Writing at The Atlantic, Matthew Yglesias comments on Rudy Giuliani’s essay in Foreign Affairs.

Rudy Giuliani’s Foreign Affairs essay really is a bit of a revelation. To understand it, I think you need to understand the broader context of the political dilemmas he’s facing. One is the simple dilemma all the Republican contenders face — namely that the conservative base remains fanatically committed to a grandiose view of “the war on terror” that most Americans have grown disillusioned with. Indeed, the conservative base appears to be more committed to this vision at this point than is George W. Bush. After all, while I think the rise of moderate foreign policy in the Bush administration has often been overstated, there’s no doubt that the President has softened the edges somewhat. Don Rumsfeld is gone. Rumsfeld’s cookiest subordinates are gone. John Bolton is gone. Etc., etc. etc. But the Hugh Hewitt crowd, the Rush Limbaugh listeners, the Glenn Beck fans, and that whole lot still, in essence, want to see a bloody, bloody, bloody foreign policy.

Now, a little rule of thumb I have is when Leftys start using words like “fanatically” and ”cookiest,” you know you’re not really in for a serious analysis. And do conservatives really want to see a “bloody, bloody, bloody foreign policy”? Really? That’s what we want?

The post does serve as a good example of how the anti-war answers conservative arguments for why we must fight this long, wider war. In other words, it doesn’t.

Giuliani describes three main challenges.

First and foremost will be to set a course for victory in the terrorists’ war on global order. The second will be to strengthen the international system that the terrorists seek to destroy. The third will be to extend the benefits of the international system in an ever-widening arc of security and stability across the globe.

And,

Idealism should define our ultimate goals; realism must help us recognize the road we must travel to achieve them. The world is a dangerous place. We cannot afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face. The Terrorists’ War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.

Yglesias, and indeed the Left as a whole, does not attempt to argue why terrorists are not encouraged by weak responses to their threats. He does not attempt to argue why a far less aggressive forward stance would make us safer. He can only snark:

You get the immediate problem that America’s military edge can be countered by nuclear weapons. So it becomes very important to prevent countries from getting nuclear weapons. This can’t be done through the UN-backed process of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and international law, or even through diplomacy more generally, because that would signal weakness.

In this post, I pointed out Al Qaeda itself says about their goals:

Pay attention, infidels! Your organziations, your companies, your trade and your ambassadors all over the world will remain our targets as long as our heads rest upon our shoulders. And our Jihad against you will continue until this civilization of kufr is history and a Caliphate based on the Prophetic model has been restored to this earth.

Do you see anything in that statement that you would lead you to believe we can deal with terrorists in any way?

By the way, John Edwards also has an essay at Foreign Affairs. He writes:

There is no question that we are less safe today as a result of this administration’s policies. The Bush administration has walked the United States right into the terrorists’ trap. By framing this struggle against extremism as a war, it has reinforced the jihadists’ narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world and that there is a “clash of civilizations” pitting the West against Islam. From Guant�namo to Abu Ghraib, the “war on terror” has tragically become the recruitment poster al Qaeda wanted. Instead of reengaging with the peoples of the world, we have driven too many into the terrorists’ arms. In fact, defining the current struggle against radical Islamists as a war minimizes the challenge we face by suggesting that the fight against Islamist extremism can be won on the battlefield alone.

Why does the Left worry so much about what the terrorists think we’re saying, and not so much about what they are saying? Is “And our Jihad against you will continue until this civilization of kufr is history” not clear enough?

Update: Rich Lowry on Rudy’s Foreign Affairs Piece,

I liked it a lot. Given the commentary on the left-wing blogosphere I thought I’d be reading some militaristic screed out of Starship Troopers. It instead strikes me as a measured re-evaluation of American foreign policy in light of the Bush years, with a healthy dose of realism and the important warning that “we must be on guard against overpromising and underdelivering.”

Update: Dadmanly has some good thoughts on the Giuliani and Edwards essays. (h/t: Instapundit)