I don't think he'll use military force, personally. Thanks to the Dems, nobody is going to do that until a traceable bomb destroys one of our cities.
You're right that this is a challenge of ideology. Probably Bush will stall until it's somebody else's problem, because the press is against him, academics are against him, the EU is against him, and, in addition, he's neither a theologian nor a philosopher. (He's a pragmatic manager who is being stalled by a very uncooperative bunch of lower level nobodies whom he should have fired the moment he set foot in the WH - but maybe that's just me...)
Of course, the future will define the past...but if he passes Iran off on the next leader (and the issue of Wahhabism, etc.), he can kiss his legacy goodbye. He'll never sink to the level of Carter, but a higher standard (a need for a higher standard of leadership) is forming.
He has not defined the enemy. The enemy is still vague and amorphous...terrorism...extremism. Bullshit.
Basic fundamental islam!
"Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin"
...in the words of Daniel..."he will have been weighed, measured and found wanting..."
Humanity faces an enemy and our leaders dare not speak its name.
Perhaps you should read the recent threads concerning Mary McCarthy. And quite frankly some of us gave up on the academics and scientists a long time ago. Most of them are all nothing more then 'politicians' now.