Here, Glenn seems to believe in a world where popular opinion isn't stirred by violence against one's countrymen in the special instance of the US and Israel, if not for their rivals. So while it is axiomatic that Israeli military actions in Gaza will only buttress support for violent anti-Israeli groups and anti-Israel violence, a better armed and not defenseless Hamas is the best way to reduce Israeli will to make war on Gaza. Meanwhile, a better armed and emboldened Hamas is also not a threat to any peace process the Obama administration intends- daily rocket and other attacks from Gaza into Israel are not likely to diminish the Israeli citizenry's support of negotiations. Either that or Glenn feels the peace process is obsolete, and Israelis and Palestinians will just resolve to solve their problems once Hamas is better armed and the US is no longer involved in the Middle East. Or something.

I think you misunderstand what Glenn was trying to say. Glenn can speak for himself, of course, but I doubt he was making an argument for arming Hamas. I rather think he would agree that violence from either side stokes the desire for revenge and makes negotiation more difficult.

Rather, I think Glenn merely meant to say that when you have the upper hand militarily, it is tempting to use that advantage against your adversary. This goes for the US too - our military capability makes the US much more likely to adopt a "fight first, talk later" foreign policy.

The case being made is that the goal of the interdiction is not in US interests, and the only word I can think of to describe that case is inane. Not to put too fine a point on it. Long story short, if it is in US interests that there be a successful peace process over the Arab-Israeli conflict, than it is most certainly in the US interest that Hamas not rearm.

The problem is not so much the US effort to stop Hamas from re-arming, but the fact that this occurs in the context of continuing military support for Israel. The US simply cannot act as an honest broker in a peace process if it systematically supports one side over the other. If the US simultaneously stopped arms shipments, and indeed all military related aid to Israel, then trying to stop arms from reaching Hamas would make more sense and could more easily be justified. As it is, the Palestinians (and rightly so), simply view the US as more of an enemy than as a potential even-handed mediator between the two sides.

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement about Afghanistan. I reserve the right to cling to my pessimism concerning the final outcome, while sincerely hoping that your optimism proves warranted.

Also, I wasn't clear about the assaults on women---I didn't mean that they are being stopped, I meant the reverse---that actual acts of terrorism do occur and need a response, and that most Afghans don't support them. I know you didn't mean you thought that was wonderful. ;)

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for not assuming the worst about me :-) Unfortunately, that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule, in such forums.