I should try to make this as clear as I can, not only because of what Rich, Jonah and Michael have raised, but because I’m hearing from a lot of other folks as well.

I support what is called the “war on terror.” I will continue to support it no matter what the Iraqi constitution says. I will also continue to support the President’s stewardship of it because he is determined to fight it, however much I may disagree with some of what is being done. The President has, by far, done more in five years to suppress militant Islam – which is the most profound threat we face – than was done in all the years of the preceding quarter century combined. While I wish he and his subordinates would stop being so uncritical about Islam’s undeniable tendency to breed militancy, and while I wish our conduct was more in line with the tenets of the Bush doctrine, those criticisms have to take into account the overall good that has been done (and the fact that no one else would have done it). I am also sensitive to the facts that (a) I make errors too, so my conclusion that the administration is wrong about some things doesn’t necessarily mean that it is wrong; and (b) it is a lot easier to armchair quarterback from the peanut gallery where the complexities of Iraqi society do not press.

All that said, my point about establishing Islam as the supreme law of Iraq is not a rhetorical argument. It is a strategic argument. Nations that are officially Islamic, or that nod officially to Islam, tend to create a culture that is hospitable to the rise of militant Islam. Where militant Islam thrives, American national security is endangered. Unless and until Islam changes, and demonstrates that its institution does not commonly result in its creed being interpreted by militants to commit terrorism, I don’t see how the waging of a war the purpose of which is to enhance national security can tolerate a development that we know from experience imperils Americans.

Secondly, with due respect to Rich, it won’t do on the facts as we know them to say that Iraq is not our country, and that Iraqis ultimately have to make these decisions for themselves.

The reports – if they are true (and we don’t know that for a fact) – indicate that there are a lot of Iraqis who don’t want Islamic supremacy and all that entails, but that our leadership seems to be siding with the factions pushing for Islamic supremacy. Why? Because we evidently think that stance carries the most promise for getting the deal done on time. That, for me, is not nearly a good enough reason for abandoning American principles, particularly given everything Americans have sacrificed and, again, America’s national security interest. To repeat, the main problem here is that we seem hellbent on avoiding anything that hints that there might be a teeny-weeny connection between Islam and terrorism.