Yglesias laments that many politicos still haven’t learned it:
I’m strongly inclined to believe that political actors are much too eager to believe that the aggressive use of military force will accomplish their objectives, and also inclined to believe that political actors are much too eager to believe that bloodshed is morally justifiable.
Being chastened is not something Washington ever does well.
The five hundred most common passwords.
(Hat tip: Slog)
"The great misfortune of newspapers in this era is that they were such a good idea for such a long time that people felt the newspaper business model was part of a deep truth about the world, rather than just the way things happened to be. It’s like the fall of communism, where a lot of the eastern European satellite states had an easier time because there were still people alive who remembered life before the Soviet Union – nobody in Russia remembered it. Newspaper people are like Russians, in a way," – Clay Shirky, the Guardian.
Meanwhile, my colleague Michael Hirschorn has a must-read piece on how the NYT could possibly survive the next few years. It’s a grim set of options.
For my part, I really hope the dead-tree edition doesn’t die. I’m an early adopter of techy shit and was blogging for years before most people knew what a blog was. But every morning, I still take an hour with the dead-tree NYT, some fresh coffee and a box of ginger snaps. It’s a ritual I’ve maintained for twenty years, but actually feel more grateful for now in the age of the web than before. There is something deeply precious about letting expert editors guide you through the news of the day. I find and read stories serendipitously I would never find online. And I read them through because I trust the editors to have done their job. Yes, you wince and splutter from time to time. But most of the time, even the NYT’s critics will concede they also learn a huge amount. Under Bill Keller, I have fallen in love with the paper all over again. And I hope they figure out a way to keep it afloat.
VDH:
To decouple Hamas and Gaza from Arab solidarity, to strengthen in comparison the PA, to discredit somewhat the value of being an Iranian proxy, to reestablish credibility in the IDF and to curb (though unfortunately not end entirely) rocket barrages into Israel, and to establish a future paradigm of overwhelming response to Hamas provocations.
He thinks withdrawal is imminent.
Seattle, Washington, 11.30 am.
"Over the past eight years, Bush has done more to undermine conservatism than all of the country’s college faculties, elite media and Hollywood studios put together… Conservatism’s core values rested on notions of a strong national defense and free market economics. Bush has punctured these ideas in a way that transcends the effects of historically anomalous scandals such as Watergate or Clinton’s extramarital affairs. Bush has not only dinged the conservative car, he has totaled it," – Joel Kotkin, Politico.
Marc ponders a truth commission. Some seem to think this is an act of retribution. Actually, it would be a path deliberately avoiding retribution. It would seek transparency and accountability for those acts committed by the Bush administration that crossed the line of core human rights. It would do so as a way to prove that the United States is returning to the rule of law and to the moral norms of international behavior that the US itself pioneered. Prosecutions will probably happen anyway as evidence of war crimes increases as the Bush administration recedes (insiders will be much less afraid of whistle-blowing, as time goes by). It’s not as if DOJ can simply ignore evidence of criminality in government:
Obama might not be able to stop Justice from prosecuting CIA officers. If investigations are initiated, the White House can’t very well intervene to stop them. It is tempting to think that Obama is granting himself plausible deniability here; the White House can express its opposition to prosecution but say that the U.S. Attorneys’ independence is a cornerstone of our legal system, and nothing can be done.
By setting up a truly independent body, bipartisan, above reproach, on the lines of the 9/11 Commission, Obama could insist that his presidential emphasis is on accountability – and not in any way partisanship or revenge.
The response to violence is, I think, at the core of today’s conservative divide. A reader writes:
A reflexive abhorrence of violence of all kinds (war, torture, even the death penalty and abortion) is inherently conservative – part of any meaningful definition of conservatism. War may be a necessary evil, but a real conservative gives that idea more than lip service – he or she feels the abhorrence in the bones (a feeling that let us down and gave way to excitement for too many of us in the lead up to Iraq).
But all conservatives (and more than just the neocons) obviously wouldn’t agree with that definition. Part of the confusion, at least superficially, is that military spending during the cold war was one of the defining issues of the Reagan conservative revolution. Far from being a pro-war position, though, the whole point of buying so many weapons was to never actually use them. That’s all changed.
I think of Reagan as a conservative of non-violence. I know that’s a contestable statement – Grenada, Libya, the contras, etc. – but a conservatism of nonviolence need not be pacifist or unaware of the 
prudent use of force. But deep down, a conservative wants peace and is content only with peace. Reagan proved this in his second term. He hated nuclear weapons. Once there was a crack in the Soviet empire, he leaped to take advantage of it. He dreamed of a world at peace. This was his vision of the future of mankind.
It is not the dream of some neconservatives, for whom war is the only state of being that brings out public virtu. And constant war to advance what is seen as the good – and stiffen domestic sinews – is something devoutly to be wished. Cheney is a conservative of this stripe. Eisenhower was the opposite. McCain is a warrior; Ron Paul is a conservative of non-violence. At some deep philosophical level, this is the dividing line between Oakeshott and Strauss, as well. (And one has to ponder how Zionism may have contributed to this divide.)
I stand with Oakeshott and Eisenhower. Somehow, we have to recover the prudent, non-pacifist conservatism of non-violence and freedom. If not in America, where?
Steve Coll dissents on Panetta.
One of those eternal blog-spats that gives you a reason to get up in the morning. Or did I just reveal too much about my pitiful life?
The Dish 