Two weeks ago, several hundred Basra University students held a picnic. Then their party got crashed. A gang of militiamen loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr stormed the picnic, beating participants, firing guns, and briefly kidnapping more than a dozen party-goers. "They focused on the women," one witness remembered. "They were beating them viciously." While breaking up the dancing, ice cream, and singing, the fun police allegedly yelled, "There is no secular government! There is only the government of the Mahdi Army!" As if to prove their point, police from the real government looked away.

"They say freedom means they can do what they want. This is not freedom. Freedom does not mean you can transgress traditions," explained Heidar Jabari of Sadr's Shiite group. "There are traditions and rules in an Eastern society that are different from a Western society. Every Iraqi has a right to act against these transgressions."

As new problems arise, old problems dissipate. The resistance seems to have lost its momentum. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is on the run, insurgents kill fewer and fewer Americans, and there's even talk of an "exit strategy" for beleaguered resistance fighters. This is the good news out of Iraq. But even if we pacify Iraq, will it all be worth it if a more Islamized nation emerges?

Changing a form of government doesn't change the culture. Middle Eastern theocracies, kingdoms, and dictatorships have all produced terrorists, religious fanatics, and America-haters. Democracy--if one indeed develops--doesn't magically remove terrorism. Terrorists have sprung from under all sorts of governing systems, including democracy. Rather than the form of government one lives under, the religion one follows serves as the denominator common to most present-day terrorists. To loosely paraphrase an Arkansan, "It's the religion, stupid."

Short of landing several H-bombs on key Middle East targets, I wonder if the best way to accomplish our goal of U.S. safety is through a strategic energy policy.

What do we use oil for? In addition to vehicle engines of all kinds (automobiles, airplanes, etc.), do we use oil-based fuels for electricity, etc.? If so, the simple solution is nuclear power. I've also read that oil can be processed from U.S. shale (spelling?) to the tune of trillions of barrels.

Let's spend the next five years preparing to put OPEC out of business. It's hard to operate a terrorist network with no funds.

I have to agree that the wealth of the Islamic nations, and the fact that they have us by the balls regarding our oil needs, but terrorism is a decidedly low-tech operation. The nuclear terror scenario notwithstanding, explosives are cheap, and cars are cheap. Not to mention that wealthy US donors were financing these guys before 9-11, and probably still do in less obvious ways. The money is not the problem. It is, as Dan says, the Relgion.

Though, I don't see how this helps, really. What are we going to do? Try to iradicate Islam around the globe? Try to convert their people? If it's the latter, than to convert them to what? I don't think our American-style nihilism is any better (see various school shootings, murders in the US, abortions, etc).

Islam is not the problem, it is lack of tolerance fear; on all ends of the spectrum. In fact where history is concerned, Christianity is the more aggressive religion. What ever happened to truee "faith based values?"

Islam is the problem..violent religion. Christianity HAS to be more aggressive because of the simple fact that the Muslims hate "Infidels" and want to kill us all.

Neither of the religions is aggresive. That's the whole point. The core beliefs of each one are the same; in essence, tolerance and peace.

The problem arises when people pervert their religions and claim that the atrocities they are committing were done in God's name.

As has been pointed out before, Christianity is aggressive in trying to convince nonbelievers - and you can't convince the dead. I'll take the truth of the teachings and the example of the great saints and martyrs over and against every single sin and error the Church has ever committed. In fact, the teachings and the witness are themselves the corrective to the sins: what worries me isn't what Torquemada did yesterday, but what I may do tomorrow. Separating myself from Christ because others have done so won't help me be a better man and won't help the Church be stronger and more in the image of its Master.

Allah, on the other hand, would like it if you converted, but if not, your death is equally satisfactory. This is not exactly an obscure or minority teaching, just one that doesn't get a lot of play in public. Muslims didn't make noise like this in Europe until they made up a significant minority of the population. Should they attain similar numbers on our side of the pond I've no doubt you'd start to hear similar rumblings locally. And those Muslims who reject this element of Islam find it hard to speak out because the core value of this religion is submissiveness to religious authority, and not "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself."

Lack of tolerance? I daresay; but we're not the intolerant ones in this case. We may in fact be so tolerant that obvious problems are passed off as 'cultural differences' that 'require understanding' - ignoring the plain truth that understanding may well lead to the conclusion that it is an intolerable thing. It doesn't matter to an extremist that Christians agree with them on the decadence and secular nihilism infecting our society. Nor does it seem to matter to them that a sinner killed does nothing to remedy the sin itself. No, I far prefer Christ's solution, and thus His Church with all her blemishes and failures.

Is America an imperial power?

Daniel, you might remember that I once asked you about a friend of mine that contends that Americais an empire. I sent him a segment of your great book (WTLHA), and this was his response:

Andrew,

After reading your email, "America the Beautiful," I noticed that you
are still making mistakes regarding our history. You claim that
"America has used its military power to liberate the oppressed rather
than to claim dominion over others." This would be true if one was to
forget about the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War and
World War I. What all these wars have in common is that they all
resulted in America expanding her borders and annexing colonies in the
Caribbean and the Pacific. We became colonial masters of other
nations.

"If America had lost World War II, the Korean War, the Cold War, or
the Persian Gulf War, would the world be better or worse? The
alternatives to American hegemony are scary." The alternatives to
American hegemony would be no terrorist attacks. It almost seems like
I am talking to Nader now. (take no offense) I cannot believe that you
applaud our global hegemony. The same hegemony that is getting us
embroiled into every quarrel in the world. The same hegemony that has
left 35,000 troops held hostage on the DMZ between the Koreas. Was it
not this hegemony that brought about the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive
attacks. If you would read the doctrine it states that America will
not allow any other nation on earth to rival our global hegemony. Now
how is this any different than Britain or France?

"Despite 60 years of military superiority, our territory has not
expanded by even an inch. That the most powerful country in the world
is content to rule only itself is truly a novelty in
history." For this quote re-read the first paragraph.

"Our armies march not for empire, conquest, or colonies but in defense
of liberty – even when the liberty we are defending is not our own." I
would have to beg to differ. Why did we march into Iraq? Why are we
beating the war drum to invade Syria and Iran? Is it because they're
trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction or is it to exert our
hegemony over the Middle East? Hindsight being 20/20, I would have to
say that Iraq had no WMD, no matter how much you would like to dispute
the fact. The invasion of the country was to oust the Saddam regime
and put in place a pro-western government. Oh, and by the way, because
of the invasion we now permanently have our military situated in the
Middle East.

But why do we have to go to Syria? Why do we have to go to Iran? The
United States has never militarily opposed a country that has
attempted to acquire nuclear weapons. Why should we all of the sudden
change our stance? Why should we risk our blood and waste our treasure
to do it? In my mind: empire.

"The Panama shortened shipping and travel routes by 7,000
miles." This is completely true, we did what the French couldn't do.
However, do you know how the United States got the land to build the
? I had always learned that it was taken from the Panamians. But
let's go farther than that. How did Panama come about? For the U.S. to
be able to get the Isthmus, which is what the sits on, Roosevelt
had to get permission from the Colombian government. But the
Colombians would not let TR have it, so he supported a revolution in
the province to break away from Colombia. To support the revolution TR
sent our navy down to the coast of Colombia to sink any Colombian
vessel attempting to go to Panama to put down the revolution. So to
make a long story short, Panama broke away and TR "took the Isthmus."
When he took the Isthmus from Panama it was illegally because they
never gave him permission. So, the U.S. built the and occupied
it for 90 years, was this not colonialism?

"The alternatives to American hegemony would be no terrorist attacks." What the hell are you saying? That if we had some power-sharing arrangement with Saudi Arabia than her people wouldn't want to kill us? Or if we just leave them alone, they'll leave us alone? Europe left the Muslims alone for centuries and lost territory and lives piecemeal for 1000 years. Europe was repaid for its restraint by regular visits from pirates who would kidnap and enslave entire towns on the coasts, and murderous armies on land bent on conquest and destruction.

Seriously, are you just ignoring the facts? And, don't counter with "yeah, well...Christians are bad too!" Let's look at the FACTS. To ignore Islam, ESPECIALLY when it's on the rise, is to do so at your own peril.

"Short of landing several H-bombs on key Middle East targets, I wonder if the best way to accomplish our goal of U.S. safety is through a strategic energy policy.

What do we use oil for? In addition to vehicle engines of all kinds (automobiles, airplanes, etc.), do we use oil-based fuels for electricity, etc.? If so, the simple solution is nuclear power. I've also read that oil can be processed from U.S. shale (spelling?) to the tune of trillions of barrels.

Let's spend the next five years preparing to put OPEC out of business. It's hard to operate a terrorist network with no funds."
-Brad

OPEC is going down of it's own accord as Iran rises up to outstrip the rest of the OPEC nations. Iran is now the dominant supplier of the European energy market, and it seems this is now going to be the case with the emerging Chinese market. As OPEC dies, a far more dangerous enemy, Iran, takes over. One of the chief justifications for the war in Iraq is to open up a new, vital oil market to financially battle Iran, and to isolate the Mullahs.

As for our old pal Sadr, he may or may not become a threat. The Iraqi Insurgency is dying faster by the day, but that doesn't mean Sadr will become a problem again. Spontaneous attacks like these ones were not necessarily operating under orders from the Cleric. If it turns out Sadr is to be a threat, the response must be swift, deploying American and Iraqi military forces against him to destroy his militias and kill or capture the cleric himself.

NOTE:

This is not to say Islam should not play a role in the Iraqi world. Islam not only will, but SHOULD play a role in the Middle Eastern culture. However, a strong bill of rights protecting the freedom of all Iraqis must also be in place.

If religion is the key then the government would still play a role. A democratic government that represents various religions would help to promote an Islamic reformation. Don't look pass the power of exchanging ideas and people's ability to reason.