Excellent post at the Belmont Club

The fight against Islamic terrorism is often yoked to other and less desirable goals. Whether used to promote a national ID card, the European Union, the cause of British New Labor, or certain Israeli political parties the fight against terror rarely rises to the pure vision expressed by President George Bush: to overthrow the corrupting influence within a world religion and to bring freedom to the dysfunctional societies of the Middle East and South Asia. But then, Islamic militants have used a variety of local issues -- from Kashmir to Timor; from Mindanao secession to returning to Granada -- to advance their own agenda. Viewed up close the "bloody borders of Islam" consist as much of local political conflict as they do of the worldwide issues like Iraq or the restoration of the Global Caliphate. On the level of ideology the fight may have been between an 8th century religious creed and the democratic ideal, but its local manifestation is always going to be Bush against Kerry; Aznar against Zapatero.

But not only has radical Islamism stirred up local mischiefs, it has also functioned as a bellows to fan the flames across other smoldering divides: the conservatives versus the Left; Europe versus America; the Third World versus the First World. It is almost as if the historical narrative, after seeming to settle into the smooth patch of the 1990s, had been reanimated across its entire spectrum by the Islamic disturbance, which shook things loose from their momentary stoppage and got things flowing again. Although the War on Terror is ostensibly a fight against the nihilism of radical Islam, it is probably much more: just how much more history will presently tell us. Radical Islam may find they are in the grip of larger forces whose power they have unleashed, which in their arrogance they sought to control only to find that events have acquired a dynamic of their own.

The only thing I can add is that if the strategy and tactics of the Republicans are not up to the job, and clearly the Democratic party's appeasement/surrender strategy is not an option, there might be a political movement to send Muslims "home", whereever that might be, or to plant a cross, swastika, 50 star flag, or fasces on top of the Kaaba and solve a problem festering since 636 AD in the event that peaceful co-existence doesn't appear to work out.