The terrorist bombings in London have caused a flurry of commentary already and I expect that there will be more. As each pundit stakes out their stance it is inevitable that they will take the opportunity to justify their previous positions and take a few whacks at their enemies.

Everybody sensible and decent agrees on the basics.

That the people who put those bombs in London are bastards. That they should be caught and punished.

That there is no excuse or justification for what they have done.

That by placing those bombs they have set themselves against the rights of free people everywhere, and in doing so, are against freedom itself. That they may hold other beliefs and ideologies in mind as they kill innocent people does not cancel out the fact that they stand against the rights of free people to go about their daily business as free people will.

That the ideologies, creeds, institutions, organizations or leaders which methodically justify, plan and direct such actions are incompatible with a world dedicated to justice and freedom. That we are in a state of absolute conflict with such beliefs and with such organizations, a state of conflict which could reasonably be described as “war”, even if a war against ideas and non-state organizations is different in its nature than what “war” has previously meant to humanity.

That in such a conflict we should defend ourselves resolutely and where possible strike back meaningfully and effectively.

There are a lot of people who think of themselves as sensible and decent who do not agree with this. When we think of all the people who have done terrorism for so long - from the IRA to the reds and greens - and all of the people who supported them with tangible financial and other contributions as well as intellectual cover, it seems clear that this is not a settled subject. The "sensible and decent" person in the next office might be a supporter who pleads special circumstances claiming that the status quo is intolerable and violence is justified. Many people all over the world cheer openly when terrorists strike and many more than that have an instant rush of satisfaction even if they hide their pleasure.

It is because many of us agree on this much that the debate on Iraq has been so intense. It is because so many of us agree on this much that those of us who oppose the Iraq war and much of the rest of the Bush Administration’s approach to the conflict are so frustrated and angry with persistent attempts by some conservatives to caricature their domestic critics.

No, that's not why the debate has been intense. The hostility and shrillness was there before 9/11, long before Iraq became the top issue. Iraq is an excuse not a reason. Even if 9/11 had not happened this conflict would be in full bloom though likely with different particulars, a different central focus for the undifferentiated cultural rage.

It isn't just conservatives who excoriate the left-liberal stance on the war. Some of the most trenchant criticism has come from the decent left, the internationalist left that opposes fascism and communism, and sees Islamism and Baathism as continuations of Nazism and communism. They make the case that war is the only decent thing to do and that it should have happened long ago. Their criticisms of left-liberals aren't usefully described as caricatures though they strike deeply at the ethical lapses and make analogies to quislings from previous conflicts in Europe and elsewhere. In the process many of the unreasonable stances of left-liberals that have crufted up what were once actually leftist and liberal positions have been illuminated to the very great discomfort of those who had unwarranted high opinions of themselves.

I opposed war as a response to terrorism too but do not make common cause with left-liberals in what seems to me to be an ethically bankrupt defense of a host of positions more similar to the far right than any left. These are mainly culture warriors who differ from the far right only in which culture they favor but are equally intolerant and rigidly unthinking. I pay careful attention to serious critics of my anti-war stance since they ask hard questions about important issues. That there are also light weight critics on both sides of the issue is irrelevant. This is so for every issue. Their only significance is in how much support they gain from those who should be more careful in their criticisms. When you lie down with dogs, or give Michael Moore a seat at the convention . . .

War has not been an effective response to terrorism. It has not obviously diminished in the world though much blood and treasure has been spilled. Support and sympathy for terrorism seems to have risen as well. The other reasons for supporting war - the principled anti-fascist and anti-communist internationalism of doctrinaire socialists and the old, pre-culture war left in general, and the geopolitical justifications of some western nationalists - are less clear and won't be clear for many years. Though there have been elections where regimes have fallen, and a general wave of democratic reforms in other nations influenced by these events, the pendulum could swing back. In a decade it seems possible that we could look back and see no net improvement. It's too soon to tell.

I doubt it. In my experience and from what I know of history war doesn't work. All the wars in Europe over the centuries didn't make Europe a better place, they made it a worse place. Improvement has happened in spite of war not because of war, and those improvements were lesser and later than they would otherwise have been. All the revolutions and rebellions, the coups and mobs, the heroes and villains played their dramatic parts to no real effect in the course of long term socio-cultural evolution. They are the social equivalent of school yard brawls between boys with immature pre-frontal lobes, a problem that only time can cure. Eventually boys become men though too often this happens at an advanced age.

Others disagree and argue that there are good wars, that some revolutions and rebellions make things better. A fruitful debate is possible. That is not what we have seen from the anti-war left. Instead we have seen puerile Bush and Blair bashing and empty arguments about conservatives and liberals. We have seen petty politicking about trivial issues such as the existence of WMD or the supply of body and vehicle armor for troops. Plastic turkeys. We have seen the culture war displace the real war as the focus of debate, and the tone descend into meaningless drivel, gotcha journalism and the empty procedural conflicts of mindless bureaucracies.

To make progress on reducing terrorism the rag-tag remnants of the post-socialist left that have degenerated into conservative and even reactionary defense of petty cultural conflicts needs to remember its purposes, to face its failures over the last century as it found ways to accommodate first the fascists and then the communists, and reassert its progressive and humanitarian core principles. Sabotage and armed struggle are not consistent with those principles. Even when successful in the sense of gaining power they put monsters into leadership positions and form ugly societies that could not be more antithetical to their stated purposes. Those on the pro-war left who still dream of just wars need to face this as well. War doesn't work. The problems are real, monsters like Saddam exist, but neither terrorism nor state war will make lasting progress.

This Hitchens interview is relevant.

In their brilliant essays on the Civil War for Horace Greeley's New York Herald Tribune, Marx said, look, Mr. Lincoln is only going to war to preserve slavery. That's true: Lincoln went to war to discipline the Confederacy and to say to the South, if you'll help me preserve the Union, we'll help you preserve slavery. He thought there would be another hundred years of it, which there could easily have been. But Marx and others said no, the crucial thing is to be at war. Once the war has started, then the argument can really begin. Marx predicted that Lincoln would have to fire General George McClellan. It's almost eerie—he said Lincoln would have to fire McClellan because he's relying on a general who doesn't really believe in the war. Also, the Union will eventually win because it has more industrial capital and it will be able to build ironclad ships, even if Britain continues to build a wooden war navy for the Confederates. And finally, Marx said, as a war-winning measure, Lincoln will have to make an Emancipation Proclamation. He'll have to do it because it will be the only way of subverting the Confederacy. Let the war begin, but above all, let us be at war.

Instead, America had 100 years of economic stagnation, racial segregation and bears deep scars to this day about that war and racial issues. Strange fruit hung from the trees for many decades. War didn't solve the slavery problem though it killed a lot of people and wrecked a lot of civilization. Africans were emancipated in name only. It wasn't until the civil rights era, 100 years after the civil war, that real progress was made in either the north or the south of America. Would slavery have continued for another 100 years, until the middle of the twentieth century? We'll never know because the war did happen, but given the consequences of that war it is reasonable to question it. Slavery was an abomination but war was not the only way to end it. It was ended in other places without war.

I find arguments for war to be thin and will continue to speak against it on rare occasion. Having the strength, patience and constancy to advocate progressive and egalitarian policies, the courage to take up arms in self defense and severely punish any who fail to grasp that aversion to war does not mean weakness or lack of the will to spill blood and treasure when attacked, while obdurately declining to attack others even when they richly deserve it by many measures and are wholly corrupt by every measure, is a more mature and demonstrably successful method to achieve admirable ends for society. It works from the smallest social unit to the largest. Cooperate with everyone and punish cheats. Be clear about the strategy so that none can claim ulterior motives. Be consistent so that none can claim special privilege or unjust punishment. There will always be cheats, this does not cure the human problem of sociopathy, but it is more effective than wars of extermination. There are no final solutions. This is what it means to be human.