Derb, I’m not as pessimistic as you are about the outcome in Iraq – although I do think the worst-case scenario you lay out is not nearly as unlikely as is cheerily assumed by many of the war’s supporters (among whom I, like you, count myself). I also agree, completely, that the “war on terror” has never been a war on terrorism, but rather against militant Islam. I was delighted to hear the President say that expressly on Tuesday night (especially in the teeth of the interest group pressure K-Lo noted, here). But I wish we had been clearer on that from the beginning – mention of the enemy’s name was pretty much verboten until the last year or so.

It’s not possible to wipe out terrorism. It is, however, possible to decimate a particular terror network. We’ve done a good job on this with al Qaeda – far better than we did from 1993-2001 – but less good, I think, than we could have done if we had been more committed to what you identify as the top priority – stopping terrorists from getting nukes. That can be accomplished only by (a) killing and capturing terrorists, and (b) making rogue regimes understand that they will pay dearly for abetting terrorists. Which is to say, it can be accomplished only by actions that meet the rhetoric of the Bush Doctrine.

I am not convinced that the Bush Doctrine is helped much, if at all, by spreading democracy or American values. Pursuit of the latter cannot help but narrow options and drain energy from the goal of crushing a terror network and punishing its enabling regimes.

For example, in addition to building nukes and sponsoring Hezbollah, Iran has harbored and otherwise assisted al Qaeda leaders since our military operations in Afghanistan began. It has also been actively allied with the so-called “insurgency” throughout Iraq operations. There is no question that dealing militarily with Iran would be a far more complex proposition today than it would have been in, say, November 2001. (I am not suggesting that it would have been easy then.) But if your top priority becomes democratizing rather than enforcing the Bush Doctrine, then you have to stay your hand at times when you might otherwise act aggressively, for fear of what aggression might do to the political balance you’re trying to achieve. That may be a defensible choice, but I don’t think it gets you closer to stopping terrorists from getting nukes. Instead, it gives al Qaeda some soft places to land and it only encourages the Irans of the world.

The type of democratizing and value-spreading I’m talking about is a very long-term project – decades long. The election last week, for example, showed that the Palestinians – who have been weaned on hatred of, and dreams of annihilating, Israel – are at least a generation away from the culture and institutions that must antecede democracy. They do not even accept the civilized premise that blowing up innocents in sneak attacks is not legitimate warfare under any circumstances – they deem it heroic behavior. On the other hand, there is an urgency to keeping militant Islam away from nukes that cannot be over-stated. (As Judge Posner observed in this TNR piece a week ago, “Washington, D.C., … could be destroyed by an atomic bomb the size of a suitcase.”) Priorities …