One of the distinctions between the Right and the Left regarding the ongoing war with Islamic fundamentalism is the cause the underlying the conflict. The Left seems to believe that our presence in Iraq and elsewhere is “breeding” terrorists - as if the primary reason for Islamic fundamentalism’s penchant for terrorism is a reactionary one. It’s a “blame the West” mentality. The Right, in marked contrast, believes that the actions of Islamist terrorists are at their very source religious, compelled into action by a belief structure absent any sort of real world prodding by free people.

Hassan Butt, a former member of the British Jihadi Network, validates the conservative interpretation. In an article in Britain’s Daily Mail, Butt explains

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us.

The West certainly is to blame for Islamic terrorism, simply by its existence. It this sort of insight from a former fanatic that helps frame the long term nature of this conflict, and the need for Western civilization’s persistence and patience, not self-flagellation and 1960s mired intellectualism. In the world of the Islamic fanatic, there is no grey

There isn’t enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

So do with this anecdotal redemption what you will. The best way to defeat your enemy is to understand him. If American and Western leadership refuses to accept the truths about the showdown between our culture and the culture of the caliphate, the war will continue and more lives will be lost. An all-out press is still needed, and I am afraid that a significant portion of our Western populace prefers the instinct of the ostrich to the will of a Churchill.

UPDATE Further proof of my point.

The Tennessean runs a story today on Gore’s message, which follows on what I thought was a perceptive opinion piece by David Brooks in The New York Times a couple days prior (well, not everyone thought it perceptive).

Al Gore’s newest (s)creed comes in the form of a lament. Moving on from the gospel of environmental disaster, which causes the otherwise anti-religious among us to throw their hands to the heavens and shake with the spirit of Gaea, we are implored to now look to the American political tragedy

“There is a crack in the foundation of our democracy,” the former Tennessee senator said.

That crack, he said, is caused by the replacement of reasoned dialogue with manipulative appeals to emotion.

We have nothing to fear but Al Gore himself - and the Democrats say that Republicans peddle the emotion. Having read a number of excerpts from the book, I cannot help but flashback to college, where reading the tedious writing of overeducated academics was a daily requirement. Having moved beyond that phase of life, I see no reason to be so masochistic - especially since we’re talking only about a self proclaimed academic, who so gloriously flunked out of divinity school, couldn’t finish law school, and who (funny enough) received a “D” in natural sciences at Harvard with an overall “C” average.

But hey, he writes nearly as awkwardly as Bush speaks, and a Gore presidency would have required us all to wear solar panels on our backs by now, so I’m happy with the trade off.

Gore’s complaint seems to stem from the emotional “manipulation” of the public by the Bush administration over the Iraq war and the public’s reliance on broadcast media (as Brooks notes, doesn’t the Internet solve a lot of the problems Gore bemoans?). The former vice president’s inescapable conclusion is that no one rational could believe what conservatives believe. Because, as we now all know, the 9/11 attacks never actually happened, Saddam Hussein wasn’t responsible for a million deaths, and France and Russian didn’t maintain the same threat assessment the United States did. If only we would just skip away from the Middle East with a smile on our face. Without our interference the region would devolve back into the great and peaceful landscape it has always been. Perhaps even women will get the chance to vote by the next millennium. Or, if we’re lucky, men will, too.

Contrary to Gore’s assertion, the American public isn’t stupid. There’s a difference between dumb and busy. Yes, people get their information faster now - because they can, and because life has become more and more complex with each generation. Read Gore’s book in its entirety if you must - I’m going to stage a protest and watch some TV.

I’m holding my breath for the Fred Thompson announcement, but Rudy Giuliani’s views on the Islamist terrorist threat are right on

The former New York City mayor, currently leading in all national polls for the Republican nomination for president, said Tuesday night that America would ultimately defeat terrorism no matter which party gains the White House.

“But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have?” Giuliani said. “If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer.”

“I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense,” Giuliani continued. “We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense.”

He added: “The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us.”

No, they don’t. In fact, we learn that Speaker Pelosi, the white flag waver-in-chief (though Harry Reid might dispute that title), takes our national defense and foreign policy so seriously that she can’t make a Congressional briefing on troop escalation that she scheduled

WASHINGTON, Apr. 24, 2007— As the House and Senate prepare to vote this week on the final conference report on the $124 billion troop funding bill — which would also mandate that U.S. combat troops begin withdrawing from Iraq on Oct. 1 at the latest — Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to come to the Hill tomorrow to brief lawmakers on the progress of the recent troop escalation.

ABC News has learned, however, that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will not attend the briefing.

“She can’t make the briefing tomorrow,” a Democratic aide told ABC News Tuesday evening. “But she spoke with the general via phone today at some length.”

But back to the mayor. He had some great things to say. I particularly like this

“This war ends when they stop coming here to kill us!” Giuliani said in his speech. “Never, ever again will this country ever be on defense waiting for [terrorists] to attack us if I have anything to say about it. And make no mistake, the Democrats want to put us back on defense!”

Giuliani said terrorists “hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world.”

Giuliani continued: “The freedoms we have are in conflict with the perverted, maniacal interpretation of their religion.” He said Americans would fight for “freedom for women, the freedom of elections, freedom of religion and the freedom of our economy.”

Addressing the terrorists directly, Giuliani said: “We are not giving that up, and you are not going to take it from us!”

I know 9/11 was SO long ago. I mean, almost six years is a long time, and clearly one major party seems to believe the threat has subsided (heard any serious plans out of the Democrats regarding Afghanistan, Pakistan, or the Sudan, lately? Me either). The party of Clinton and Carter has seemingly forgotten the size of the stakes and the scope of the conflict. Iraq is not just about Iraq. Iraq is a front in the larger war that cannot fall, and certainly cannot be handed over to al Qaeda on a limited edition specially numbered Pelosi/Reid engraved silver platter. Being kind in my assessment, the Democratic leadership possesses the foreign policy attention span of your average gold fish.

The Democrats have determined that 1) the war in Iraq is lost, and 2) we need to get out on a date certain. Forget for now what happens once we leave Iraq, or what message an outright surrender would send to those who prefer us all dead. Or how a chaotic Iraq empowers Iran, and places the world’s oil supply, and our economy and well-being, in great peril. The “get out now” crowd has clearly not thought more than one step ahead. Maybe if Harry Reid could stop focusing on how to lose a war to win an election, he would have the time to actually inform himself about the region we’ve been politically and militarily embroiled in for the last sixty years. The irresponsiblity of the Congressional leadership is sickening. The only answer is to win the war, and they ought to know it.

UPDATE The top two Democratic contenders take issue with Giuliani’s statements

“Rudy Giuliani today has taken the politics of fear to a new low and I believe Americans are ready to reject those kind of politics,” Obama said in a statement. “America’s mayor should know that when it comes to 9-11 and fighting terrorists, America is united. We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure.”

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, weighing in with a statement posted on her campaign Web site, said: “One of the great tragedies of this Administration is that the president failed to keep this country unified after 9/11. We have to protect our country from terrorism — it shouldn’t be a Democratic fight or a Republican fight.”

Hillary is right. It shouldn’t be a partisan fight, but thanks to the antics of Harry Reid, among others on her side of the aisle, it has become a Republican fight. The Democrats are more intent on packing up and coming home (which, inarguably, cannot be confused with a fighting stance).

Meanwhile, through impressively polished rhetoric, Obama says absolutely nothing, which is quite Clintonian of him (meaning Bill, not his wife).  Neither leading Democrat came out against the follies of their party, and neither has a real plan to execute the War on Terror. Rudy appears right.

I was able to watch much of it, and came away underwhelmed (though any time the angry bat in the attic gets put in her place, I do applaud). For Bush, it was a good performance. Take away that qualifier, and this ardent neo-con is left shaking his head.

Today, Howard Kurtz has an excellent column in the Washington Post about the problems Bush faces in communicating with the country regarding Iraq and the War on Terror generally. What pains me, and Sarah somewhat touched on this a couple days ago, is that Bush has a great vision for the world, and has engineered the most pro-democracy activist foreign policy since Ronald Reagan, but he just can’t seem to tell anyone about it. In this, he is no Reagan and cannot be.

At first, I thought his less-than-polished speaking style was an asset, as it helped emphasize the contrast between him and his much slicker predecessor. Now that inability to communicate has become an albatross. We are in a war where we are winning every battle, with no draft and with an all-volunteer military, but somehow keep losing public support. We have been in Iraq for three years and have witnessed many concrete accomplishments. The same can be said for Afghanistan. But the successes are muted. The bully pulpit stutters and repeats catch-phrases, unable to convey what we have truly accomplished over the short time we have been there. We have brought drastic change to one of the most backwards regions on the planet. The failure to communicate this to the people is causing a noble longterm vision for the Middle East and the world, and the resolve to effectuate it, to fade. I have to lay a lot of that at the feet of our commander-in-chief. To me, it’s greatly disheartening. Bush is right. We are on the right side of history. Rightly in a democracy, to maintain even a moral course, the people must support you. We need the soaring rhetoric again. Mr. President, that’s your job.