Reply #32: Whatever it is, it isn't a joke [View All]

There's been a lot of discussion of this question in the blogosphere. Kevin Drum talked to Ackerman (who did the TPM interview), and here's Ackerman's reply, including a quote from Anonymous:

While it’s not totally clear, I think a fair reading is that Anonymous thinks the choice we face is between more-total war and less-total war. He writes on page 250 (of my galley copy of Imperial Hubris):

So, what does it mean to be at war with Islam? First, it means we must accept this reality and act accordingly. Second, it means a U.S. policy status quo in the Muslim world ensures a gradually intensifying war for the foreseeable future, one that will be far more costly than we now imagine. Third, it means we will have to publicly address issues — support for Israel, energy self-sufficiency, and the worldwide applicability of our democracy — long neglected and certain to raise bitter, acrimonious debates that will decide whether the American way of life survives or shrinks to a crabbed, fearful, and barely recognizable form.

As that passage indicates, and as he reiterates in the portion of the interview I posted, he thinks there indeed are steps we can take to mitigate the scope of the war: namely, seeking energy independence and disengaging ourselves (to an unspecified degree) from Israel, Russia, China, India and Arab/Muslim tyrannies.

It's a bit nuanced. But I DON'T think this guy is on "our" side. He's among the hawkiest hawks out there.