New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | July 11, 2005

Ronald Bailey says if you pull out prematurely, they still won't be satisfied. Terrorists, that is.

Comments

|7.11.05 @ 6:03PM|#

I think I already know what people on both sides will say in this thread. Especially gaius marius! ;)

Anything else anybody cares to add?

|7.11.05 @ 6:11PM|#

To be specific:

Some usual suspects will say "See, they hate us for our freedom! Bin Laden said so!" Some other usual suspects will say "No they don't! Bin laden gave several reasons and the only one that counts is our foreign policy!" The hawks will then insist that we must accept all of Bin Laden's statements as equally true, without considering the possibility that some grievances carry more weight than others. The doves will insist that some of Bin Laden's reasons matter more than others, without considering the possibility that they aren't telepathic.

gaius marius will say that they should hate our freedom, because it's destroying us (and it's all Nietzsche's fault!). Hakluyt will take issue with some historical assertions made by Ron Bailey and various posters. Somebody will try to clarify his remark, then Hakluyt will accuse him of changing his story, then the person will say "No, I'm not changing it, I'm clarifying it..." and Hakluyt will call him a liar. The dovish comments will cause Mona to explain why she's cancelling her subscription (again!).

Stevo, save us all by injecting some humor. Please?

|7.11.05 @ 6:18PM|#

thoreau - you forgot to include me quoting from the movie Aliens. :)

j/k, it's not all about me. Just mostly.

|7.11.05 @ 6:29PM|#

Thoreau,

I did find Bailey's Hegelianism, historicism and general milking of Fukuyama to be rather humorous. I thought libertarians were opposed to historicism.

Anyway, Bailey makes the mistake of conflating bin Laden to represent far more than he actually does. Of course we always have to put a face on the boogeyman.

As to the whole clash of civilizations thing, if this is truly a clash it isn't a very impressive one.

I continue to maintain that the liberal societies of Europe, and the coercive nature of those societies on traditional attitudes, etc. are going to do far more in changing the middle east than American bombs and the like ever will.

|7.11.05 @ 6:30PM|#

Thoreau,

I would appreciate it if you tried not to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

|7.11.05 @ 6:48PM|#

Firstly, I don't think it's an indictment of "pulling out early", really. It's more of a "this shit's gonna go down regardless of what we do".

Secondly, Ron ignores the White Elephant sitting in the middle of the room: that not every radical arab jihadist would be a radical arab jihadist if not for our interventist policies. He repeatedly cites Osama bin Laden's diatribes, and transcribes them onto the arab world as a whole. This is patently absurd. Surely, there are a bunch of Osama-minded crazies out there, but, just imagine: America minds its own business, and ordinary, everyday Arabs DON'T have to see US tanks rumbling by their bedroom windows every hour. Do you think Al Qaeda would be anywhere near as successful in recruiting new jihadi apprentices? Please. It's one thing to get people to die for their cause when it's right in their face and they see the oppression every day (not to mention our relationship with Israel). It's entirely another to get them to die because some country across the world, that they'll probably never visit, much less live in, doesn't have Shariah Law and allows the sale of intoxicants. Bin Laden might buy that tripe, but how many regular folks are gonna jump on board without the catalyst of in-yer-face guns and tanks and bombs and bases?

Furthermore, he sets the stage for some grand battle royale clash of civilizations, but we all know that the spread of liberalism is not typically so explosive and overt. It slowly and stealthily pervades a culture, and takes over from the inside. And, aside from the fundamentalist rich boys with enough money and time on their hands to worry about a culture across the world, most normal folks are simply not going to get riled up enough to go jihadi. On the other hand, when they see American bombs destroying their cities, and American bases built on their holy lands, well, it tends to strike more of a chord, y'know?

Meanwhile, if, according to Ron, the anti-liberalism extremists are gonna terrorize us either way, then, well, why waste countless US dollars, lives and blood in Iraq? Considering that, since 9/11, there haven't been any major terrorist incidents on US soil, I wouldn't say that "stopping terrorist attacks" would be adequate reasoning to pull out of Iraq. But we do know that the war has bred/inspired NEW terrorists, so what does that say about our efforts?

In addition to the war in iraq, bringing our troops home and taking a much less interventionist role around the world is a good idea on its face, regardless of whether it will reduce terrorist attacks or not. We shouldn't do things simply to appease the terrorists, but we shouldn't be afraid to do things that they might approve of, either, for fear of appearing as though we're giving in to their demands.

So, then, "It wouldn't stop terrorist attacks" is a one-trick pony. It only addresses the singular argument that "we should pull out of Iraq to stop terrorist attacks". However, there are OTHER, much BETTER reasons to do so...and Ron's argument speaks very little to them.

Shannon Love|7.11.05 @ 6:48PM|#

There is a widely held egocentric model of foreign relations that holds that all the actions of non-Westerners are in fact mere reactions to something Westerners have done. People external to West, like the Soviet Union or Islamist are not conceived of as having their own internal viewpoints or drives. So for example, the Cold War occurred because of missteps of the free-World and not because Communist ideology held that conflict was inevitable and destined to end in a communist victory.

I think that Ronald Bailey is correct in that, as with communism, the struggle against the Islamist is innate and primarily caused by the Islamist own aggressive ideology. We cannot coexist. They will be driven to attack us by their own beliefs regardless of how we behave.

Our only long term hope for victory is to try to foster a large population of free and prosperous Muslims who will constrain and then destroy the Islamist in their midst. Until then, it is war.

|7.11.05 @ 6:48PM|#

Thoreau,

That's the best comment ever! I think you nailed it, of course Ruthless and Lonewacko will vie for the most bizarre and misunderstood comment! ;)

|7.11.05 @ 6:54PM|#

We shouldn't pull out. We should kill most of the Iraqis and enslave the rest, take over the oil, and start colonizing the country. That would send a clear message to the imams in London and elsewhere.Our problems with terrorism would soon be over.

|7.11.05 @ 7:08PM|#

Ha! My friend half-jokingly suggested the same thing as jojo. And I threw in my obligatory Aliens quote about nuking the whole damn area (yes, including Israel, so as to not sound anti-arab or something).

Of course, this was when he hadn't heard from his folks who were in London at the time of the recent bombings. So he was a little fired-up.

But I do love to see parody trotted out as a real-world solution.

|7.11.05 @ 7:09PM|#

I think Evan Williams pretty much covered it.

OTOH, one could subscribe to a Frank Herbertesque outlook that war is needed for the advancement of humanity and the middle east seems as good a place as any really.

jimmy|7.11.05 @ 7:16PM|#

"when they see American bombs destroying their cities, and American bases built on their holy lands, well, it tends to strike more of a chord, y'know?"

geez, it's always our fault, isn't it?

the germans and japanese saw way more bombs and tanks and devastation, but generations of german and japanese terrorists didn't arise. why not? no inherently evil jihadist ideology in those countries. if we're going for nothing other than "but for" causation, try that analogy.

and "holy lands"??? come on. don't give us that superstitious crap. what a hollow argument. all of arabia is a holy land so foreigners can not even set foot in it??? garbage.

|7.11.05 @ 7:18PM|#

Our only long term hope for victory is to try to foster a large population of free and prosperous Muslims who will constrain and then destroy the Islamist in their midst. Until then, it is war.

I don't disagree with this. But I think there is room to wonder what kind of war it will be. Hopefully, we'll conduct it with more honesty and efficiency than we have to date. Then again, considering wars are waged by governments, it's a slim hope, at best.

|7.11.05 @ 7:22PM|#

the germans and japanese saw way more bombs and tanks and devastation, but generations of german and japanese terrorists didn't arise. why not?

Uh, because they started it? Most people understand that if your country initiates war through invasion or sneak attacks, that retaliation is inevitable. The US stuck it's nose in the ME before they ever struck back.

I side with Ron on this, though I feel out of place in any Iraq War discussion. I opposed the war from the start, but now that we're in, it's our job to finish it up or else things will get far worse.

|7.11.05 @ 7:22PM|#

Thoreau,

You forgot to predict what Rick Barton will say. I think he might blame it on our support for a state with a name that rhymes with "Schmisrael."

|7.11.05 @ 7:33PM|#

If this is Shmisrael's fault, does that mean that the people behind it all are the Shmoos?

Rick Schbarton|7.11.05 @ 7:37PM|#

Hey, just because I criticize Schmisrael, doesn't make me anti-Schemitic! The Schlikudniks who currently run Schmisrael don't represent the world's Schmoos!

|7.11.05 @ 7:46PM|#

Not "Schmoo," SHMOO. This one:

http://www.deniskitchen.com/docs/new_shmoofacts.html

|7.11.05 @ 7:58PM|#

(1) "You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury."
(2) "You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants."
(3) "You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom."

It all makes sense now - they hate libertarians!

|7.11.05 @ 8:00PM|#

I would appreciate it if you tried not to put words in my mouth. Thanks.

Fair enough.

There is a widely held egocentric model of foreign relations that holds that all the actions of non-Westerners are in fact mere reactions to something Westerners have done. People external to West, like the Soviet Union or Islamist are not conceived of as having their own internal viewpoints or drives.

True as far as it goes, but it would be naive to think that non-Westerners don't base their actions toward us, at least in part, on their interactions with our government.

Also, would it be egocentric to give Bush the lion's share of credit for democratic reforms in Muslim countries?


I did forget to predict Rick Barton's statements. And, of course, there's a decent chance that this thread will veer off-topic and everybody will start beating up on joe for some reason ;)

|7.11.05 @ 8:04PM|#

After posting I saw joe's comment. I now predict a 60% chance that this thread will veer away from Iraq and turn into joe vs. everybody else.

In regard to joe's comment, maybe we could appease Bin Laden by handing over the LP's leadership?

|7.11.05 @ 8:12PM|#

They hate us for our driver's licenses!

|7.11.05 @ 8:17PM|#

Shannon,

"There is a widely held egocentric model of foreign relations that holds that all the actions of non-Westerners are in fact mere reactions to something Westerners have done."

Yes. It is a rather condescending view I have heard from many liberals over the years. Just as idiotic is the implicit assumption on the part of right-wing Westerners that we are the only humans on the planet immune to the laws of cause and effect.

"Our only long term hope for victory is to try to foster a large population of free and prosperous Muslims who will constrain and then destroy the Islamist in their midst."

I absolutely agree with this. This should have been the U.S. strategy against Communism throughout the Third World during the Cold War as well. Instead, we betrayed our values, made an inevitable Cold War more costly than it needed to be, and alienated millions around the world. Fostering a large population of free and prosperous Muslims has never been a U.S. priority in the ME. I am still waiting for material evidence of this kind of radical policy change beyond talk.

|7.11.05 @ 8:30PM|#

It's real hard to read Bin Laden's quotes in the article without imagining the Christian Right in this country agreeing with 90% of it. Makes for a fun game of "Who said it, Bin Laden or James Dobson?" Lending money is about the only thing that they wouldn't agree on.

Liberalism has an inherent drive toward universalizing itself.

This is going to undermine my arguments with conservatives in which I try to convince them that they have nothing to fear from libertarianism. This concept will only entrench their belief that in order to stop the onslaught on their puritan culture, they have to control the whole country and not just their little suburb.

|7.11.05 @ 8:34PM|#

dead_elvis,

You got that right. Having lived in the ME, I laugh every time I hear social conservatives attack Muslims/Arabs or social liberal defend them. If we ever do annex the ME, Israel would be a Blue state in a sea of Red states. :)

|7.11.05 @ 8:43PM|#

Rick Barton is busy looking for evidence that Mossad did the London bombings. I'll bet he finds some, too.

|7.11.05 @ 9:23PM|#

I'm trying to predict what I'm going to write...

On topic, I think Bailey made a useful description of the situation. Sure OBL may not be all that, but the general ideas he put his name under seem to have siginificant support. Using something like econometrics, there must be an optimal level of intervention that kills more bad guys than it inspires. Is that level greater than zero? Almost certainly. Is intervention morally justifiable? Probably not, to me at least, but I'm not in charge and I don't have a WAYBAK machine, so I have measure the effect of withdrawal against the effects of various levels of intervention. Again, the optimal level is still probably above zero, and I've already lost the moral points, so let's finish the job ol' Bush started and get back to picking on joe.

Hmmm...that's not what I was expecting, but it does seem predictable.

|7.11.05 @ 9:26PM|#

Off topic, from several threads over the past week, I'm getting the feeling that libertarianism is a room just filled with elephants.

My economics background tells me then, to assume a bag of peanuts...

|7.11.05 @ 9:30PM|#

Off topic, on topic--all the posts are pretty banal shit anyway, so who cares?

|7.11.05 @ 9:31PM|#

There is a very paternalistic view among some in the Middle East that everything that Westerners do is a result of something a Muslim did to them. There are those in Middle Eastern policy circles who insist that Muslims are the only ones capable of acting with there own agenda, while Westerners are purely reactive.

For instance, some people believe that the invasion of Iraq was a response to the attacks of September 11. This simplistic analysis fails to consider the underlying cultural factors that motivated America to attack Iraq. It is largely America's own aggressive ideology that motivated the invasion of Iraq.

|7.11.05 @ 9:32PM|#

Not to sound too cynical, but after all the mucking about in the Middle East by brilliant American administrations in the past, which still lead to us getting sucker-punched on 9/11, can we really trust anybody to accurately predict the future based on any given scenario? If we stay we might get bombed, if we pull out we might get bombed, when you're dealing with religious lunatics you might as well just flip a coin and go for broke.
Me, I'm all about supporting the troops, so let's let them vote on whether to stay or not. They're "volunteers", right?

|7.11.05 @ 9:38PM|#

Sh'anan al Avi:

I spoke too soo. A rational voice in the wilderness of banality!

|7.11.05 @ 9:51PM|#

I'll say "amen" to Sh'anan al Avi.

"I think that Ronald Bailey is correct in that, as with communism, the struggle against the Islamist is innate and primarily caused by the Islamist own aggressive ideology."

...and add that it's not clear to me that Mr. Bailey even suggested that the struggle is caused by the aggressive ideology of Islamists. ...The seemingly inevitable expansion of liberal ideas and the inability of Islamists to coexist peacefully with liberalism, perhaps.

|7.11.05 @ 10:13PM|#

Ron's article kind of cemented some thoughts that have been percolating around in the back of my mind for awhile now.

As a person with classically liberal beliefs, my initial reaction is "Hey, if you want to go live in a society that forbids you from eating a BLT, washing it down with a brew all while watching the Victoria's Secret Superbowl Halftime Special, go for it."

The problem is, people like that eventually get bored with just beating their wives for exposing an ankle, especially when their womens see that it doesn't have to be that way and they start to get uppity. The end result is that they want to force their neighbor to fit this mold, and eventually the whole 'hood-town-nation-world.

To my mind this has slowly been leading me to the conclusion that a free society cannot tolerate one that is not. While I abhor the idea of engaging in wars, entangling alliances, etc. I don't see where they leave us much choice.

Simplistic and ethnocentric? Hue betcha. But if Ozzy B-L can do it, why can't I?

|7.11.05 @ 10:20PM|#

Shannon Love,

Well, we are not at war. Warfare is something altogether different at least in comparison to the vast majority of terrorist acts committed. Anyway, you've never been one to acknowledge that there are internal motivations to the actions of non-Westerners, so its nice to see that you've finally come around and gotten off the path of Kitchener circa 1914.

Of course the invasion of Iraq has done nothing towards creating a liberal society in Iraq. Which is why Basra has become a "model" theocratic enclave.

______________________________________

The corrosive nature of the liberal societies of Europe are going to do far more to stop the Islamicists than the invasion of Iraq ever will. We've made a terrible mistake I am afraid, for we have not only foolish sacrificed many lives, but we've allowed ourselves to appear weak in the process.

|7.11.05 @ 10:20PM|#

Stevo, save us all by injecting some humor. Please?

Well, you haven't left me much to work with.

What, am I clown? Do I amuse you?

Off topic, from several threads over the past week, I'm getting the feeling that libertarianism is a room just filled with elephants.

My economics background tells me then, to assume a bag of peanuts...

If you were a physicist, you should assume a spherical room filled with point-sized, perfectly elastic elephants ...

|7.11.05 @ 10:25PM|#

Off topic, on topic--all the posts are pretty banal shit anyway, so who cares?

Welcome to the internet. You want culture, go watch A&E.

|7.11.05 @ 10:31PM|#

Stevo: I picture you typing while dressed in a polka-dot suit with big red shoes, and a squirting flower. I would label you a clown, but I hope to avoid any egocentric imperialism.

To all who like believing USA "started it" by meddling in the ME, go back a few decades. It was the UK who left most of the world's trouble spots in disarray. Maybe that's why they blew up London last week, eh? USA is only trying to clean up the mess of a collapsed empire (while encouraging the spread of liberalism and making some sweet ching on the way).

We're from America, and we're here to help!

|7.11.05 @ 10:32PM|#

You want culture, go watch A&E.

HAR!

|7.11.05 @ 11:10PM|#

I want to expand a bit on Evan's point.

Every culture has wackos, people who are motivated by either mental illness, or messianic urges to rework society violently. We have guys like the Aryan Nations, the Flat Earth Society, Earth First, etc.

The question is how much sympathy those wackos get from the larger mass of people in a society whom they court as followers. The more their message resonates the larger the number and the better the quality of their followers.

We will never stamp out every messianic wacko who wishes to destroy our decadent liberal society. The question is, do you want them to be assisted by intelligent followers who have self-discipline, and are supported by funds donated by many sympathizers, or do you want them to be supported by cranks and losers, with the only stable source of income the dues paid by informants infiltrating the organization?

Unfortunately, rather than starve Al-Queada et al. of supporters, the U.S. government's top officials have hit upon the seemingly incomprehensibly stupid notion of fighting a war of attrition. Al Queada tries to recruit from a pool of about 1 Billion persons, if .01% decide to fight on their behalf, that translates into a pool of 100,000 operatives. If 1% decide to support them financially contributing the equivalent of 10 dollars per year, that translates into an operational budget of 100 million dollars.

These rates are increased depending on how aggressive or seemingly unjust our actions are to the pool of potential recruits. So if we kill the 100,000, then we might find ourselves with 1 million relatives and friends or interested observers who decide to fight us. So a war of attrition has the perverse effect of driving more supporters into the enemy camp.

My deep dark suspicion: the "war on terror"(tm) is being waged with a primary goal of maintaining the House of Saud's grip on power. We pulled our forces out of Saudi Arabia by destroying the one army that poses a threat to it. Then came that disturbing Washington Post article wherein unemployed poor Saudi men were getting ready to fight the U.S. in Iraq, egged on by government paid clerics - young men who speculated that the Saudi government was sending the m to Iraq, so that the U.S. would kill them and thus prevent them from fighting to overthrow the Monarchy.

Of course this is a poorly substantiated suspicion, but it has a certain elegance. Anyway, as a U.S. citizen, I will assert my constitutionally protected right to make wild allegations :). Really, it's in the Constitution. Where? What are you - one of those America haters?

|7.12.05 @ 12:13AM|#

On leaving Iraq,

However, there are OTHER, much BETTER reasons to do so...and Ron's argument speaks very little to them.

Could that be, maybe, because Ron's point was something else entirely?


Most people understand that if your country initiates war through invasion or sneak attacks, that retaliation is inevitable.

Uh, not these people. In the Arab-conquered ME, assasinations were a perfectly normal response to getting your butt kicked fair and square in battle, many many centuries ago.

These people have a long history of being really sore losers.


It was the UK who left most of the world's trouble spots in disarray.

I think the French had at least as much to do with creating that socio-political disaster we now call the Middle East. If anything, the French were better at creating disarray.

I for one thank the French for the fact that Ho Chi Minh ever got a serious foot hold in Vietnam. It took some seriously insane French policies to get Vietnamese people pissed off enough to join a communist movement they didn't believe in, beyond throwing out the French.

But I think Ron nailed it. We can pull out of Iraq or stay. If dynamist had a WAYBAK machine, we could replay and invade or not invade Iraq. Either way the bombs would still end up going off in Western cities.

|7.12.05 @ 1:01AM|#

We wouldn't have to pull out early if we would've just taken the time to use protection.

|7.12.05 @ 1:37AM|#

thoreau write: The dovish comments will cause Mona to explain why she's cancelling her subscription (again!).

Well, you have a point, and I guess I've overdone it on that theme. But I have not repeatedly written of canceling my subscription, which I did do, but rather, my distress at the predominant attitude her, at H&R, of not engaging the totalitarian jihadists with the sword. I'm libertarian, but not a dove when it comes to wealthy networks of religious fanatics who kill Westerners.

I'm 49, an old fogey, and I admit missing the reign of St. Virginia at Reason.

Kevin Carson|7.12.05 @ 2:10AM|#

thoreau,

You forgot to mention Stephen Fetchet coming in to complain about slurs against "the [stage whisper] S.C.H.M.O.O.S."

|7.12.05 @ 2:11AM|#

I, the evil conquerer,

No, if you look at the map of the middle east in the 1920s you'll find out very quickly that France was the minor colonial power in the region. Syria and Lebanon are only middle eastern countries that France controlled.

The war in Iraw is becoming a bit like the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Its a nice training ground for Jihadists (something that many people predicted before the war in Iraq started) that can leave the place and spread the violence elsewhere. We've create nasty little monster in Iraq.

Mona,

Engaging Muslim fundamentalist by the sword (if by that you mean this fiasco in Iraq) is and was a wrongheaded idea. Fighting terrorists is not and almost never will be something that involves warfare. Blair realizes this of course and that's why his rhetoric is much more along the lines of a police investigation than what Bush states.

Kevin Carson|7.12.05 @ 2:13AM|#

On a more serious note, Ron Bailey's argument makes the mistake of treating "the terrorists" as a monolithic entity, and their reaction as the only one that matters. It's quite similar to the misconception behind the "what could we do to make them hate us any worse?" argument: it assumes that the supply of "them" is fixed.

As Sam Smith put it in Progressive Review, it's possible to undermine the position of the most violent (and dry up their swamp) by dealing with the grievances of the most rational.

|7.12.05 @ 2:16AM|#

Anyway, the Iraqi ulcer will continue on, will weaken our status as a power, and will lead to ever more recruits boiling into Iraq. I found out something interesting the other day about these recruits; apparently the vast majority of them don't cross over in non-checkpoint areas; apparently they generally walk through the checkpoints carrying proper papers, etc. The insurgency has the upperhand in this area, in propaganda, etc. and U.S. continually acts flat-footed.

|7.12.05 @ 3:00AM|#

They hate us for our porn.

PS, Go Bush!

|7.12.05 @ 4:39AM|#

The question is how much sympathy those wackos get from the larger mass of people in a society whom they court as followers

In doing the calculus, one is wise to consider whether those wackos are blowing up people of outside societies. The wackos from liberal societies seem to:
a) be of limited lethality
b) be lethal only to their own

With those "facts" in mind, Bailey's point about the danger of illiberal societies gets stronger. Maybe attrition isn't wise, but some level of intervention above zero is still indicated.

Mona: You can properly conclude from my moniker that I'm a big VP fan. But, I don't have a WAYBAK machine, and this arena is the best I've found so far. Feel free to email me if you've got a better forum in which I might participate.

|7.12.05 @ 4:54AM|#

"They hate us for our porn!"


I've heard that Bin Ladin can't stand to look at an unveiled woman; I'll bet he'd really drop a load if he had to look at one with no clothes on. Him and all the rest of the sanctimonious, fundamentalist wackos. Why not flood the Middle East with copies of Playboy or such? Either that or send all their Imams a complimentary box of Exlax.

free medicine direct|7.12.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Don't the planes drop propaganda over iraq already? It probably woundn't hurt to drop a few million copies of Playboy...better than flushing the koran down the toilet...

|7.12.05 @ 2:09PM|#

Better yet -- unleash America's secret weapon, the First Fighting Strippers Division!

|7.12.05 @ 2:52PM|#

Just send him a pick of a naked Ayn Rand. That would give anyone a heart attack.

|7.12.05 @ 4:15PM|#

As Sam Smith put it in Progressive Review, it's possible to undermine the position of the most violent (and dry up their swamp) by dealing with the grievances of the most rational.

Kevin, by my standards, these most rational people's biggest grievance would sound like:

"Dammit, I live in a totalitarian society where I have precious little opportunity to exercise my abilities and provide for myself and my family higher standards of living. The government controlling me is immensely powerful and the populace it controls serves as its informants and foot-soldiers. I am surrounded by killers and those who abet them."

|7.12.05 @ 6:50PM|#

It's entirely another to get them to die because some country across the world, that they'll probably never visit, much less live in, doesn't have Shariah Law and allows the sale of intoxicants. Bin Laden might buy that tripe, but how many regular folks are gonna jump on board without the catalyst of in-yer-face guns and tanks and bombs and bases?

Furthermore, he sets the stage for some grand battle royale clash of civilizations, but we all know that the spread of liberalism is not typically so explosive and overt. It slowly and stealthily pervades a culture, and takes over from the inside. And, aside from the fundamentalist rich boys with enough money and time on their hands to worry about a culture across the world, most normal folks are simply not going to get riled up enough to go jihadi.

It's the fact that "the spread of liberalism . . . slowly and stealthily pervades a culture, and takes over from the inside" that drives them to kill us. It isn't a coincidence that many of the terrorist ranks come from Arabs living in the West. Not Arabs in Iraq with American tanks rolling by, but Arabs in France, Germany, and England . . .

Our culture is going to slowly destroy theirs, and some of them will engage in murder in a futile effort to stop that from happening.