I’m not certain whether the absolute numbers are particularly important. There weren’t a lot of Japanese who believed that Japan should attack the United States sixty years ago and only a very small number actually took part in the attack. We engaged in total war against the Japanese anyway. My point is emphatically not that we should be engaging in total war but that a relatively small number of people can create a lot of misery.

Hmmmm.... sounds familiar.... does history repeat?

But Dave, I asked you yesterday:

I don’t believe there is any reason to believe that we can achieve 100% of the benefits of disengagement from the Middle East without withdrawing completely from the Middle East and that, for good or ill, is beyond our grasp since it would be both unconstitutional and politically difficult.

has left me a little puzzled. What would be unconstitutional about disengagement from the ME? Especially in light of our isolationist beginnings?

I never got an answer but I am sure it just got buried in the comments.

Avoidance of oil price shocks doesn’t just benefit the United States but every country that buys oil whether they’re in South America, Africa, or Asia. Some of the governments in these places are holding on very tenuously as it is. An oil price shock could send them over the edge. We recently saw risks of that in Pakistan.

For your argument to work, the definition of price shock has to be fairly restricted (~30% increase in price from ~110 to 145 dollars per barrel, while neglecting the first seventy dollars in price increases) OR a counterfactual in which less US presence in the region produces more geo-political instability and deployment of the 'oil weapon' for geo-economic leverage of weak states such as Iran. That I think is a tough counterfactual to sustain.

A recent Pew poll suggested that roughly 8% of Muslims living in the United States expressed opinions which I’d interpret as radical Islamist ones. The number of foreign-born Muslims, particularly Arabs, who expressed such views among the whole was somewhat higher. I wouldn’t be surprised if 10% of the population of the Middle East had such views. That’s tens of millions of people.

Keep in mind the phrasing of the question - "Suicide bombing in defense of Islam". But does "defense of Islam" mean to most of these people? It does not necessarily mean "defend the purity of Islam from even the existence of outside influences and choices such as that of the West, and take offensive action to end said influences."

I don't think Dr. Finel was advocating that, but rather that we should be a passive element in their lives.

Precisely.

You could always go and read the poll. In this case it was the use of violence for political ends.

Right, should have done that first. 8% think that suicide bombing is "Often/Sometimes Justified". While I agree with you that this is radical, I don't see it as particular to their faith. I would be curious as to the percentage that feel that way in other religions.

BTW, Michael, for more than a year following the earthquakes a while ago, the U. S. Navy was the primary healthcare provider in Pakistan. Can I conclude that you opposed that?

I am okay with the US providing emergency aid in disaster response. I wouldn't be okay if the ongoing policy of the US Navy was to provide health care to Pakistanis so that their government doesn't have to.

I'd be willing to bet that 8% of Christians or Jews living in the United States would express opinions I'd interpret as radical. I also notice that you didn't specify that these views were violent, so perhaps you should clarify what you consider "radical".

You could always go and read the poll. In this case it was the use of violence for political ends.

Avoidance of oil price shocks doesn’t just benefit the United States but every country that buys oil whether they’re in South America, Africa, or Asia. Some of the governments in these places are holding on very tenuously as it is. An oil price shock could send them over the edge. We recently saw risks of that in Pakistan.

You think the US should continue to spend taxpayer's money stabilizing the middle east, so that Pakistan can afford to subsidize gasoline for it's citizens?

A recent Pew poll suggested that roughly 8% of Muslims living in the United States expressed opinions which I’d interpret as radical Islamist ones. The number of foreign-born Muslims, particularly Arabs, who expressed such views among the whole was somewhat higher. I wouldn’t be surprised if 10% of the population of the Middle East had such views. That’s tens of millions of people.

I'd be willing to bet that 8% of Christians or Jews living in the United States would express opinions I'd interpret as radical. I also notice that you didn't specify that these views were violent, so perhaps you should clarify what you consider "radical".

We aren’t going to improve our security situation by barricading ourselves within our borders. Ignorance and isolation are our enemies not our friends.

I don't think Dr. Finel was advocating that, but rather that we should be a passive element in their lives. China is a good example of a country that has vast amounts of exposure in the middle east, but it is almost entirely passive in the lives of most of the population, giving them a very small fingerprint.