Eric S. Raymond, most famous for his work on the dynamics of open-source software, started up a war blog recently called "Armed and Dangerous". His series on the War Against Islamists represents some of his best work to date:

#1: Fundamentalist Fundamentals. Eric has read the Koran, and thought about it. He describes Islam as a religion subject to periodic fits of violent fundamentalist revival, and with a core ideology and history that also predisposes it to warlike behaviour.

#2: Jihad and the Khalifa. This installment analyzes the roots of Islamic terror in the Koranic duty of jihad, and elucidates Osama bin Laden's goal. Based on Al-Qaeda's own words and Islamic messianism, Eric makes a strong case that the goal is nothing less than the destruction of the West and the establishment of a global Islamic theocracy (Khalifa).

#3: Clueless in Connecticut. Why do Americans have so much trouble comprehending the true scope of their enemies' ambitions?

#4: Diplomatic Futility. Diplomacy is next to useless in this situation. Eric explains why.

#5: A Way Forward. "The war against Islamic terror must be fought on three levels: homeland defense, military power projection, and cultural subversion. We must foil terrorist acts; we must imprison or kill the terrorists who plan and execute them; and we must dry up the pool of potential recruits before they become terrorists who can only be stopped by being imprisoned or killed."

-- Now, Let Me Tell You What I Really Think --

I think the Islamic religion, like all religions, is more malleable than people give it credit for. Every day, you can watch Christian priests and laypeople explaining understandings that differ radically from what people believed 100 years ago, let alone the version of Christianity in vogue when Andalusia fell in the late 1400s. Religions are made up of people, and people change their interpretations to suit their understanding and interests. Islam can and will do the same, but only when the fanatics have been crushed.

Ironically, in attempting to restore the Khalifa, Osama bin Laden may destroy the idea instead. As Eric Raymond himself notes with his closing words:

"Osama bin Laden may, in the end, have materialized his own worst fears. The ideology of jihad has created its mirror and opposite; the dawning sense that we in the West have the right, the power, and the duty to wipe bin Laden's brand of religion from the face of the earth before it destroys us all."

Eric's statement of the problem is correct. Weapons of Mass Destruction keep getting easier to design, build and acquire. Time is not on our side. Failure to act risks the lives of untold thousands in the West - and far larger numbers in the Muslim world.

If the Islamists are not crushed, decisively, a Taliban-like regime in Pakistan is highly possible. Al-Qaeda has thousands there, and many elements of the ISI intelligence service are sympathizers. That substantially raises the risks of nuclear terrorism, as well as a war with India whose casualty figures could approach 12 million immediately and 100 million longer term. In a similar vein, it's not hard to imagine scenarios involving Israel and the Arab states alone with casualty figures approaching 2 million... and that's a limited retaliation scenario.

Many of the Islamists don't even see a problem with this, viewing the results as acceptable sacrifices in light of their death-cult mentality. It only takes a few people like this, in the right places, to set a nightmare scenario in motion.

In light of that reality, anything less than vigorous, forceful, comprehensive action is lunacy. Notice the figures we're talking about, without even considering the scenarios involving American retaliation for a biological or nuclear terrorist act. "Pacifism" is not moral when it willingly risks the lives of millions.

September 11 was the wake up call, the chilling realization that anything was indeed possible. Now we're at war, a war that involves certain nation-states, but also an ideology (Islamists) connected to a stateless, trans-national organization and its allies.

The cultural front will be key, but it will not win by itself. Military force is so important to their culture that it must also be employed with crushing effect against states who protect or otherwise support the Islamists. 4th Generation Warfare will be the mainstay, therefore, supplemented by more conventional battles in places like Iraq.

It really does come down to "us or them" here - and anything other than "us" is the wrong answer.

UPDATES: Vodkapundit does a fine job applying these ideas to the Iraqi situation, in his post on the conduct and potential consequences of "Gulf War II". He also links to this Cold Fury scoop that indicates the war may not be long in coming. Good stuff.

Isn't A Pundit... is one, judging by his recent column on what victory means. Best lines? "The most common bumper-sticker sentiment is 'United We Stand'. This implies a kind of stasis and isn't exactly a slogan to strike fear into the hearts of our enemies. After all, the Jews stood united at Belsen. Much good it did them." Thanks to the aptly-named Cold Fury for the pointer.