>It's a new Cold War, really. The Cold War was never direct -- it came scarily close during the Cuban missile crisis -- but it hovered over every moment of our lives. Duck and cover, etc. This is exactly the same. Take off your shoes, throw out your mouthwash. Our view of the world contradicts that of a large, committed adversary. There is good reason to think they will not stop coming at us. They are an "army" of fervent renegades. They do not fight on our terms and they will never stop coming until we come to honest understanding of their aims. That doesn't mean accomodating them, it means understanding them as a first step. To follow the present course of trying to eradicate them like insects is madness. It only inspires new generations of jihadists.
>
>We don't have to be weak. We just have to be reasonable. Listening is a severely undervalued art in our current diplomatic approach. To me it's not a whole lot different from a bad argument with your spouse. You get really mad, you say things, then one or the other concedes some trivial point and you realize it's not worth fighting over.
>
I give this analogy about 5% validity. What trivial points do you see that could be conceeded (by either side) and result in "happily ever after?"

"They are an 'army' of fervent renegades. They do not fight on our terms...." I think we understand their objectives very well indeed. I would be interested in what you consider "reasonable" in our approach and how that would improve things. Bear in mind, I am NOT talking about the occupation of Iraq. The jihadists were in place long before that.



>I'm not suggesting the Islamic fundamentalists will be so easily swayed. I don't see us kissing and making up any time soon. All I'm saying is we should gain a bit of understanding and then convince them our way is a better way.
>
We start from fundementally different outlooks on what is important. They reject virtually everything we stand for, and vice-versa. Do you have any expectation of them convincing us that their's is the better way? Why would you have any expectation of convincing them?

I disagree with the Bush administration's policies on almost every issue. I wish I were smart enough to come up with something better. But I feel safe in saying that "If we only understood them better" isn't that something better.