An armed society would take care of this problem quickly. Citizens responsible for their own welfare, instead of dependent on others, would be an entirely different dynamic. The bombers and murderers would have to look out for everyone, not just a cop or a soldier. This business in Iraq should encourage a rethinking of the enervating nanny state at home, too, and all the laws that prevent or discourage ordinary Joes from defending themselves and others.

Actually there are an awful lot of rifles in Iraq. A large number of people have AK-47s left over from the disintegration of the Iraqi army. The questions are knowing whom to shoot, having the will to do so, and avoiding having the terrorists murder you, your wife and kids in retaliation. There are times when simple-minded libertarianism is neither relevant nor appropriate.

If Iraqis help us then we leave in 2005 they will be in deep trouble when the Saddamite pissants return to power or when the jihadis install the Kingdom of Allah on Earth. Neither would show any mercy to anyone they considered an opponent. The antics of the Democratic candidates trying to appeal to the activists in their party who see Bush as the AntiChrist, America as the fount of evil, but have no concern for Islamist terrorism, are not helping. They encourage the pissants and jihadis, and demoralize the rest of the Iraqis.

Of course by helping us they might prevent the installation of another tyranny and the loss of their opportunity for liberty. Unfortunately, civic courage is not necessarily a widespread virtue anywhere, and especially not in a country where anyone who showed such courage was, for over 44 years, ruthlessly killed. That's strong selective pressure. I hope the Iraqis will show this, and respond to the terrorist atacks with anger and resolve. This is their chance for liberty and decent government, maybe the only chance they will ever have. We need them to come along, so that the dysfunctional Arab/Muslim political culture which gives rise to terrorism can be reformed.

I heard on the radio that the Baathist call for a general strike in Baghdad today has been ignored. I think that's because we are making gradual progress in convincing the Iraqis we are on their side and substantial progress in improving the infrastructure. Trouble is we are making no progress that I know of in finding Saddam. Until that son-of-a-bitch has a stake through his heart, I don't think the Iraqi people will believe he isn't coming back and will, therefore, be reluctant to provide us with the intelligence we need to catch the bad guys.

Decent Iraqis must be terrified by the political news from the USA. Certainly the overall impression generated by the Democratic candidates--above and beyond any specific details--is that under a Demo president, the U.S. would leave Iraq at the drop of a hat, and without much concern for those left behind.

The irresponsible posturing of these candidates surely inhibits many Iraqis from acting against Saddam (by, say, joining the police or reporting terrorist activity)

Liberalism hasn't been mugged by the War on Terrorism. It's been dragged up a dark alley and beaten to death. It's hard to see how we can adequately combat the insurgents in Iraq without abandoning or modifying a lot of our pre-held conceptions of acceptable methods of counter-insurgency. FrontPage has an article which states that the real enemy here is not relict Ba'athists or the 100,000 criminals that Saddam released just before the war, but al Qaeda jihadists. I can't see how we can adequately fight these people without at least toppling the governments of Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran, and purging pro-jihadi elements from those other governments that are nominally US allies. But it would seem that other, more distasteful methods might be required, ones which come into conflict with our ideas of what is acceptable in fighting terror. We might need to be more severely repressive on some areas of the 'Sunni Triangle'. I've seen it mooted, for example, that we should simply raze Tikrit to the ground. That would violate the Geneva Convention on collective punishment, and if the terrorists are al Qaeda wouldn't be very effective, but it's indicative of the sort of measures that are being advocated in fairly serious circles.

What it seems is that a lot of people cannot differentiate between wars. The fall of Bagdad was the end of one type of war i.e. against the Iraqi army.
The war now being fought is the continuation of the War on Terror. There are too many similarities of terrorist behaviour to consider this one just against the remnants of Saddam's Baath party.
For example,the blowing up of an Abrams tank and the death of two of its crew is so reminiscent of Hizbollah attacks in Lebanon against Israeli tanks, and later the same attacks were applied in Gaza.
The same methods of Hamas and Islamic Jihad using the civilians as cover for operations is being used in Iraq . The Iranians trained Hizbollah by way of Syria. Hizbollah has trained the groups in Gaza and used the weapons smuggling tunnels from Egypt to get their operatives in. With such blatant behaviour and still a lot of people are trapped by the PC culture that they cannot call a spade, a spade.

"We have to develop a whole new terminology, legal principles and rules of engagement to deal with this. But can we marry this with our own cherished beliefs? Is this where liberalism gets mugged by reality?"

Spot on. If we apply western moral standards to those who have total contempt for them and see them as a weakness to be exploited, we will lose. Just as the equally disgusting WWII Japanese were turned into productive and peaceful allies by just two atom bombs, so too a show of strength is needed, one which which shows that we won't restrain ourselves with moral standards that islam doesn't respect anyway. Israel's shows of strength in the 1940's & 1950's were very effective in reducing arab terrorism; its current displays of weakness and restraint are, not surprisingly, having the opposite effect. A mass attack on Iran, Syria or Saudi, aimed at the rulers' heartlands, with minimal regard for collateral damage, would be a good start.

Virtue never stands alone. It is bound to have neighbors.

What's on your mind, if you will allow the overstatement?

The words of truth are always paradoxical.

Make all you can, save all you can, give all you can.