Islamic extremists might kill some of us. If they get a nuke, they might even kill a few million of us. But the only way they can destroy our system is through our overreacting to them.

The main danger of islamic extremism, or terrorism, or whatever the correct term is, is as a distraction from important issues.

We are focusing our attention, energy and resources on something trivial, meanwhile ignoring a very real, very immediate, threat to the entire biosphere - climate change. Looks like we're heading for 6C of warming by the end of the century:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html

Six degrees! It is safe to say that the future will be something out of a Hollywood disaster movie, only more frightening.

The reason to write about them and expose their discredited tactics and reasoning isn't to change their minds about anything; it's to prevent them from persuading others.

I wonder who it might be that you've prevented the Weekly Standard from persuading, if anyone.

People are very difficult to persuade on political issues, and especially political issues that people have had some time to form conclusions about (terrorism certainly fits that description).

These days, in America anyway, various political factions talk more to each other than to their ostensible opponents. See this article:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/02/091102crbo_books_kolbert

This tends to calcify existing beliefs - nobody changes sides, and feelings tend to harden against ostensible opponents.

Even from personal experience, has anyone ever persuaded anyone else to give up a firmly held belief, especially a religious or political one, by force of argument?

I'm sure it's happened, but in my experience such things are exceedingly rare.

Just look at the crazy debates on just this thread, and past ones, about Libertarianism (and libertarianism). They exemplify the phenomenon I'm referring to.

The American political Right is a special case again. They have literally abandoned reason, and embrace irrationality, and reach conclusions based on loyalty, emotion, and narrative. And, sadly, since human rationality is easily hijacked by appeals to tribalism, fear, and emotion generally, their shtick works frighteningly well, and their true believers are not easily rehabilitated.

Part of Joscelyn's article is an attack on Eric Holder for allegedly capitulating to the ACLU's "far left" agenda. These debates matter and I think it's important to smash the lies and myths employed to manipulate and shape outcomes.

I disagree. Perhaps I would have agreed at one time, but now I view these "debates" (is it really a debate when one side argues dispassionately via evidence and the other side screams that you are a traitor?) as largely a waste of time.

There is plenty of information out there already, and this ground has been covered many times. This "ACLU is an evil, far left organization" meme has been around for a long time. It's nothing new.

Why is it such a big deal IF Iran IS pursuing a nuclear weapon?

Because the US wants to reserve the right to intervene militarily in Iran. This is especially important because of Iran's fossil fuel endowment, which is something we want to be able to access, either by buying exports or, if something goes awry, through other means (i.e., via force).

If the Iranians have a nuke, military intervention becomes too costly, and effectively gives the Iranians control over their oil and gas resources.

And that, if you're a US foreign policy planner, would simply be intolerable.

I agree completely with Glenn's analysis.

However, there isn't anything new here. Our response to Muslim extremism and terrorism has always been to hit back violently and disproportionately.

See Che Pasa's early post as to why this is the case. And at this point, we're stuck with such policies - there is nobody, and no group, on the US political scene with a different view that has any chance of changing policy.

Besides, terrorism is a minor issue. There is no existential threat to the US from terrorism. It is only important as a convenient excuse for the powerful to do the things they want to do anyway - i.e., expand power domestically and ensure access to resources internationally.

And it is a distraction from the real catastrophes unfolding in front of our eyes - climate change, peak oil, and the destruction of the earth's carrying capacity.

>> Perhaps Glenn went over the line >>calling Galbraith a "profiteer" -

Where did I do that?

I apologize - you didn't, that was my mistake. I saw it somewhere else and attributed it to you, so again, I'm sorry.

You think it never occurred to him that invading Iraq and establishing autonomy for his many Kurdish friends might redound to his benefit?

So what? If he doesn't have a conflict of interest, then there is no basis for criticizing his actions during that period.

Beyond that, while he was helping to write the Iraqi Constitution, he did have that interest.

As I acknowledged, and criticized.

Either way, the issue is disclosure, and I haven't seen anyone -- not even his fellow "liberal hawks" here trying to salvage his reputation -- defend his non-disclosure.

Did you read my comment in full? That was the whole point of my comment - that regardless of whether or not the guy is a true blue believer in Iraqi Kurdish rights and autonomy - he may be for all I know - he should have disclosed any conflicts of interest, and should have resigned from any official government position that involved working on issues which would have some bearing on his personal business activities.