Read it. What was a bit surprising to me was the total lack of anything approaching nmilitary-related analysis in either post.

Is increasing the size of the military a bad idea? Gee, you'd think some understanding of the military's potential uses, rotational needs, active threats, and rough capacity required would be offered in response. Instead, all we get is shallow pap about military means are not the solution to terrorism, and I don't want to write Bush a blank check. BTW, he's also factually when he asserts that America has the world's largest military. Um, hello, does the name "China" ring a bell?

I'm sorry, A.L., I like Calpundit but that's just stunningly shallow. On anything to do with military matters, he's not informed and not serious. Calpundit wrote a post intended to be about solutions, but instead they're a good illustration of why liberals are taken less and less seriously on national security issues these days.

Joe, I certainly don't agree with Kevin on this, but I think he's done a service in concisely expressing the core 'belief set' that our, more militant team needs to respond to.

When we can structure equally concise compelling arguments that address these issues, we'll be a long way toward winning the day. I'm working on some today.

A.L.

Come on, Joe, I wasn't trying to do a Den Bestian analysis of military needs. I was just posing a question: is a large conventional military the best way to fight terrorism?

I don't think it is. If you disagree, you need to tell me why instead of just calling it shallow pap. You'll excuse me, I hope, if I don't find that very convincing.

(And please: you know perfectly well I was talking about military expenditures, not troops under arms. Deliberately misunderstanding my point really doesn't help your argument much.)

A.L... good point. Kevin:

"...is a large conventional military the best way to fight terrorism"

You might as well ask:

"...is an ace pitcher on the mound the best way to win baseball games"

The question itself is a misunderstanding. Sure, that helps. If you haven't got it, you have a serious problem (esp. in baseball's playoffs, and on the world stage combatting a global terrorist movement with important state sponsors). Can it win without anything else? No, that isn't how things work. But if you don't have it, a lot of the other components stop working.

A.L. and I will come back with more later. Valid point that if I'm going to call the analysis shallow, I should explain why and where.

OK, we sometimes yank Den Beste's chain for the length of his posts, but sometimes that's necessary. I simply cannot top this as an answer, so I will just point to it.

Steven deals in root causes of the problem, has a clear statement of what he believes to be (a) required to say we've won and (b) practical, and steps people through an explanation of how events have unfolded with reference to how it supports (or doesn't) his views.

A serious exploration of the issues is going to have to engage on similar grounds. It will also have to answer some questions. Questions like:

• What are the goals of our war - how do we know if we are winning?
• What do you see as the key "axis of gravity" for our opponents? What's the most important capability to destroy? What's the most important thing for Islamists and its other enemies to believe?
• How can that best be accomplished, in broad terms?
• What does historical experience suggest re: these goals and one's proposed approach?
• How should other nations be involved in this effort?
• For nations who refuse to cooperate or seek to hinder its efforts, how should the USA respond?
• What is the role of state sponsorship for terrorism, and how can it be removed from the equation?
• What are the key lessons derived from US foreign policy in the 1990s, nbow that North Korea and Iran are set to go nuclear and we look back in the aftermath of 9/11?
• What historical evidence exists that conventional military forces are not useful in combatting terrorism? Cite cases and explain.
• What are the major world threats right now to the USA, as you see them?
• How many troops would be required to meet those needs, under current plans? Does the USA have enough to cover that? (This doesn't require great expertise, merely awareness)
• If it doesn't, which commitments should it abandon? Or how many more troops would be required?
• What about the threat of weapons of mass destruction? What should be done about this? What historical evidence and experience shows that one's approach is likely to be effective, or that current approaches will be ineffective?
• If WMD are used in a terrorist attack, and no-one claims responsibility, what would we do? Given that finding WMD in Iraq has been a slower process than expected, why do we believe the USA could successfully trace a major attack back to its source?
• If evidence must be "court of law" strong to justify any response, are you saying that if the USA loses a city in future to a nuclear terrorist attack, for instance, but isn't completely sure exactly who is responsible, that the response will be to do nothing?

These are the kinds of questions a serious conversartion about military policy or the War on Terrorism needs to address. I haven't seen serious engagement in very many of these areas from the Left, from Congressional leadership (Daschle lamenting the Democrats' inability to focus the electorate on "their issues" instead of the war, after the 2002 election no less, remains for me the definitive statement of deep unseriousness) right on down to bloggers.

Kevin's posts didn't really engage these questions, and it isn't necessary to be a Bernard Lewis or a Wesley clark to do so. Instead, it seemed to me to be some casual and very questionable assertions with little to no back-up, and no serious addressing of the arguments his opponents have been making, consistently, for 18 months now.

It seemed, frankly, to be the sort of commentary one writes when the issue is just not of deep interest... we'll throw out a few thoughts and hope it goes away. That's probably not fair, but that was my impression. There are other leftists like Juan Cole and Abu Aardvark whom I may disagree with, but their posts are informed and their assertions debatable but backed by something real. We need more of that.

OK, well let me know when you do.

I know we disagree on some things, but banging away at me because my post was on a different subject than you think I should have written about isn't very productive. That post was about what it was about, and you should criticize that, not the post I never wrote.

Anyway, feel free to address the subject at greater length and I'll see what I think.

Will do... consider, however, that the chosen focus of one's argument also sends a message. I probably shouldn't have been that sharp, but it's part of a building frustration.

It's one thing to disagree, another thing to not even be having the same debate because one side seems unconcerned with its fundamental questions. There's "I disagree," there's "ok we have an argument but that's just tone deaf," and then there's "have these folks even grasped the issue or followed the news?"

It's like... like some Orange County socialite engaged in a discussion of urban poverty. You know, breezily dismisses the role of government, then explains that she understands the issue because her friend Mitzi just had to sell her city apartment and move back into with her parents (in their mansion). And why don't we just build them all housing in big public projects, so everyone has one if they need it. That should help, right?

You'd choke back a gag reflex, and roll your eyes, and wonder whether politeness and encouragement of some engagement on her part was worth suppressing your desired reply. Well...