Ross Douthat finds some here, spewed by Joshua Muravchik:
As for the neoconservatives, they have taken their lumps over the war in Iraq. Nonetheless, the tenets of neoconservatism continue to offer the most cogent approach to the challenge that faces our country. To recapitulate those tenets one last time: (1) Our struggle is moral, against an evil enemy who revels in the destruction of innocents. Knowing this can help us assess our adversaries correctly and make appropriate strategic choices. Saying it convincingly will strengthen our side and weaken theirs. (2) The conflict is global, and outcomes in one theater will affect those in others. (3) While we should always prefer nonviolent methods, the use of force will continue to be part of the struggle. (4) The spread of democracy offers an important, peaceful way to weaken our foe and reduce the need for force.
Yes, terrorism is a "moral conflict". But, it is not fought - or "countered" - that way.
The first observation is that it is a fine thing that the military is coming to understand 'jihad' broadly put, so that we don't have to listen to the endless stream of neo-con b.s. (some of which looks like a playbook for the Jewish Right's view of the 'Question of Palestine'). At the same time, it pays to steel oneself against more of their mascara analysis.From item number one above, one understands why this crew continues to be dangerously destabilizing and a threat to peace loving people everywhere.
Yes, terrorism is a "moral conflict". But, it is not fought that way.
When you understand that, you can keep from being seduced by their conclusions, especially the name-and-shame bit.
Democratic political strategists take note. This is perhaps the way to diffuse the "security is a moral imperative" argument that will be the election foundation for the none-too-human yet all-too-moral Right.
