I didn’t know which title to go with, so I chose both. That permalink should be AWESOME.

Anyway, by way of Atrios, I found a blog post by Andrew Sullivan that takes a look at Bill Kristol’s latest at the Weekly Standard. Take a look, it’s worth reading.

Message to Bill Kristol: Policy around the Iraq war isn’t about winning a political battle. Please stop talking about it as such. Most critics, Democrats in Congress included, would shut up about war policy if we believed that the policy was sound. And, using military metaphors about political machinations while talking about war policy is absurd. You’re not a soldier nor are you sacrificing anything aside from your reputation. Join Fouad Ajami in the remedial metaphors class. Thanks.

I kid, of course, but Heidi and I acquired tickets to tonight’s Connecticut Forum event, a conversation with Bill Moyers (PBS/CBS) and Andrew Sullivan (blogger at Time/editor of TNR) moderated by Norah O’Donnell. It was a wonderful evening as both men were interesting and insightful. O’Donnell’s moderation was a bit obtrusive at times (she was too involved and too uninteresting), but on the whole it was good.

My favorite early moment was when Bill Moyers used the word “blogosphere” just as part of his vocabulary. I don’t know why, but hearing someone like Moyers, a stately and respected television journalism, use this neologism (thanks, Heidi!) while talking insightfully about blogs just struck me as important.

There was too much to summarize effectively, so I won’t try. Instead, I’d rather focus on one particular statement that Sullivan made. Talking about the culture wars, he spoke quite eloquently about how inserting religion into politics kills debate. He went on to criticize how the culture war was a war and that as with all wars, it marked the failure of reason to resolve disagreements.

I was struck by how passionately he spoke about war as a failure because he spoke earlier about why he supported the Iraq war at the outset. I suspect he doesn’t see a contradiction because he probably believed that reason wasn’t relevant with Saddam Hussein, and that (since he believed there were WMD involved), the threat was too imminent to give reason a chance to succeed.

I believe it points to a greater issue, however. Prior to the war in Iraq, there were numerous large protests, the largest collective protests I’ve ever seen in my life. There were many, I believe, who believed what I did: That this policy of preemption was destined for failure from the beginning. We talk of hearts and minds all the time these days when it comes to Iraq. With what should we win the hearts and minds of Muslims in the Middle East if not with reason? I don’t understand, and will never understand, why this administration as well as it’s supporters didn’t insist on a robust effort to continue the conversation. To take God and faith out of the conversation and to simply focus on the reality: Most of the masses in these countries are poor and thus easier to radicalize. Security, financial or physical, helps people listen to reason. Take one away and people will more easily succumb to fear or doubt and thus be less likely to speak out against radical elements.

If you believed in the war at the outset, you should also believe that war and winning public opinion in the Middle East weren’t mutually exclusive. The failure to effectively pursue this other course at all strikes me as an inexcusable failure.

An event like the CT Forum is effective when it makes you think and this one gave me a lot of different things to think about. I’ll be writing more this week about some of them. I hope you bear with me.