Reading about the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate debates lead me to think about the issue of Islamic Jihad and Iraq. It seems to me that there are four possible responses to the Jihadi challenge:

1) Ignore it, more than likely the movement will implode. Take the hits until then. That is just a risk of modern life. (This was John Kerry's position in the 2004 election, whether his supporters acknowledge it or not.)

2) If the Jihadi's do not implode and their attacks become intolerable, then smash them in a "war of civilizations."

3) Try to change their culture by forceably introducing democracy into the Middle East. This is George Bush's approach. (For those who say that democracy cannot be imposed by force, consider Italy, Germany, and Japan.)

4) Surrender (this seems popular amongst Hollywood actors. It is not clear if any Democrat presidential candidates favor this, but I think Edwards and Obama would eventually wind up here.)

I like Bush's approach the best. The Muslims are following the Muslim Brotherhood plan to take over Western Europe as a first step in world conquest. They do not make a secret of their plan, but it seems so perposterous to most Europeans that they ignore it at their peril. It is in our interest to have the Muslims efforts in Europe fail, and sadly, the Europeans seem incapable of defending their own culture. It is up to us to save them without any help from them. If the Bush approach fails, and the Jihadi's don't self-destruck then we will wind up in a major war. Many Europeans, Russia, and China would like to see the US crippled in a major war. Thsy would love to see nuclear attacks on some US cities. The Russians and Chinese are not worried so much about the Jihadis: they would have no qualms about crushing the Jidadi's should many of them survive a conflict with the US.