A few things about Jamie's post below, in which he quotes an email from Eli Lake, the excellent New York Sun reporter and (another mark in his favor) contributor to Bloggingheads.tv: First, Jamie ignores Iraq, which he says is too big a subject to engage in a blog post. I'll just assume, however, that he doesn't think the war has been a shining success. Two, he makes my point about Israel's war with Lebanon without actually realizing it. I was simply arguing that Israel should not have taken action if they couldn't achieve good ends. If because of politics or incompetence Israel is going to be forced to stop bombing before acheiving success, well, it probably wasn't worth starting to bomb in the first place. Finally, Eli's email is unconvincing. First he talks about the "netleft" without bothering to define whom he is discussing (me? Judis? Andrew Sullivan?). Then in the second-to-last sentence he switches to talking about the "left's thumb sucking" on Iran. Does he mean the netleft? The leaders of France, Germany, and Britain? It's not clear. And what should the left, which currently does not control the government of the United States, or Germany, or France, do about Iran that would please Eli and Jamie? Moreover, Eli's argument is that we have to fight back or surrender--those are our only choices. So if fighting back makes the situation worse, are Jamie and Eli arguing that we should still do it (surely they do not favor "surrender")? If so, they have just proven my original point about ignoring ends. --Isaac Chotiner