The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror ``The United States can be successful in this war if and when it succeeds in convincing the majority of the people in the Muslim and Arab nations of the inherent superiority and universality of its ideas over those espoused by militant Islamic groups and is successful in equating its ideals of political constitutionalism and social equality, for example, with the ideals of egalitarianism, which exist within Islam, as a religion, itself. ``

That`s just it - it`s tough to convince the majority of people in this region of the ``inherent superiority and universality`` of western ideals. Many people may like Western values, but many don`t care for what they see as the ills of Westernization - a focus on the self above all else, greed as a primary virtue, the breakdown of the family unit, lack of a strong foundation of ethics, increasing societal fragmentation and alienation (just today I read an article about the increasing social fragmentation in the US), and so on.

``The greatest misfortune of the politics in the Arab and Muslim lands has been its inability to offer any leadership or a future to its people and historically speaking, there has been no leadership in the Arab-Muslim world capable of voicing the sentiments of its populations and nor has it been historically successful in realizing them in the last hundred years...Therefore, the United States should allow the Islamic world to see and experience what a tolerant, democratic and progressive society and free peoples of the world are capable of and it should let them experience this option.``

This is an argument that is commonly used to explain Islamic militantism, but I remain unconvinced of it. History is littered with examples of an oppressed people with no voice coming together when aggrieved and overthrowing the established order. What makes so many people, including the author here, so sure the Muslims in these repressive regimes are incapable of doing the same?

It`s not a popular point to make these days, but these regimes have stuck around for as long as they have because they have the tacit approval of at least a significant percentage of the population. Many people have tried to fit Muslims in the Western ideological box, and conclude that Muslims live the way they live in so many countries because they just don`t know a better way.

Many do know a better way, but prefer a more ``Islamic`` (if it may so be called) mode of existence. And that is because there *IS* a clash of civilizations, Islamic and Western cultures *are* inherently different. Not that I am claiming, however, that Arab muslims don`t want democracy, stability, peace and progress. I`m just saying that the specific variant of democracy and progress they want is very different from the Western mindset. Let`s keep in mind that the majority of the world`s muslims live in freedom - so muslims have already experienced what the ``free people of the world`` are capable of.

War of the Sexes Excellent article. Many women have, somewhere along the line, forgotten that they are fundamentally different from men, and always will be. Any effort by feminists or governments to treat women and men as exactly the same is inherently unfair to women, as women being treated the same as man in every way is basically women conforming and adapting to a male-dominated system - and giving up their womanhood in the process.