Myers’ review of Malik’s article on war has a few bottom lines as I scanned/read it. Malik’s view on sovereignty are what one would expect of a moslem. Their god is over everything, so national sovereignties are not real. The continual war until their god is honored everywhere by everyone is an objective that spans centuries. A number of things would make me hesitant to consider it a strategic view. First, it seems to meander through the ages, rising and falling, waxing and waning. IOW, it is directionless and accidental. Second, Islam has at least 2 conflicting denominations and more sup-denominations. That tends to diffuse any coordinated effort at establishing their god’s authority over the whole earth.
The universalism of Islam, in its all-embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political, if not strictly military. . . . The Jihad, accordingly, may be stated as a doctrine of a permanent state of war, not continuous fighting.”— Majid Khadduri
…continuous process of warfare,…, …, educational, economical, social, philosophical, visual, auditory, etc., etc. Jihad - it greatest advancements against modern western civilization have occurred in the last 20 years. The "handsome means" of the jihadis asymmetric war continue unchecked. The prophet's/sarc presence is everywhere. We have nothing to counter it. Our freedoms are ebbing in the flow of fitna. Meccans aren't driving around with COEXIST bumper stickers on their Mercedes. Freedom, not being an imposition placed on individuals, vanishes in time as the willingness to fight against the collective for a cause long ago forgotten becomes futile. Leaders strategize for less lofty goals with lesser collectives. The world is being carved up by anti-truth, anti-freedom, anti-individual, anti-life collectivists/totalitarians imposing their agendas/doctrines and stifling discussions against. Witness current events.