I’m about one part agreement, two parts disagreement with Ross Douthat’s latest post at the American Scene. He looks back on his feelings from 9/11 to the launch of the Iraq War, and feels a bit of guilt for desiring war then; he also is growing skeptical of those who feel that bringing war to Syria and/or Iran would improve America’s situation.

I do think that the remarkable popularity among my fellow conservatives of Ledeen’s utterly-untethered-from-reality “faster, please” theory of Middle East affairs - even after the various debacles associated with our Iraq policy - does reflect the persistent appeal of a vision of foreign policy in which supporting war, war, and more war provides an appealing clarity, and a sense of moral superiority, amid the otherwise-difficult problems of modern political life, and the perplexing complexities of the global stage. At home and abroad, it allows you to cast everyone who disagrees with you as either an appeaser or an apologist for tyrants, while you yourself are, well, Winston Churchill or someone similarly-farsighted.

Douthat’s thinking breaks down when he presumes that the decision is ours. We didn’t wake up on the morning of September 11 wanting war. Our enemies launched it on our soil; by the afternoon we wanted justice. We didn’t merely want to fight a war, we wanted (and still want) to win a war. Win, as in, eliminate the threat. Obliterate and scatter al-Qaeda and their allies. Turn the attack on New York and Washington into the same fatal miscalculation that the attack on Pearl Harbor turned out to be.

If he opposes a preemptive war on Syria and/or Iran, fine; I don’t think many Americans are calling for that, anyway. But do we really believe that the U.S. and these countries will continue to peacefully coexist forever? Can a nation that uses the phrase “death to America” like it’s a comma coexist with America? Or will a country like Iran match its promises of violence with violence itself, in one form or another?

We know Iran blew up Khobar Towers in 1996. We know they’re arming the insurgents in Iraq who are killing our soldiers. (Syria is providing passage and entry points.) We know the Iranians have never apologized for occupying American soil and violating every concept of international law by taking our embassy hostage. We’re already at war. The question is how we fight it.

Cam: I admit to being pretty down about the state of affairs recently. In a few months, we’ll mark the 5th anniversary of 9/11, and some would say the start of the Long War.

The biggest success, of course, is that we haven’t been hit again. But that victory is won in the shadows. The visible victories are far fewer, and maybe that’s the way this war will be fought and won. It makes for a harder sell for the public though.

I was having a discussion with another blogger earlier this week, and he wondered why the White House wasn’t using the term “World War III” to describe what’s going on in the Middle East. After I finished laughing in his face (rude of me, I know), I pointed out that for people of my generation, the phrase WWIII comes with some baggage. Growing up, when we heard that term we knew it meant nuclear war, utter devastation, and Mel Gibson riding around the Australian Outback in a weird leather outfit. Can you imagine the utter panic in this country if the President went on tv and announced we were in now engaged in World War III?

Jim, you say the question is how we fight the war we’re in? I wish I knew, because I don’t think what we’re doing can be sustained here at home much longer.

Jim: Interesting (and depressing), Cam. I want to tell you you’re wrong, that America’s wartime mentality can be sustained, but I’m starting to have my doubts myself.

I have faith the general good judgment of the American people. It’s hard to be a small-D democrat if you don’t have that faith. And yet, you hear enough poor thinking out there, you begin to wonder if enough citizens can think and reason clearly. (Maybe reading blogs magnifies it.)

Take your pick - the number of people who think that 9/11 was an “inside job”; the people who think that oil prices are arbitrarily set by greedy oil companies, that international supply and demand have no role. I can understand people having anxiety about the economy, or concerns about their personal financial situation, but I don’t understand how you can look at the current state of the U.S. economy and call it a depression. The people who take no steps to prepare for a contingency - be it a hurricane, or a need to get out of Lebanon quickly - and who demand that their government get them out of that tough situation immediately, with no awareness of the logistics or safety complications that prevent their government from getting them out RIGHT THIS MINUTE. The people who think that the dispute between Israel and terrorist groups out to destroy it could be resolved if the U.S. government just tried harder. You get the idea.