"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." ... As discussed here, even former Bush Administration officials are concerned with the lengths the administration is going regarding enemy combatants. The good intentions leading to bad results also applies to the situation in Iraq, leading Thomas Friedman to be in the uncomfortable of not just opposing his wife, but also his good sense on this issue as discussed by Jack Balkin.

"But here's why the left needs to get beyond its opposition to the war and start pitching in with its own ideas and moral support to try to make lemons into lemonade in Baghdad."

This is the central fallacy of his stance, one shared by others who oppose the administration on much, but not on the intervention in Iraq itself (oh, they often don't like the method, but the cause appeals). The suggestion the "liberal left" is single mindedly opposing the war and the Bush Administration is just wrong. Earlier in the column he wonders why protesters are only targeting Bush, not Bin Laden. I reckon they might realize that protests influence democratically (sic) chosen leaders like Blair and Bush more so than terrorists. Overall, however, those who oppose Bush's (and targeting strawmen like British anti-war protests is a tad bit ridiculous anyway) path are talking about alternatives.

Where in his column are his quotes from Democratic candidates, not a noncandidate like Sen. Biden, who rail against the President (without supporting withdrawal) for being counterproductive in the war against terror, while providing alternatives? Nowhere. Or the analysis by those against the war in articles, blogs, message boards, and so forth about what we need to do now? Or the anti-Bush brigade that has " beyond its opposition to the war" and dealing with the here and now? Nowhere ... it's quite easy for Friedman to dream his little dream when his only opposition is so lame.

[See also, Mark Kleiman, who addresses those unable to "acknowledge that even some of the people who opposed the war did so because they thought there were better ways of fighting terrorism. It's even possible they were right." He also suggests that someone truly serious and smart would have used Bill Clinton (supportive of Prime Minister Blair) to promote the war. Nah, wouldn't fit into their "our way or the highway" politics. Kleiman also provides a link to an editorial that rejects the value of the largely ignored Feith memo leaked by the Weekly Standard.]

As Balkin notes, his final statement leaves a lot to be desired: "For my money, the right liberal approach to Iraq is to say: We can do it better. Which is why the sign I most hungered to see in London was, "Thanks, Mr. Bush. We'll take it from here."

Now, let's accept that leaving now would be bad -- this is not the slam dunk both of them suggest to any degree given that self-determination involves letting those on the ground decide their own fate. Of course, it is a bit too late to care about that now, I guess. The ultimate problem is what the heck do liberal dissidents supposed to be "thankful" for? They rightly think the administration took a risky path in a slipshod and corrupt matter which continues to look somewhat bleak (see BTC News for ongoing coverage), symbolized by the quick and top secret nature of the President's Thanksgiving visit there (nice gesture, exaggerated by supporters). For this, they are to give thanks?

The ultimate problem is, of course, "we" are not going to "take it from here." The President will (at the very least) control things for the next fourteen months, continuing the rough path that is now being taken. I am all for more input from the loyal opposition on how best to handle things, but I'd also appreciate some recognition from critics like Friedman that this group does realize the gravity of the terrorist threat. They just do not agree with him on the way to deal with nor are they trustful that those currently with the responsibility of carrying out such an attack will do a good job. Why Friedman is as trustful as he seems to be (he surely is not supportive of the administration's abilities overall) and so dismissive of those not as naive as he too often seems is a bit unclear to me.

On the other hand, as Justice Brandeis noted long ago: >"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

PS: Friedman noted: "Ultimately, only Arabs and Muslims can root out this threat, but they will do that only when they have ownership over their own lives and societies. Nurturing that is our real goal in Iraq." Thomas Friedman has to explain in a bit more detail on how an outside force coming in to depose its leadership, having major say on who its leadership will be and the nature of its constitution building procedure as well as any number of domestic relations for the indeterminate future, and stationing hundreds of thousands of its own military there is the best way to carry this out.