Did the Hewitt show, and had a disagreement over this. (Full column to which he refers is here.)

I do not think Joel Achenbach believes the US military and Zarqawi are morally equivalent. Believe me, I’m always keen to find examples of high-profile people who make such statements, but Mr. Achenbach is not one of them. I base this on  . . . what? Well, I met Joel on several occasions, and while I can’t say I know him, I know he’s not the sort of lazy thinker who’d throw out such a shopworn trope. Perhaps he changed, but I doubt it; my sense was that he was a smart, thoughtful and funny fellow not given to the vapors that flow from either side. If the piece is guilty of anything, it’s the old banal comparison between Our methods and Theirs – we deal death remotely through high-tech means, which is somehow bad, as though we would have greater moral standing if the military devoted itself to stabbing everyone through the belly with a bayonet. His other point – this is not a traditional war in the 20th century sense – seems likewise obvious,  and his caution that more Zarqawis may arise is both predictable and irrelevant. I doubt whether the people who insist that Osama is the key would declare Islamist extremism a spent force if bin Laden were reduced to uncollectible red flecks; we would be told we had made more Osamas since 9/11. (Sometimes I wonder what some people fear more – the idea that we “created” more Osamas, or that Osama and his ilk ended up creating more people in the West who wanted the excitable Osamaians dead. The latter will get us in trouble, because they’re belligerent; cycle of violence, and all that. The unnamed multiplying Osamas will always be remote.

Until, of course, they’re not.  But for some people, the next attack is already justified. What did we expect? What did we think would happen? And even if the attackers cite the loss of Andalusia and the fall of the Taliban as the most recent causus belli, it’ll really be about Iraq. And if the terrorists do cite Iraq, it’ll be understandable – even though they’ll be siding with the people who blow up schools and bus stops and police stations. Which of course they were forced to do when the Great Satan stepped in. The Devil made them do it. In the name of God.

My head hurts.

Anyway. It’s the meta-meta tone of these commentaries that annoys me. (Me, the easily annoyable.) The Olympian tone, the prowling for meaningless irony, the slump-shouldered tone. He wrote:

But no human beings are visible in that jet-fighter footage. I actually couldn't tell what I was looking at -- it could have been a warehouse demolition in Tulsa. It was an impersonal obliteration.

Well, sez you. It could have been quite personal; you never know the emotions of the person behind the button. But it wasn’t a warehouse demolition in Tulsa, because we are not seeking out head-sawers in Oklahoma. You could say the invasion of Normandy Beach was, from a distant enough vantage point, akin to swimmers leaving the sea upon hearing rumors of jellyfish. So?

Me, I’m glad he’s dead, and if I’d had to post something this morning, that would have been the pith & the gist. Good. Off to hell with you. Hope this turns out better now. We will see. It could possibly mean the Sunnis had struck a deal and decided to back off on insurgent activity for a place at the table, but again: we’ll see.

As I noted on the Hewitt show: it’s possible, as one NPR commentator noted, that Zarqawi will have great inspirational power as a dead man, a martyr. Perhaps. It’s also true that some people still celebrate Hitler’s birthday. It’s more significant that the German banks don’t close down because it’s still a national holiday.

(perm link)