Honestly, what concerns me is that the world does not have a short memory, really. I have this feeling that at least a significant portion of the world may continue to foist on future administrations that which they may resent in current administrations (both Democratic and Republican). However unfair such an exercise may be, that remains a generational worry, IMHO.

This is not to take away from some of the occasional good that administrations in both parties may have accomplished. And in spite of all, there are still a few places in the world (one can argue whether or not such places are now in the minority) where the United States continues to be looked on, perhaps with some justification, as an essential refuge from tyranny (this in spite of undoubted lapses in our history like the shortsighted back-handing [to put it very mildly!] of the Native American, the institution of slavery, the Palmer Raids, the McCarthy hysteria, our fumbles re Castro, and so on).

Our still being looked on as ultimately a refuge is also essential, IMO, in the U.S.'s struggle against her most dangerous foe today: Osama bin Laden and those associated with al-Qaeda and the ultra-fundamentalist terrorism they engage in. A key source of al-Qaeda's oxygen is, among other things, the perception (whether justified or not) of a moral vacuum in the West that helps create indigenous and potential followers coming from al-Qaeda's compatriots. Why is addressing that perception somehow perceived as dishonorable in certain quarters?

This long-term concern for where others' sympathies may lie is why long-term global memories of the sort I have cited at the outset of these remarks have a direct impact on the practical, pragmatic choices the U.S. must face in her continuing struggle against the extremists who inspired the massacres of 9/11.

True, in addition, some Americans do scoff at any concern over hitherto friendly democracies' disillusionment (whether deserved or not) with America and her promise, the implication being "We can take care of ourselves, we don't need others to like us, they only need fear us, and our leaders are only accountable to us, not to other democracies."

This attitude is not necessarily a conscious avowal of intent to do that which will directly and deliberately incur the resentment of democratic allies critical to our struggle against al-Qaeda. But it's a tragic failure to understand that continued good will throughout the world, particularly the free world, is as vital to any victory against al-Qaeda -- which is practically an international organization -- as domestic votes are to anyone campaigning for political office here at home.

The U.S. has accumulated precious moral capital in its standing up to George III in 1776, in its continued subsequent espousal of individual rights on the world stage, in its painful throwing off of the shackles of slavery, in its struggle against Nazism and Communism -- all this has been acquired at the severe cost of her sons' blood through the centuries. This is a sacred legacy. It stands as a bulwark against tyranny. It is something indeed glorious that she has been primarily associated with this struggle for so long -- above and beyond her mere power. IMHO, if America is still special at all, she is great because she's free, not free because she's great.

It is no accident that people from around the world came to her shores. And they came because they sensed something very special and emboldening here. They seem to have felt that the human spirit somehow stood a little taller here. And you know what? They were right, IMO.

I'm not prepared to see this legacy taken for granted. I'm not prepared to see it shrugged off as if that should not be one's chief focus at every stage in our response to al-Qaeda. I'm not prepared to see such precious capital frittered away, mistakenly assuming that raw might and raw might alone is sufficient replacement. It's not, IMO. It could take countless decades, perhaps centuries, for the U.S. to replace the moral capital earned through the most harrowing suffering at consecrated places like Concord, or Gettysburg, or Normandy. This is who she was, the beacon I know and love. I look at her today, and I see a stranger.

Now perhaps Iraq will become a free nation. That would indeed be splendid. But if the U.S. carries that off in a smug spirit of "We showed 'em", it will be a hollow victory, with ultimately no happy consequences either for oppressed Muslims elsewhere in the Middle East or for the United States or for the struggle against al-Qaeda. Iraq will become what Israel is: a perfectly admirable thoroughgoing democracy, but one besieged by kneejerk resentment. It may end up with just as inspiring a set of honestly articulated principles, but with neighbors who don't give a fig for any of those principles. This may be a small gain, but we will have gained very little in forestalling potential followers of al-Qaeda. Even President Bush, to his credit, said that [Saddam] Hussein did not appear responsible or complicit re al-Qaeda attacks. Unfortunately, this makes the U.S.'s possible loss of credibility in the continued absence of currently deployed WMDs in Iraq all that more critical, IMO.

Al-Qaeda declared war in 2001. It declared war against tolerance and diversity throughout the globe. It is the globe and each and every one of its democracies that must now respond. If the United States gives the back of its hand to some (I'm not saying all) of those democracies, then al-Qaeda wins.

A great part of the U.S.'s effectiveness against Nazism came from her open-handed brotherliness with all around the globe who stood against Nazism in World War II. Unless we are as open and ungrudging in counseling with all other democracies in today's equally deadly struggle against al-Qaeda, we are trading in our legacy of fighting tyranny for one dependent on might alone. Such a tradeoff dishonors our past. And sadly, such a tradeoff may foster long and bitter global memories that could shackle us for generations to come. --

-- All of this IMO, of course.

I have to say that, as someone who more often votes Democratic than Republican, I am still a bit troubled by this sudden Kenneth-Starr-like attention given to a personal detail of Bush Jr's biography that was already well-vetted four years ago. His National Guard service and the circumstances surrounding it are a regrettable distraction.

There is primarily one overriding criteria I care about when it comes to the November election and it's not digging around for such personal skeletons. Rather, which candidate will be most effective in bringing every democracy around the world on board in fighting al-Qaeda?

Bottom line: We are at war. And I'm not referring to Iraq, since the President himself, to do him credit, remarked late last year that Saddam Hussein had no connection with the al-Qaeda massacre on these shores in 2001. Rather, I am referring to that al-Qaeda massacre of over two years ago and to the al-Qaeda network around the world.

It is unfortunate that Iraq and its apparent lack of currently deployed WMDs and of Taliban-like connections to al-Qaeda proved a red herring. Now that we're stuck with disaffected democracies around the world as a result -- at the very time that we most need their unstinting support against al-Qaeda -- my vote goes to whichever Presidential candidate appears readiest to mend the worldwide breach with these free countries and to add back each and every one of them to the roster of democratic Great Britains, Australias and Polands who went into Iraq. We are all needed in this fight.

Until I see some candidate who has his eye directly on joining both these groups of democracies together as a primary goal, I may well sit this election out. Bringing back all these fractured and disenchanted democracies together is far more important than dreary digging for personal skeletons that have already been well aired years ago.

IMO, of course.

If certain thoughts occur to me that are not germane to a specific thread on RMO, but that I sense may be of interest to readers of your blog generally, I may post directly to your blog only and just keep it at that.

Right now, I really have but one concern outside of opera. How in blazes are we going to hold our head up high again now that the WMDs appear not to have been there? I was expecting them to turn up when [Saddam] Hussein was found. I felt mortified when they didn't, frankly.

We've gone to war too hastily and we've forfeited the crucial friendship of too many decent free countries around the world for me to be exercised over any other issue in this campaign. But since I've already said as much at RMO, it's probably best that those sentiments stay there. I don't expect that any other issues will exercise me as much in the near term, so perhaps we better leave at that.

I do hope, though, that we'll get to see some other regulars moving over to your blog when they've got something to say that's not opera-related.

WTF?!?! Republicans donated $8 million to $16 million dollars because they'd rather run against a particular Dem? What nutcase threw that ball into play?

[going to read the link]

That blogger suggested (last summer) that Repos donate to Dean, but I'm not sure that wasn't a joke.

I've seen nothing, anywhere, to suggest that substantial numbers of Repos donated to Dean. I can't believe you didn't call Jim's statement arrant (as opposed to massive) nonsense.

You make the case that popularity in the (safely Republican) South isn't a big deal for the eventual Democratic nominee. I agree, but it is important for anyone seeking the nomination because even the no-hope states send delegates to the convention. Similarly, even though some states will vote for just about any Democratic nominee, the preferences of these voters actually count for something in the primaries. In a two-man race between Kerry and Dean (who runs third or fourth or fifth in the solid Republican states) or between Kerry and Edwards (likewise in the solid Democratic states), Kerry would have an enormous advantage. If the Dean and Edwards voters were motivated by a dislike of Kerry ("anyone but Kerry"), the question of who drops out first would be important but I think Kerry's winning because he's the first choice of a lot of voters and the second choice of most of the rest.