Matthew Yglesias, in responding to Jonathan Chait, continues to celebrate (albeit rightfully) the merits of “murk” in analyzing the political and military machinations that put us in Iraq. It’s worth noting that what sleazy Bush apologists like David Brooks continue to call “so six months ago” (i.e., the Iraqi WMD debate, et al.) are issues no less relevant than the “events of 9/11”, which Republicans continually (and self righteously) fling up in our faces to justify their appetite for destruction. We are constantly reminded that “9/11 changed everything”; a position that is rarely challenged. I can recall, in the months following 9/11, the expressions of absolute certainty that “we will be attacked again”, usually “within a year”. Of course, it didn’t happen. With this in mind, it’s interesting that the radical viewpoint in America today asserts that the ideological certainty that Bush ostensibly provides is, in fact, both a diplomatic liability and a natural consequence of his intellectual disengagement. Terrorism and the situation in Iraq are difficult and complicated subjects without simple and user-friendly manuals. Bush’s ideology is not sharp enough to cut the Gordian Knot (as it were) of the Middle East in large part because no ideology is sharp enough. Murk and effort and details: these are the long and delicate nails that will ultimately untie this knot. The sooner we can discredit the notion that brute force is a useful tool in this “war on terror”, the sooner we can elect an intellect capable of moving us towards peace.