But please let's not have any nonsense that we are playing into al Qaeda hands by killing al Qaeda operatives

Is what inspired my comment.

I assert that we do indeed play into Al Qaeda's hands when we kill their operatives IF we use traditional tools of warfare to do so. AQI may or may not be an important regional actor but it didn't even exist until we created it.

Also consider the Islamist terrorists' fixation on martyrdom. Dying is, in fact, the goal for many of their rank and file. Sure, the leadership conveniently prizes their mortal lives, but we are not dealing with conventional armies or even terrorists that seek to stay alive in the course of accomplishing their goals.

"Al Qaeda" and all the offshoots that have adopted the name in various forms are more akin to a virus or virulent cult philosophy than a militant organization. Their aims are cryptic and incoherent. Even the supposed goal of an expansive, fundamentalist Caliphate is delusionally mismatched to their tactics.

These groups and individuals, more than anything, are substantively nihilistic, standing much more for destroying the things they hate than for accomplishing some constructive (albeit destructive) goal. This being the case, even 911 had an inchoate purpose. It was much more about the satisfaction of punching the giant in the nose than actually thinking that punch would make the giant do this or not do that. This is, fundamentally, why it is fallacy for either conservatives or liberals to assert that withdrawing from Israel or Saudi Arabia, or invading and occupying some other country, will resolve the threat.

Like a virus, their aim is simply to inflict as much harm on "Western civilizations" as possible, and spread themselves far and wide. If drawing their enemy into a hostile country and keeping it there exhausts the enemy's resources, credibility, and will, this is likely a satisfactory result, even (perhaps especially) if it results in the death of many of their own members.

Also like a virus, the answer to the terrorist problem is balanced medication and a strong immune system, not massive surgery. Sure, we'll have to lance a boil or two when infection is overwhelming, but a virus doesn't "want" the host to do anything in particular. Except maybe hurt its own immune system with unnecessary and exhausting activities, and get other people sick.

As for Iraq, I have no doubt [OBL] was at least hoping we'd be stupid enough to invade Iraq and to do so with no plan for what we'd do after we "won".

Unless you have specific evidence to back this up, I think you're giving OBL a lot more credit than he deserves.

If absolutely everything comes under the same whithering fire from people with no responsibility for providing an alternative, then eventually the politicians become obsessed with media management over policy and the electorate decides that all politicians are equally corrupt.

We already have this, in abundance, but without the benefit of a critical media exposing actual mendacity and corruption. Instead, what we have is blanket, aimless cynicism rooted not in factual instances of malfeasance, but in a "pox on both your houses" general malaise about government - except when blatant patriotism is invoked, in which case we are expected to reflexively salute the Commander in Chief.

I submit that much of this generalized cynicism and malaise is in fact a consequence of our media's lassitude. The media fails in its duty to scrutinize and inform, then, when the government screws up massively, we are left blinking and confused how it happened. This creates a general sense of powerlessness among the people, and a dismissive attitude that government is inherently corrupt or incompetent no matter how much attention is paid or pressure applied to it.

Skepticism isn't a bad thing if it is rooted in knowledge and specificity. Our leaders must expect to be challenged on their assertions, and they must be prepared to back up statements with solid argumentation and/or evidence. Regular and consistent critical analysis and confrontation of our leaders by prominent media sources can help restore a sense of empowerment to the people, particularly if they sense that these leaders have begun to fear (rightly) popular outrage.

I have always envied Britain's "Prime Minister's Questions" and other direct confrontations of the executive apparatus. Pitting ambition against ambition within the government, and subjecting politicians to the glare of public scrutiny, is not a poison, but the very life blood of democracy.

I've only paid attention to NPR during my blogging days - not much before - so I can only speak to what they do recently. And they so frequently are among the worst offenders of the most misleading media practices. This doesn't surprise me at all. In particular, they love glorifying the Brookings "scholars" and letting them be depicted however they want.

I can't bear to listen to NPR anymore. During law school, I used to set my stereo alarm to it and listen in the mornings, but soon couldn't stand it - it has the unique ability to numb and pacify its listeners. Everything down to the milquetoast, weird horn ensemble and tribal instrument renditions of popular songs has an anodyne this-is-high-culture-and-authoritative-news-truth tranquilizer effect. Then, when the patient -er- listener is good and senseless, they slip in quiet bombs like "experts now tend to agree that the surge is working."

NPR is the quintessential voice and sound of the Establishment. Instead of using agitprop, it uses what could be called soothprop. Armchair semi-consciousness in which one can simultaneously donate to "progressive" causes and events while swallowing elephant pills of propaganda and conventional wisdom without feeling the slightest discomfort.

It's just too depressing for me to listen to. And it's what nearly every single Member of Congress and upper-level executive official imbibes every morning with their coffee. It validates their entrenched views and assures them that the masses abide.