Before I hoist my goblet with the cheery gathering at Akman's article, I'd like to address one of Bryan's Fauxized comments that jumped off the page at me: WarOnWhat

"But the stakes are at least as high . . . a world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law). I do not understand why the American Left does not grasp this."

When "despun", I think Bryan may have a valid point.

Westerners have hijacked the term "jihadist" to a degree that it's become synonymous with "terrorist". In doing so, they unwittingly transfer the religious legitimacy of jihad to murderous actions that are anything but holy. By missing this distinction, Westerners show a woeful ignorance of Islam and its pervasive nature in Muslim cultures, as Akman notes in his comment at Bryan's article. Bryan's article is such a jumble that I can't tell if he recognizes this distinction.

However, the failure to distinguish between jihad and terrorism confuses ends and means in Westerners' minds in a way that may actually promote Osama's cause. Terrorism is but a means Osama is employing to achieve what he believes is a providentially ordained objective -- global domination by an Islamic caliphate. Global domination is probably too ambitious in the near-term but domination of Muslim cultures throughout the world isn't.

Al Qaeda. means "base" in Arabic and should be interpreted exactly as we interpret Bush's "base". This is the hardcore of believers that Osama pulled together to sew political, social and economic discontent in the Muslim world. That Al-Qaeda is comprised of jihadists gives a germ of legitimacy to Bryan's statements. However, defeating terrorism, as Bush likes to repeat, ad nauseam, isn't the same as defusing Osama's movement.

That movement, the jihad, has the disturbing potential to live on -- unless we are able to ensure that Osama's vision, his values, his followers and he himself are discredited in the Islamic fields he has so adeptly cultivated.  

When a gun battle erupts in a Baghdad back alley, it makes little difference whether the shooter is a terrorist or a jihadist but, in Washington, D.C., there's a big difference that must be acknowledged.  It's possible to win the battle with the terrorists and lose the war to the jihadists.

If this is the point Bryan's making, I'm with him. It's unfortunate it's obscured by all the other Faux News stuff you've thrown in, Bryan, but you can thank a Leftie for stripping that away to reveal the more important issue you raise!