Muslims are generally too poor and backward to be much of a genuine threat. It's possible a city here or there might be lost thanks to some terrorist nutcase.

Other than that they only go beyond nuisance level when the local population is mostly Muslim and hence ready to shield and support them.

In the case of state action, Iran has a GDP half of Mexico's and a completely broke-ass military. Equating it to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or even the CSA is not very convincing.

The War on Terror was won centuries ago. I doubt what remains is much of a contest. Calling this WWIV is something of an overstatement. If it's not being treated seriously by the prevailing culture, it's most likely because it is realised Islamic terror is simply not an existential challenge.

The Russian and Chinese states are still going to exist in 20 years?

Ali's right. This isn't a war, it's a PR campaign for the hearts and minds of Islamofascists. It makes me sick. The pope apologizes for quoting a venerable scholar, the police in England agree to give their leaders a heads up when they plan to arrest some bad guys?????

The world may have gone mad, but one thing's sure, another attack on the U.S. will bring reprisals the like of which the world has never seen. I don't care who's president.

In 20 years, China will exist as a free state perhaps united with Taiwan. The Chinese are nobody's fools. They'll catch up quickly as will the Indians.

The poor Russians, I fear are in for the long slog unless a new-age czar riding a white horse bursts on the scene and starts cleaning up and modernizing.

Venerable scholar? Try "partisan hack."

OJ:

There's a difference?

Ali:

But that is why it is a mistake to identify the real war as a war against Islam. Sure, no one believes there is going to be a military defeat or an invasion, but that is just a skirmish. The war is about facing a world hostile to the West and its culture while the West is governed by those equally contemptuous.

Aren't birth rates one way to measure a culture's self confidence?

Peter:

Indeed, there is no West. Just us.

Joseph:

Especially bad news for Iran:

www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HI08Ak01.html

It's possible a city here or there might be lost...

Mighty generous of you...

If there are cities to be "lost", then let's make sure they are cities that they'd rather not "lose", instead of being one of ours. A not irrational sentiment for those of us who seem to live in an urban area that usually appears on the lists of candidates for being "lost."

OJ:

I was going to send you a link to the international editorial in the WSJ today, by Bret Stephens, about the chief Sunni cleric in Egypt. But it was behind their firewall.

One Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who (as Stephens writes about him) is a more elitist version of Arafat. As I read the piece, I thought - there is a reason OJ wants the Shi'a to succeed.

Then I read the transcript of Hewitt's interview with Lawrence Wright (author of "The Looming Towers"). In one sense Ali is correct - the Islamic world does not present a monolithic challenge that would force us to start rationing sugar or gasoline. But, the challenge from the nutjobs (Sunni and Shi'a) is such that we cannot ignore it, either. That would lead to the sacrifice of a city, or a cruise ship, or a stadium, or some other inviting target. Perhaps the 'realists' can accept it, but we the people will not. And it isn't the proper answer for the Muslim world, either.

One thing seems sure - any reformation of the Islamic world in the near term is going to be led by secular Muslims, or academics, or even the 'laity'. It probably isn't going to come from the ranks of the clerisy. They are too confused, too doctrinaire, or just too feeble.

A cruise ship? Without being over heartless, the Republic can withstand the loss.

What gripes me a bit is that our LLL dem betters are complaining that we cannot be in a war because we have not had to sacrifice things. There is not rationing so apparently there is no war.

I think the commenter above is right in that we don't have to ration the sugar etc. What we have to do is pull together and I don't see that happening anytime soon given the disloyal opposition. That is the best chance that the Islamofascists have in this mess.

Sadly, for many it's going to take a major terror attack at a time when Democrats have been in control of the White House and/or Congress for several years for them to realize there are certain people out there who hate us as much or even more, for the things they believe in than for the beliefs held by the Red Staters who put Bush in office.

Substitute a slaughter at Busch Gardens or Disney or Six Flags for the cruise ship, if you like. But for suicide-minded nutjobs, those are high-emotion targets. Everytime a cruise ship actually experiences the open ocean, it makes the news, no?

The problem for any future Democrat in the White House is that his response to a major terror attack (with hundreds or more of American dead) will be measured against George W. Bush. So what is Mr. Realist Reasonable Democrat going to do? He can't pretend it didn't happen (like Clinton). He can't boycott Saudi oil (as much as John Forbes Kerry wants America to believe he would). And he can't nuke Mecca. So, will it be LBJ all over again? With body counts and defoliation and coups and micromanaged "war"? Or will it be Jimmy Carter II, with long faces and requests for lowered thermostats and cardigan sweaters, followed by irrational outbursts?

A cruise ship? Without being over heartless, the Republic can withstand the loss.

You sound like an old-time Bolshevik dismissing "class enemies." Will need to remember to not be too broken-hearted over any future terrorist attacks that might occur i Kenndyland and its northern suburbs, since, as you say, "the Republic can withstand the loss."

Cruise ships are hardly filled with the rich. Passengers are very much like people at the mall -- families with kids, singles, geezers -- in other words, just ordinary folk. The ads on TV showing opulence and beautiful people in formal dress were nowhere to be found on the recent cruise we took.

Raoul:

The loss of an urban centre is not something I would exactly welcome. About half my extended family and two-thirds of my friends live in London after all.

I was trying to present a worst-case scenario as to what the terrorists are maximally capable of. A (relatively) low-level annoyance is being blown up into a threat on the level of the Soviet and Nazi empires.

Yes, they're just like other ships. We lost lots in past wars without much effect.

Like it or not, a tiny slice of American exceptionalism is that "$*^# like that happens over there, not here. And if it does, we fix it".