Replies

This is the best way to handle it. The alternative that this editorial seems to advocate would be to declare war on Islam. Is that really what we want to do?

Yes, our leaders should understand what the real stakes are. But that doesn't mean that they have to say publicly and officially what they really think and fear. It's hardly in our national interest to make this into a "religious war" or even to admit that, in Huntington's words, it is a "clash of cultures."

This is the best way to handle it. The alternative that this editorial[?] seems to advocate would be to declare war on Islam. Is that really what we want to do?

No, we don't declare a war on Islam just because some Muslims declare a war on us and say that they are doing it for religious reasons. We declare a war on them because of the actual things they've done and still threaten to do to us regardless of the reason that they use to justify their actions to themselves. However, it nevertheless is true that bin Ladin et al., are describing their actions as a holy war of Islam against the infidels. It does NO ONE any good at all to say that this isn't true and that they aren't really doing what they do for the reasons they themselves offer.

All we have to do is tell the rest of the world's Muslims (and everyone else)

1. that how we treat them, or anyone else, won't be based on what they believe but on how they act on the basis of that belief,
2. that they can practice their Islam to their heart's contentment as long as they don't attack us,
3. that the best way they can keep themselves safe (from us) is to disavow the actions of bin Ladin and associates and to help us help them shuffle off these mortal coils and
4. if they do choose to attack us for religious or other reasons, we will be crawling down their throats strictly from a practical standpoint.