When it comes to the war of ideas some are out of ammo

Brian Bresnahan:

The Global War on terror is not only a war of arms, but is also a war of ideas. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said words to that effect recently. As the words sank in, I realized the broader implications on our internal debate. It became clear why those who lack ideas of their own for domestic or foreign policy also have no idea, concept, or capability to understand or conduct the Global War on Terror.

Those who constantly criticize the president and attack him on every aspect of his policies while failing to offer any intelligent ideas of their own are also those who show they have no idea what the war on terror is or how to fight it. Every day their words and actions illustrate their absence from the realm of ideas, so it should come as no surprise when they show ignorance toward fighting a war of ideas.

Fighting the war on terror requires a grasp of both tangible and intangible elements, such as fully understanding that although the threat may not be perfectly defined, it still exists. But, those who do not subscribe to the world of ideas typically only acknowledge danger from terrorists when there's political gain to be had because they only think and act within the framework of what's tangible to them. If it's not physically perceptible, if there's no specific danger or benefit to them, it falls outside the realm of their thought processes. That leaves them to focus their fighting where they feel they can make personal gains against perceptible entities, i.e. the administration and military. They spend their energy and resources on internal attacks because they don't comprehend an external enemy that isn't defined by boundaries on a map nor the intangibles which motivate his actions.

...

Al Qaeda has clearly stated that their goal in Iraq is to create instability, foment a civil war, prevent democratization and formation of a government in order to establish a safe haven from which to launch terror attacks and advance their version of Islam. But those who fail to acknowledge and understand this idea fail to understand the need to win in Iraq. Those who lack the capacity to comprehend this idea also fail to understand that the consequence of premature withdrawal from Iraq is an Al Qaeda victory, which in turn provides them the opportunity to establish a new base of operations for their attacks against us. They fail to understand that our early departure would reinforce the Islamic Jihadists' notion that Americans lack the resolve to fight for our own future and embolden them to do even more harm to us. These ideas are central to Al Qaeda's strategy, but those Americans who can not work with ideas and the reality that comes from those ideas play right into the hands of that strategy.

...

There is more. It is important that we succeed in Iraq for another reason also. While the US defeated the insurgency in Vietnam, the perception still exist that we did not, even though the war was lost by the South Vietnamese in a conventional warfare attack from the north. In Iraq we must defeat the enemy and be seen as defeating the concept of insurgency warfare. If we do not it will mean we will face insurgency types threats for years to come and more Americans will die. We much defeat not only the enemy but the concept of insurgency.

One of the difficulties with doing so, is that many of the people in this country who are invested in losing the war want to do so to keep the quagmire concept alive as a deterrent to the use of force. They view it as the last shred of restraint against the use of force by the US. These people are faux pacifist who criticize only our half of any conflict while pretending to be on the side of peace.