Hey Glenn, before answering your questions, I wanted to suggest comments that are grouped into threads - it would make it a LOT easier to sift through the comments. I imagine this has been suggested before, but it would make the comment section a lot more useful.

Anyway, you asked if it would ever be justified to attack another country that harbored a group, officially unaffiliated with the host country, which attacked your country repeatedly (the example I gave was a Cuban-american organization based in Miami and launching attacks into Cuba).

The short answer is no.

Having said that, if the host country was really using the offending group as a proxy with which to make war on the country being attacked and did not respond at all to any pleas or overtures or diplomatic efforts of any kind from the country being attacked, then even I would say, yes, a military response would be justified. In practice, this is almost never the case, and certainly was not the case in Afghanistan.

First off, the military option should always be a last resort, after every other avenue to resolve the issue has failed. The Bush Administration issued the Taliban an ultimatum they knew would almost certainly be rejected. The Bush Administration WANTED to take out the Taliban.

There are a myriad number of ways to pressure someone, even groups as extreme as the Taliban. That doens't mean the pressure will work, of course, but it should at least be attempted. The US did not do that.

Thanks for the reporting, Glenn. Good stuff, as usual.

Looks like Obama is going to be a war criminal in a few months. I don't have a crystal ball, but I'd wager a hefty sum that Obama isn't going to change course dramatically on foreign policy. My sense is he'll be slightly better on Iraq policy, trying to withdraw the combat troops over time, and worse on Afghanistan, where he'll escalate the conflict.

In the meantime, US warplanes will continue to bomb urban areas in Iraq and villages in Afghanistan, killing thousands more civilians. He might close Guantanamo, but he will not restore FISA oversight. I don't think he'll put a stop to "enhanced interrogation" techniques. Even if I'm wrong about that, it's clear there will be no legal moves against members of the Bush Administration for their actions.

I hope I'm wrong, of course. But it is hard to underestimate the ability of the Democrats in power in Washington to disappoint on these issues. They rolled over as the opposition party, I see no reason to be optimistic now that they are in power (and a Democratic president has the opportunity to use the expanded presidential powers).

I couldn't disagree with you more.

Granted, no politician will agree with everyone all the time, but what's the point in electing someone if they betray your core values upon taking office? It is scandalous that someone who opposes the NSA's wiretapping program, for example, has a hard time finding a major party politician they can support.

Democracy is meaningless if voters are only allowed to choose between candidates that agree on all important issues. If our politician's can't be bothered to take a stand for the Bill of Rights, the dark side has won. Let's just rip up the Constitution, make the formal declaration that the US is now an ruled by multi-millionaires, and be done with it.

Glenn is so right to be continually pounding on this issue. Our democracy is in serious danger of being permanently weakened. The Bush Administration set in motion a process of eroding of the principle of separation of powers and fundamental liberties.

While this erosion had origins in previous Administrations, Bush accelerated it substantially. AND THE DEMOCRATS LARGELY CONSENTED AND APPROVED OF IT, something for which I personally will never forgive them. The Democratic capitulation means serious trouble - it's highly unlikely Obama will reverse the majority of Bush's power grabs.

>We live in a representative democracy, which has been >described as an imperfect form of government, that happens to >be better than all others

This is utter nonsense. Better in what sense? Certainly not in levels of reported well-being and satisfaction (Sweden scores higher, for example). I hate this kind of "We're #1" cheerleeding.

Look, I'm all for self-determination, and I do prefer our political system to that of a lot of other countries around the world. But our system has problems left, right and center.

Why do people in Wyoming have greater influence over national policy than I do (living in MA)? The bicameral legislature was a compromise between big states and small states to get an agreement. It's an anachronism and should be abolished, IMHO.

Just one more example - the ideals of our political system are undermined by our economic system. The inequality that arises from the market seriously corrupts the positions that candidates are able to take since they need the cash to compete, and that means catering to the needs and desires of the wealthy to a much larger extent than would otherwise be the case.

Isn't the point of winning an election to implement policy you agree with? What is the point of "winning", i.e., voting for a Democrat, if they promptly betray your core values upon taking office? I'd call that a loss.

Compromise is unavoidable, part of the biz, but capitulation is totally unacceptable. That's when it's time to find someone else to support.