I am arguing in favor of two things - religious tolerance as a principle for our civilization and theirs , and a political strategy recommendation for our present fight, that I abbreviate "good muslims and bad muslims". Which, incidentally, I think the administration is basically already pursuing.
On the religious tolerance point, we've got it already, but I'd like to still have it after we are through with this war. They don't have it yet, and we will have won when they do, and those of them that don't like it don't have any more nasty toys.
On the good muslim-bad muslim point, it is divide and conquer. I want to give them a way to surrender that is reasonably attractive from their point of view. I want to dry up the recruitment flow, as well as get rid of the already radicalized nutjobs by direct military action. The study of guerilla war convinces me that is rather essential to lasting success. I do not want to drive all the villagers into the hands of the VC by a policy of "kill all the gooks". That means a political end-state some of them will be able to live with, a way for them to opt out of conflict with us while remaining both breathing and Muslim - but not belligerent. (Indeed, they may pick any two out of those three, within the confines of this war anyway).
"The muslims aren't even considering the chances of the Germans."
I agree. Those arming them don't seem to be considering the Muslims' chances very much, either. E.g. Russia is giving nuclear technology to Iran. There is a wider conflict, or at least a wider arena.
"Tempting, isn't it?
Not to me, no.
"'states we know have attacked us, we should fight back against conventionally'" - "Without delay, without UN permission, without regard for the fact that those targeted may feel that we've "profiled" them, without concern that we might hurt their feelings". Yah, I don't think there is going to be a heck of a lot of the last, but there may be some strategic concern for aftermaths in each place, overall strategy including keeping others out (which may involve diplomacy, horror of horrors), move order, yada yada. As for "states we know have attacked us", obviously Iraq is on the on-deck circle. Iran is looking like it may happen be internal political means.
"target those who fund the fanatics?"
Meaning invade Saudi. Just considering its advisability, it is a serious question I quite agree. It is not going to happen, at least not soon. Mostly we put up with the Saudis because they are cowardly enough we don't care that they also spread hatred, and because they are practical enough lapdogs on the matter of the oil. This is almost certainly shortsighted of us. Political pressure and a few examples next door may have some effect. But they may decide to flip out rather than go along, at some point, and we should indeed be ready for that possibility.
"the nuking of Mecca could be blamed on muslims."
You sound like an OJ lawyer. Um, no, it can't be. Not a good idea either. Al-Quada would love the extra recruits, and it would pretty much nuke their surrender option.
"why is it so hard now?"
It isn't. There are useful idiots in the world, of course, but that is not the reason for the policies you mention.
"Saudi Arabia is our ally. Islam is a religion of peace."
There is a difference between lying and being stupid. OK, "religion of peace" is bad propaganda, which is in a way a two-fer on that score (and something I have myself derided). It is a hamfisted way of enunciating the "good muslim - bad muslim" policy.
As for the wit over Shintos, my perhaps too subtle point is that enemy ideas can survive, provided they are disarmed and politically marginalized. I really don't care very much how much I am hated by powerless cowards. The point being, the endgame in our war will involve the continued existence of Muslims, as a practical matter. We require only victory.
(continued)