Are the "war on terror" and/or our little adventure in Iraq a war against Islam?

I happen to believe that they come dangerously close. Why? No, it's not because the overwhelming majority of present day transnational terrorists are radical adherents of Islam. It's because of the things our country does. For some reason, many of our elected leaders feel morally responsible for ensuring that democracy, tolerance, diversity, and many other facets of our way of life take root and thrive in other countries. One of the latest examples was the 2004 report from the State Department on International Religious Freedom.

Why do I believe that America's overwhelming desire to see other countries accept freedom, diversity, and tolerance partially constitute a battle against Islam? Islam means submission. I believe that it would be possible for a predominantly Muslim country to hold free elections and follow parts of our way of life (if they desired). However, there are portions of life which are completely bound with the requirement to submit. That requirement for submission would preclude some of the tolerance and acceptance of diversity that many in the West see as prime virtues of a free society.

Our operation in Iraq was primarily based on "WMD". When it began to appear that WMD wouldn't be found, the thrust started to move to, "But we freed an oppressed people from a brutal dictator." Later on in the occupation, some talk of a Constitution based on Sharia law started to occur. We couldn't have that! Paul Bremer threatened to put the kibosh on that. Such a constitution wouldn't be in line with our desire to have a democracy in the Middle East.

The Michael Ledeens of the world try to brush aside the naysayers by using Reagan's "victory" against those damn pinko Commies as proof that America can and will force her values elsewhere in the world. What price did that come at? In the book Imperial Hubris, the anonymous author recollects a Senate hearing from the 80s in which a Senator acted surprised that the future Afghan leaders would be "anti-American Muslims". What enemies of our future are we supporting/creating in our current campaigns? Only time will tell...

There is a time to be brutally vicious. We've already missed on one count. Osama's head wouldn't be a magic bullet to stop the "war on terror". However, it would show that we're not screwing around when we say "dead or alive".

All of that gets away from the point that, for some reason, we think that the religious affairs of other countries need to be conducted as they are in America. That is arrogant. It also comes dangerously close to being "fightin' words".