Gerard:

Well, that "long peace" was also called the "Cold War" for a reason. And it got pretty hot every once in awhile. I do think it's at least possible that we can limit the consequences of the present war to similar numbers, if we play things right. I wouldn't be supporting our project in Iraq if I didn't believe that.

But I'm not lusting for peace, and I'm not willing to trade an unreasonable need to believe in peace now for the high probability of an internecine war later.

That said, it's not yet clear that this strategy of our Vanguard for Democracy cancelling their Vanguard for Islamo/Fascism will work. The way I see it we've decided to attempt to defuse the bomb, but that in itself is no guarantee of success, and the defusing process (or perhaps it's more accurate to call it the dewarring process) could take a long time.

As Natan Sharansky puts it: "It's better to have democracies that hate you, than fear regimes that love you." If they hate us, but they're reliably democratic, it'll be a reasonably soft landing.

The question for us ultimately will be: How do we move from a predominantly democratic world with a weakness for social democratic "third way" institutions, to a predominantly Lockean world that reveres individual sovereignty?

So, what is this Long War going to look like?

Good post, and about time too. Actually, this bothered me quite a bit during the campaign. We are at war, and I just can't see how safety can be promised during wartime. I would gladly give up safety in order to win the war.
Jeff