Thanks for zeroing in on your points of interest in the Kerns letter. Your sad conclusion that we will be fighting Islamic fundamentalism for the next hundred years hit my urgent response chord to dialog with that subject first. First of all we have been fighting Islamic fundamentalism since the day of Richard the Lionheart who was as grisly as any military man could be.   He had the same strategy of winning as you purport i.e. find them, fight them and kill’um all. It is estimated that since the US invasion of Iraq there have been no less than three quarter of a million Iraqis killed either as combatants or as ‘collateral damage’. I’ll use that word for the deaths of the innocent Iraqis just to be nice. Having said that I have to ask the question: Did we manage to stomp out communism simply by defunding the Soviet Union? Have we stomped out the ideology of fascism by defeating the Nazis? Where is the logic concerning Islam that somehow we can stomp out Islamic fundamentalist haters of the Western World? This is a serious question that for the life of me you will have to address because until there is something more than just creating the chaos of war to win a war there is really no direction it will go since direction does not exist in chaos. In other words no one has come up with a G-D reason for why we are in Iraq or a competent logical plan to somehow win hearts and minds because brother peace ain’t gonna happen until we do, and because of our refusal to leave that fair country there will never ever be a possibility for peace. You can’t get a guy to make peace with you if all you’re doing is punching his nose and gouging his eyes while he’s doing the same to you; keeping in mind that we are in his backyard.   I think I’ll end here since I seem to be ranting.

Leatherneck ... I have already responded to the initial letter (and you chose not to address my interpretation or comments, which is fine by me) so I will not reiterate them here.  I do have a couple of specifics in your last message that I would like to address, however. The Radical Islamists are an adaptive and innovative enemy who engage in asymmetrical warfare. Total war in this case is a clear path to defeat, as total war rests on defeating an enemy state as opposed to a belief or movement. We are adapting our tactics to their actions as fast as they are adapting their action. I cannot say with certainty that we are winning, but I can certainly say that is is not clear that we are losing as the democratic institutions are taking hold, moderates in Iraq are gaining the trust and legitimacy that we want them to, commerce, education, and local self governance are increasing consistently, Al Qaeda in Iraq has ceased to be a significant entity, and finally Al Qaeda has shifted support to the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. The first half of your assertion is insightful, and I concur.  Unfortunately, "we" (despite massive citizen protest and well-articulated protest throughout the media and in Congress) chose to invade a sovereign state and replace the head of a nation who actually acted as a bulwark against theocratic rule (the goal of al-Qaida).  We have, theoretically, defeated that "enemy" state by executing its leader, but explanations for and rationalizations of the ways in which it advances our cause -- just or otherwise -- against radical Islam are conveniently avoided.  That is because our military presence in Iraq is a costly mistake (lives, property, infrastructure, money, and focus ... not to mention a big big hit on any positive public relations campaign we might wish to resuscitate). As to the success of the democratic institutions taking hold in Iraq, that really depends on what and who you read.  According to spokespersons for the administration, progress is being made.  However, the credibility of such sources must be deeply questioned and at the very least be viewed with skeptical glasses.  According to other sources, the provincial elections have been postponed from October to December because the four major interests in Iraq still cannot agree on structural issues -- most importantly, how different sections of the country are to be ruled, how representation is to be determined, and whether the nation will be partitioned or remain as a unified state.  Very few of the goals you identified (commerce, education and local government) have been successfully addressed; that is, the jury is still out.  The only "good" thing that has happened, as far as I can tell, is that ethnic cleansing has successfully segregated once fairly integrated communities, which accounts for a large part of the decline in sectarian violence that has very little to do with our escalation (euphemistically called "The Surge"). In terms of your final sentence, al-Qaeda has NEVER strayed from its support for and collaboration with the Taliban in Afghanistan.  "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", though it had actual members and conducted real operations, was about as real an al-Qaeda as the current bunch of American Minutemen are "real" patriots.  Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't even exist until we overthrew Saddam and created conditions he would never tolerate that enabled a wannabe Islamicist to go public. If the cause of the hatred is, as you insist, US invasionist policies, then why does the hatred go back centuries before the US existed? I really would like an answer to this question. Also, please note that Radical Islamists are attacking the Russians in Chechnya and have been doing if for quite some time. Abu Sayef and the Moro National Liberation Front in the Philippines grew from a long line of Islamic separatist violence dating to before Spanish colonial period. Would you care to comment on that as well? Albanian Islamists had fomented religious and ethnic violence in Kosovo in the late 14th century and have continued the Jihad to the current time. The UCK (Ushtria Çlirimtare e Kosovës or Kosovo Liberation Army) has, as a point of their manifesto, the goal of uniting the Muslim populations in Kosovo, Macedonia, and Albania and to form a new Islamic Republic in the region. They have been heavily financed by Al Qaeda, European Islamic Charities, and the Revolutionary Council of Islamic Revolution of Iran. "Hatred" is a mixed bag.  Shi'a and Sunni have oscillated between collaboration and opposition ever since the death of Mohammad.  Relations with non-Arabs, and then -- once the Islamic world spread outside of Arabia to include hundreds of non-Arabic people -- with non-Muslims has also had a spotted history.  Those relations include spotty relations of Muslim with Muslim, as well.  Each of the struggles that you describe illustrates the point I made in my other post -- while there is some overlapping and common interests amongst radical Islamicists around the world, almost all such radical movements are nationalist in nature, and very limited in scope -- both in terms of perceived enemies and in terms of broad goals.  A "unified" radical Islamic caliphate may be a commonly expressed goal, but you can bet your sweet bippy that there is no agreement (and heated, if not violent opposition) about who should be the head of such a caliphate.  In short, radical Islam is like a hydra -- lots of tentacles all stemming from a common source, but all working for different (and sometimes cross) purposes.  In some ways, this makes it more formidable an enemy, because what works in one region of the world may no work so well in other parts. Diplomacy cannot work against an enemy that does not believe in diplomatic solutions. The goal of diplomacy is, and always has been, to find a mutually acceptable solution and frequently results in a compromise solution to the problem at hand. The Wahabiists/Radical Islamists will use diplomacy only to buy time to position themselves for the next assault. They are not interested in compromising because they see no win in a compromise solution, only a loss. They are willing to allow us the feel safe, as that is when we have historically let our guard down and made their attacks easier. Diplomacy also does not work against a loose coalition of non-state based extremists.  One can sit down with the head of a nation or even a political region and find pressure points and other bargaining chips to begin discussion.  This of course does not guarantee that discussion and negotiation will be successful (nothing can guarantee such success), but it does provide the basis around which talks may commence.  Guerillas don't have much to discuss.  A very good, and close to home model, would be the Apache.  We only subdued them after capturing all and incarcerating all (though they kept escaping and going back to their low-down, dirty border-crossing ways) ... and then waiting a couple of generations until all the fight had been taken out of them.  This may, indeed, be what we have to do to al-Qaeda and other radical groups around the world.  Clearly, though, such a goal is not a traditionally structured military operation ... it is primarily a police and investigation effort, supported by quick, surgical application of force. In the current fight, we cannot win unless we are willing to annihilate every last Wahabiist/Radical Islamist, which I do not believe we are willing to do. But we cannot afford to lose, as that would mean the destruction of the religious and political freedoms characterize the western world. What we can do is continue the fight, protect democratic movements, and support legitimate governance in every hostile theater until they get tired and give up or just run out of support. You asked for my vision, this is my sad prognostication, we will likely be fighting this enemy for the next hundred years or more and for my great grandchildren's sake, I hope that we never give up. Much of what you say I agree with, but there are a few false assumptions (currently, though they may prove true, ultimately).  Any threat of "destruction of the religious and political freedoms" you speak of is way down the line.  Because radical Islam is, as you say, a guerilla movement and not a state that musters armies and attack vehicles, the threat to western civilization is minimal.  There is no means for Osama bin Laden to conquer the U.S. or any European nation, for that matter.  There is no pressure that he can bring to bear that would cause a western state to "surrender" to his demands.  He can make our lives uncomfortable.  Our President's reaction (and inaction in the proper sphere) suggests a hint of how uncomfortable we can become  -- out of fear we may surrender the rights we take for granted.  But that is our problem, and how we deal with threats internally ... not a true external threat.  We have to find ways to balance our need for internal security without sacrificing those rights.  It can be done ... but not by using fear as the primary source for action.

Dam Leatherneck what does your BBC article have to do with what we are talking about? Are you asserting that a few success stories make up the whole of our success within the chaos of military invasion?   You gave a rather thought out and concise view of Middle Eastern history concerning Islamic infights with Islamic fundamentalism and its warlike attitudes toward both the West and the East i.e. everyone should tow their mark of Islam and no other.   What you have not succeeded in showing is where it is relevant within the midst of an occupational military and how that by our presence we are not distorting the issue of Islamic terror by making them rise to the occasion because of our being there.