[quidnunc]

Old Student wrote: one problem; not all the Muslims are at war with us. There are some from each branch of Islam, but not everyone even from any one branch. And there are nearly as many branches of Islam as there are of Christianity. Making it merely a religious war is oversimplistic. It is a cultural war, and the cultures at war are the extremes, not the center.

There are two main branches of Islam and a scant handful of subsects.

At the risk of being monotonous I have to repeat that to a devout Muslim Islam their culture — and their polity too.

The more secular and less devout the Muslim is the less likely he is to consider himself to be at war with us.

By any standard this is a religious war.

I realize that there are many world-weary sophisticates who have an ideological stake in denying that this is a religious war.

If the proposition can be maintained that this is a culture war then at least some of the blame can be attributed to the U. S. and the aforementioned world-weary sophisticates can continue sending Americans on a guilt trip.

but once it becomes a religious war then the equation changes and the onus shifts squarely onto the Muslim aggressors.

[Ragnar54]

America was founded on the principle of religious tolerance. This principle is one that most Americans (except Muslims) hold dear. If Islam is granted the status of a religion, the only way to reconcile this tolerance with the idea of a "religious war" is to assume that the "radical" Muslims have "hijacked" the religion. This is the administration's current position. Those who fear the rise of a Christian theocracy in this country will be opposed to any "religious" war. The Muslims can at any point pretend to become "peaceful" and there will be enormous pressure to end the war. The Muslims then only need to wait for another opportunity.
It is important to note the essential difference between Islam and what the Founding Fathers meant by "religion". The mullahs preach violence against all "infidels". The stated goal of Islam is overthrow of our Constitutional government. There are no grounds for treating the crime syndicate called Islam as a constitutionally protected religion. The distinctions between Islam and a Constitutionally protected religion must be made clear; otherwise we will face a choice between freedom of religion and freedom from Islam.
It is long past time to start demonizing Muslims. How was Shintoism treated by the Greatest Generation? This is a war against bloodthirsty heathens serving a syndicate founded by a caravan raiding pedophile. This is not a crusade for Christianity. The moral equivalence implied by calling Islam a "religion" interferes with the way the war is being prosecuted. The Greatest Generation developed a prescription for winning this type of war, and both American and Japanese lives were saved; the Japanese have been free of Imperial Shintoism ever since. We are more than equipped to apply this same prescription today. We should do so before the "10%" (percentage of Muslims who are radicals, as estimated by a Saudi official) apply it to us.

[optimistically_conservative]

Good read, from Mr. Bowman who currently serves in the Senior Executive Service of the Federal Bureau of Investigation: Some-Time, Part-Time and One-time Terrorism

[BenR2]

If the proposition can be maintained that this is a culture war then at least some of the blame can be attributed to the U. S. and the aforementioned world-weary sophisticates can continue sending Americans on a guilt trip.

but once it becomes a religious war then the equation changes and the onus shifts squarely onto the Muslim aggressors.

////////////
Well said!

[optimistically_conservative]

I'm curious of your thoughts on how war against, or the banning of, religions (especially religions strongly tied to ethnicity) has played out in human history. Judaism, Catholicism, etc. - lots to choose from.

I'm especially interested in your thoughts of the modern "blood libel" being applied to Muslims by modern Christians, which I find wonderfully ironic.

[Old Student]

"There are two main branches of Islam and a scant handful of subsects. "

The subsects, or rather a minority of the most extreme of the subsects, mostly Wahhabi, are the real problem. If we (or anyone else, for that matter) can manage to kill them off without generating too many more like them, the war will win itself.

You don't have to be NOT devout to get along in the world as a Muslim, you merely have to be left to practice your religion as you beleive it should be practiced (non-violently, for most of them). The Dar-al-Harb, or House of War properly applies to places where Muslims are a suppressed minority. Like France, for instance. Improper action on our part could make the USA part of that place, if we're not careful. That is why I say it is a cultural war, not a religious war. Benjamin Rush (one of the Founding Fathers) wanted us to have mandatory religious education here, and he would rather we taught Islam than no religion at all.