And as much as I oppose the neoconservative imperial agenda in the Arab and wider Muslim world, I do not find the Democratic alternative of liberal internationalism a sustainable alternative. The neoconservatives, unlike the liberal internationalists, recognize that the political, economic, and cultural status quo in the Arab world, and America's continued enabling and protection of that status quo, is what is breeding the terrorism against America. Their solution, a military campaign to radically transform and westernize that political, economic, and cultural is clearly being interpreted by Iraqis and Arabs more generally for what it is: imperialism. You can be certain that the quote from Mr. Bush about American being "an empire now" in the Suskind piece wasn't a fabrication or an exaggeration of his thinking, or indeed of reality. You can be certain that as the Arab baby boom comes of age and continues to radicalize, the neoconservative strategy in the so-called war on terror will become increasingly unsustainable, but also that working with the crumbling repressive regimes of the Arab world to fight Islamist terrorism (as the liberal internationalists would have us do) will increasingly no longer be a viable possibility either. The Islamists make no distinction between the empire-heavy of the neoconservatives, and the empire-lite of the liberal internationalists. And in any event how long will the Chinese go on bankrolling American empire? The days of American dominance are numbered.

In any event, thank you for citing this issue. I've tried to raise a kazillion times on kos without a whole lot of success. Maybe you'll have more.