In “War of the Worlds” Ron Bailey of Reason makes the case contrary to that set out by Tierney and Pape (see posting below). Sorry to be get all “thoughtful” (a term of reproach for Justin Raimondo: 1, 2), but these issues need to be understood better than they are at present.
Bailey’s case (which is basically that anti-liberals/totalitarians/traditionalists will always oppose liberals — stunning insight) is somewhat contrary to Pape (though Bailey doesn’t make a case that opposition inevitably takes the form of terrorism).
Bailey doesn’t address Tierney’s argument at all, explicity or implicity.
Even if Bailey’s case is correct there is no implication that invading Iraq or continuing occupation is a workable strategy for fighting anti-liberals.
In sum, the gist of Bailey’s article is one giant non sequitur.
Bailey’s case (which is basically that anti-liberals/totalitarians/traditionalists will always oppose liberals — stunning insight) is somewhat contrary to Pape (though Bailey doesn’t make a case that opposition inevitably takes the form of terrorism).
Bailey doesn’t address Tierney’s argument at all, explicity or implicity.
Even if Bailey’s case is correct there is no implication that invading Iraq or continuing occupation is a workable strategy for fighting anti-liberals.
In sum, the gist of Bailey’s article is one giant non sequitur.