If what they advocate is implemented, and causes widespread death and destruction, I would be willing to petition the ICC to see them tried for that crime, given that they are being warned. They have no right to call themselves peace advocates if they advocate a path that will cause war, not peace. You may not like those arguments, but that hardly is an indication that I've outlived my "usefulness".

On what legal basis can you petition the ICC for the "crime of non-intervention"?

Why not "indict" the peace advocates for non-intervention in North Korea, or Burma, or [pick a place] . . . ?

I know you understand the concept of "causation". So are you suggesting that because Afghanistan wasn't in a state of war by international legal definition prior to America being "invited" in, and because it isn't in one now and presumably not being legally occupied by America, that should America leave militarily any "civil war" that arises absent our presence, is the fault of the "peace advocates"?

In alternate forms: x wasn't at war, x isn't in a state of war now nor being occupied by legal definition, but if x is legally defined as being at war subsequent to our departure, then it's the fault of the non-interventionists? (it wasn't broken before, but we intereveneed and did break it but not illegally, it is broken now but not illegally, but if we leave and it breaks, it's the non-intervention peace advocates who illegally broke it).

That's the zaniest argument I've ever seen you utter and one that makes zero logical or legal sense.

Aside from those who think the place will magically beget peace when the great oppressor leaves, I hear mostly crickets around here,

This is the sort of hyperbole and mischaracterization of others comments that gets Ondelette into trouble here.

Who has said leaving will magically beget peace? What has been said many times is that "on balance" we're doing more harm than good militarily intervening in the way we have in the past and the way we seem to be tilting toward in the future.

And then to claim you hear "crickets" when it comes to offering alternatives going forward is a complete fabrication. Many alternatives have been offered, just ones generally that Ondelette dismisses as unrealistic or ones that fail to understand the complexity of the situation.

To accept as a second order assumption that we should or are capable of "beget[ting] peace" in Afghanistan by any policy that involves military force is where we probably differ but where we should begin. If not first what exactly are our "interests". If they are purely humanitarian then we, IMHO, are on the wrong track obviously. If it is some mix of "national security" and humanitarian then we need to be very clear with shared definitions before we can proceed to address possible solutions.

Agreed?

I for one am compelled by the evidence I've seen to believe there is very little in play in Afghanistan that presents an actual "national security" interest that can't be dealt with much cheaper and with a lot less loss of lives American or otherwise. Same goes for Pakistan. The interplay between humanitarian relief, nation building, and the presence/absence of military forces actively engaging the populations is really what we should be talking about.

Convince me with evidence and sound argumentation that what we've been doing for 8+ years and that we'd likely need to do in a much bigger way for another 10 + at a minimum and I'm capable of changing my mind. So far that argument seems not to be grounded in reality.

Fair enough. But I'm not sure what Ondelette meant when he wrote to me "drop it". Drop what?

I don't think I've tried to impute someone's words to another, and certainly not Ondolette's words/opinions relevant to our AfPak policies, as indicative of his positions on Israel.

I do take exception with with him characterizing Glenn, me, Sinnard or anyone else as "cartoonish" because we fail to understand the "complexity" of our "interventionism", its goals, or its underlying calculus.

I do agree Ondelette, who I was serious in describing as intelligent, does himself a disservice when he resorts to anything other than defending his positions with argument and evidence.

Mud slinging isn't his strong suit and doing it in defense of policies that perpetuate and prolong "wars" and "occupations" and further "interventionism", however defined, isn't the wisest tactical maneuver especially here where there's always somebody who slings mud more effectively.

Stick to a reasoned explanation of why he believes our "humanist" interventionist policies are sound, effective, or serve our "interests" and we're more likely to frame and discuss the issues productively. Attempting to belittle Glenn or anyone else as lacking the capacity to understand complexity is a non-starter.