It seems to me that you are lumping together a number of different ideas as the same thing. But I’ll let you have the last word on this.

Didn’t we already see a preview this summer? How could you not expect a *greater*
degree of aggression toward Israel from the arabs if the USA formally pulls military
support?

> I said that the U.S. should stop supplying arms to Israel, while continuing to support
> tthem

What does that mean? You would prefer continuing to give them foreign/military
aid, but not actual Made-in-the-USA hardware? Or no money either? Moral support?

> Your suggestion that the jihadis might suddenly decide that we are occupiers
> everywhere has no basis in history or in the statements made by the jihadis
> themselves.

That depends on how you interpret exhortations of Iran or Al Queda
leadership for America to convert to islam.

> You can only support such a suggestion by arguing that they are
> completely irrational.

Not at all. They may be driven by an irrational religious ideology (there’s a tautology)
to do evil, which some of them carry out in a rational and calculating manner.

> They are not. Irrational people are ineffective.

If only I could share such optimism. Irrational people can be *dangerous*.
People can be irrational about some things and deadly rational about other things.
Surely you don’t consider them harmless.

> Worse, acting as though these possibilities will come true is to make a fundamental
> mistake. When considering military options, you must judge enemies by
> capabilities, not intentions.

OK, whose capabilities are we unclear about here? 20-odd people caused several
tens of billions of dollars damage and several thousand deaths.

> But when considering political options, that is a fatal error.
> In politics you must follow Reagan’s advice: “trust but verify.”

That worked with the russians and MAD. The only people the jihadis will let into
their bases are CNN reporters.

> If you always make the military choice, you are doomed to an ever-worsening spiral.

Perhaps, but *never* making the military choice is suicidal. The challenge is
picking one’s battles.

> It makes no sense to me that you say that taking these actions will hand control over
> the future to other people. The jihadis have no future. That’s why they are fighting so
> hard.

They believe they have a future - they don’t listen to blogs like this one to learn
otherwise. They believe (and say outright numberous times) that jihad is the way to
bring it about. If the US takes a passive pacifist approach, it is *by definition* giving
control over at least the near term future to these madmen.

Among the other countries in the region the only one worth mentioning is Iran. Iran is certainly capable of attacking Israel with missiles–they did so last summer via their Hezbollah semi-proxy. But there is already nothing short of war which the U.S. can do to stop that. (Well, the U.S. could stop buying Iranian oil. But that is hardly likely.)

I said that the U.S. should stop supplying arms to Israel, while continuing to support tthem. I don’t think there is any likely scenario which would lead to an attack on Israel under those circumstances. Of course circumstances could change, in which case the U.S. position could change.

Your suggestion that the jihadis might suddenly decide that we are occupiers everywhere has no basis in history or in the statements made by the jihadis themselves. You can only support such a suggestion by arguing that they are completely irrational. They are not. Irrational people are ineffective.

Worse, acting as though these possibilities will come true is to make a fundamental mistake. When considering military options, you must judge enemies by capabilities, not intentions. But when considering political options, that is a fatal error. In politics you must follow Reagan’s advice: “trust but verify.” If you always make the military choice, you are doomed to an ever-worsening spiral.

It makes no sense to me that you say that taking these actions will hand control over the future to other people. The jihadis have no future. That’s why they are fighting so hard. The only possible future they have is to close their society completely off from the rest of the world. That’s a relatively short term solution, and it’s not one that is particularly dangerous to anybody else.

What would happen if, upon our withdrawing support from Israel, some neighbouring nations attack it again? This seems hardly outlandish. Supporting them as half-heartedly as it is said Iraq is being supported now would not inspire confidence in Israel, nor in any other allies. Supporting them fully in such circumstances would mean going to full war - surely not an improvement over the status quo.

Or if suddenly the jihadis “consider” us occupiers of lands wherever we go, for whatever reason barely rational or even outright twisted (”the whole world is muslim land”). How far to run before one turns and says “no”?

Both these proposed acts of withdrawal hand control over the future to people whose cultural background is anything but pacifist, and leaves western nations in reaction mode. If the bet that they would somehow still become friendly turns out to be wrong, the price would be tremendous.

If only there was an option that unambiguously expressed strength and wisdom.