This Big Tent post Jonah mentioned seems just to assume away any conflict between our interests and ideals — i.e., anything we do to promote our interests is ultimately idealistic because we’re a nation of ideals. That’s one way to look at it. But as a practical matter, U.S. policymakers have to choose between our ideals and our other interests–counter-terrorism, stability, etc. — all the time.

At the most basic level, we have a hierarchy of needs when it comes to the war on terror. It tracks pretty well with this statement by Walter Lippmann: “I do know that there is no greater necessity for men who live in communities than that they be governed, self-governed if possible, well-governed if they are fortunate, but in any event, governed.”

We should want: First, nations and territories to be governed. Otherwise you get the hell of Somalia and Iraq circa 2006, and chaotic spaces ripe for terrorist exploitation. Second, governments to be hostile to terrorism. Egypt, for instance, fails by most standards of governance, except this very important one. Third, nations and territories to be governed well, so they respect the rights of their people and provide a benevolent outlet for their energies. Ideally, we want all three, but the first two are the most urgent.

UPDATE

Big Tent replies here.