palestinians to form a stable, working state with functioning political processes
13. The historic competition for resources in the region including, increasingly, water
14. The conflict between Hezbollah and pro-Western political groups to gain a foothold in Lebanon
15. Israel's historical tensions with Syria, Iran, and virtually every other major Arab state

This doesn't include related issues like the tensions between extremist or tribal Islamic groups with roots in the region and Russia, China, and other bordering countries. Perhaps you have others, feel free to add. (Just try to restrain yourself if you feel the impulse to make a comment that uses as its primary source The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.)

Dismantle the settlements. Create two states. Create an internationally monitored buffer between those states. Let billions in aid flow in to help relieve the plight of the Palestinians. Please, do all these things. They are all long overdue. But know this: They may remove an irritant, they may remove an argument from extremists, they may put U.S. relations on a more even footing with other countries in the region. But they won't make the Middle East appreciably less dangerous or difficult and I guarantee you, they won't stop efforts by the countries of the region to continue to scapegoat, confront and battle Israel on countless other pretexts.

David Silverman/Getty Images

The U.S. Congress has their knickers in a twist because apparently the C.I.A. kept from them plans associated with a program designed to kill off al Qaeda leaders. While I think the Congress is right to be disturbed by this apparent cover-up -- and they should go after whomever may have violated the law by keeping the program from them -- it seems to me we're missing the point here.

Shouldn't we be at least equally concerned that in the eight years since the 9/11 attacks, the C.I.A. couldn't get its act together sufficiently to actually deploy the program to kill the al Qaeda leaders we intended to target? If there was ever an instance where the covert use of force was utterly justified it was in hunting down and killing this enemy.

In today's New York Times story "C.I.A. Had Plan to Assassinate Al Qaeda Leaders," the reasons the program got bogged down are laid out. Bureaucratic debates about whether it would be legal to employ such methods are perhaps inevitable and frankly, I'm all for having checks in our system that actually indicate a respect for the rule of law. But let's be serious, we find it is ok to violate national sovereignty with unmanned aircraft but not with people? It's ok to use those unmanned aircraft to fire missiles at bad guys that may or may not blow up dozens of innocent by-standers but it is not ok to undertake an approach where such collateral damage is even less likely? This is through-the-looking-glass legalism, so twisted and absurd that it must be about something else.

One hopes it is not about another reason the plan was difficult which is offered in the article -- the difficulty of figuring out where to base such operations. It is easy for anyone who has been in the U.S. government to imagine such a discussion ... but I wouldn't advise it. Because it makes your head want to explode.

Which brings us to the real problem. It's reflected in the quote: "It sounds great in the movies but when you do it, it's not that easy." Clearly, the concern was that the operation would fail and in failing it would be an embarrassment. But, who said these things were supposed to be easy? They are clearly as difficult as any operations the government can undertake. But when you are confronted by an enemy who uses foreign sovereignty and the presence of innocents for cover, such initiatives are essential.

Yes, it's hard, risky and will put U.S. lives and our national reputation on the line. So too is winning a land war in Afghanistan. So too is working with a divided, complex, unreliable ally like Pakistan. So too is trying to achieve anything on the shifting sands of the Middle East. 

Also very difficult and very risky is coordinating an attack on the other side of the world that involves multiple hijackings and airborne attacks on major U.S. targets. So too will be the WMD attack that will inevitably change the nature of the war on terror. In other words, this is a different kind of enemy. It doesn't help matters that the Bush administration overstated the risks from this enemy, bungled the war against them and sought to use national panic over this real risk to justify extraneous and calamitous missions. But as President Obama has been clear, that doesn't mean the threat from al Qaeda and similar groups has abated. Drones have an important role to play, especially in areas in which the risks of collateral damage are more limited. More densely populated areas provide a different kind of cover that requires a different kind of solution. 

The CIA needs to report as the law requires to the Congress. But the U.S. intelligence community needs the ability to do what this program reportedly intended to do. Killing the program wasn't the right response. Redoubling efforts to make it work would have been.

Mark Wilson/Getty Images