Newt Gingrich declares that Gitmo should remain open until “the terrorists disappear.” That and other political news in today’s TPMDC Sunday Roundup.

We’ve gotten various responses to the question I posed below. Here’s TPM Reader RW’s response …

I think you oversimplify the issue of safe havens. In counter-terrorist operations, every second and dollar a terrorist organization must use to physically protect the organization is a dollar and a second it does not have to work on initiating a terrorist operation. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, al Qaeda had a government willing to provide an entire country for a safe haven. In other words, the Taliban used its state sovereignty as a shield to protect al Qaeda from the reach of law enforcement. It turns the problem of terrorism from a law enforcement to one of warfare.

From that perspective, terrorist groups who are protected by state sponsors are especially deadly to the nation-state. It is especially critical to the passive helper, the friend that agrees to leave his keys in his car on a specific night, or who hides a wounded fighter in his basement for a night. It is these passive supporters who, knowing terrorists have a far-off and powerful patron, are willing to invest, in their own small way, in the promised terrorist victory. Those passive supporters are the real lifeblood of Islamic terrorism.

This is why Bush’s policy of not pressing Pakistan to get rid of terrorist havens made no sense. The only thing that has allowed the Taliban to survive for so long is the connections it maintains with the outside world via Pakistan’s ISI. Those connections have been its only source of support and its only vehicle for launching attacks for its entire existence. Cut those connections, as Obama is trying to do, and you eliminate al Qaeda as the very real threat it is. In essence, Obama is forcing the Taliban and its al Qaeda allies to fight a two-front war for the first time ever. This is a winning strategy. The stateless terrorist is far less appealing to the passive supporter.

I don’t think this settles the larger question by any means. But I think there are a few key errors in RW’s logic.

First, not all states are created equal. They can be powerful in either military, financial, diplomatic or scientific terms. And one’s that have one or more of those qualities can be very dangerous as state sponsors of terrorism. But Afghanistan under the Taliban’s first reign had none of those. And given the poverty of the country itself, it’s quite difficult to imagine it ever will. You’re not going to have funds funneled through the intricate Afghan financial services sector or really do anything else. The key thing the Taliban offered al Qaida in the first round was non-interference, which isn’t nothing. As a state, the central fact about Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was that it was barely a state at all, which in many ways was what made it so attractive to al Qaida. And to wrap up on this point, the idea that al Qaida operatives are going to get passive assistance from Muslims in Albany or Riyadh or Bali because they have the tacit backing of Afghanistan strikes me as ludicrous.

Second, it’s true that a key element of counter-terrorism strategy is that you want to put pressure on a terrorist adversary on all fronts. And time and money that doesn’t have to go toward self-protection can be routed toward forward operations. Earlier in this decade this got sort of distorted and warped into ‘fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.’ But again, there are two key problems with this argument in this case. First, if you’re going to fight them ‘over there’ it’s key to know where they are. And most of al Qaida wasn’t in Afghanistan. Many had come through. But most were in other Muslim countries or in the West. Rooting the command and control from Afghanistan was key. But much of the disruption operations were a matter of cracking down in other ways on operatives in other countries. Related to this, I’m not saying that the ideal isn’t to deny al Qaida safe havens anywhere. It’s a relative thing. Is it the best use of our resources? Most of these guys have been laying low in Pakistan for the last seven or eight years. And might we be creating more terrorists in a 20 year counter-insurgency than we kill or deny safe havens too?

It comes back to the same question: how critical is it whether terrorist capos can hide out, with the passive approval of the government, in caves in Afghanistan? And should this be the center-piece of our counter-terrorism effort or even our whole foreign policy?

Robert Reich: Only One Sure Way to Fund Universal Healthcare.

Obama will lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns this morning followed by a Memorial Day address. That and the day’s other political news in the TPMDC Morning Roundup.

Two Sundays ago Dick Cheney picked Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell as the better Republican. In today’s Sunday Show Roundup Powell responds to the Rush and Cheney wing about his own party identification and the bigger picture of the future of the GOP …

Full-size video at TPMtv.com.

At our editorial meeting this morning we were trying to reason our way through the renewed prominence and

media omnipresence of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — something that actually seems to happen every few years when the GOP starts taking on water. Now, though, Newt’s out there calling on Speaker Pelosi to resign, considering running for president and generally speaking out on every issue under the sun.

But one thing we keyed into — especially when considering his calls for Pelosi to stand aside — is, does Newt realize he’s not Speaker any more?

He seems to insist with members of the press that he still be referred to as “Speaker Gingrich.” And actually his website is speakergingrich.com. Not former Speaker Gingrich, Speaker Gingrich. And it goes beyond him. On Meet the Press this weekend, he repeatedly refers to former intel committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra as “Chairman Hoekstra.”

It is almost as if the Republican party, as it moves into its own tea bagging time warp has rendezvoused with Newt in imagined past and found that they’re once again made for each other.

Just a moment ago on TV, would-be warlord and preemption dead-ender John Bolton was on TV arguing that in response to this morning’s nuclear test, the US should push to have North Korea expelled from the UN — something that brought an amused chorus of IM guffaws in the TPM newsroom. Zack Roth: “that will get them to stop!” Me: “that would teach them … what a buffoon.”

Really though, I found myself oddly disappointed. I’ve grown to rely on Bolton for over-the-top and generally insane responses to foreign crises. But expulsion from UN? As Kleefeld said, coming from Bolton, is that a punishment or a reward? Something’s fishy in Denmark.

If a government informant gives a would-be jihadist bags and bags of weed to entice him to join his jihad, where does he get the weed?

Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), puts Memorial Day in its proper perspective.

A number of readers have written in to say that while they wish Newt would get off their TV as much as the next guy or gal, they fear he may actually be entitled to the continued use of the title just former Ambassadors and Judges can use the terms even after they’ve left the job.

So let me answer this in two parts. First, yes, there are many official capacities in which people are referred to by the highest office they’ve held — particularly in official functions on Capitol Hill and such. But entitlement is the key. While presidents generally hold the title for life, few other people actually insist on being addressed by their formal title when they go on TV and do media events like Gingrich does. For instance, you don’t see Tom Daschle going around calling himself “Majority Leader” or Colin Powell asking to be called “Secretary” Powell. Lots of people have this or that honorific they technically have a claim to but aren’t silly enough to demand when addressed.

It’s also true that with former ambassadors and judges, it’s a pretty common thing. So for instance TPM Reader PK writes in …

Here in Houston there is a big Democratic contributor who served as ambassador to the Bahamas for a couple years under Clinton–he uses the title on everything, and even in casual settings introduces himself with his rank. Sure, he’s technically entitled to, but really …

It’s an interesting point. Why are these titles commonly used in this way. I thought about it and what I told PK was that people would probably laugh in this dude’s face if he introduced himself as Ambassador to the Bahamas, since obviously he’s not ambassador to the Bahamas anymore. He just gets to preen with the title.

Actually come to think about, I should probably be happy that Newt has warmed to the ‘Speaker’ title. For those who remember the heady days of the Republican Revolution will remember that early in his speakership, when he was affecting the air of a philosopher king, Gingrich would get key deputies and flunkies in the House to refer to him as “Professor” Gingrich. So maybe I should leave well enough alone.