There are two major theories about the roots of Jihadi terrorism. One theory, subscribed to by the anti-American left, holds that jihadis are mainly upset about US foreign policy choices such as support for the continued existence of Israel and the Jewish people generally, rejection of the Kyoto Treaty, historic support for anti-democratic regimes in the Islamic world, stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, and for generally being a capitalistic, imperialist entity that exploits Third World people and prevents the emergence of the ideal Socialist Utopia.
The other point of view (held by Neo-Cons and others) holds that religiously-based terrorism arises in the Middle East because the economies and social structures of ME nations don’t provide anything like full employment for young men, village life is crumbing, there is a massive flight to the cities by unemployed young men without roots or affiliations in the cities, and there’s an enormous jealousy of the West where standards of living are higher, morals are looser, women have rights, etc. According to this view, the young jihadis join together at the mosques since they’re without family or friends, where they’re lead by members of professional-class families who were educated in the West where they were radicalized in mosques run by mullahs who blame the sad condition of ME societies on Zionists and Crusaders who keep the Muslim down. The children of the professional class and the villagers share the same dilemma: they can’t find work, and without it they’re unable to marry.
Peaceniks propose to win the war on terror by appeasement, often proposing the notion that simply accelerating the two-state solution and driving more hybrid cars will do it. Critics maintain that appeasement implies the extermination of the Jewish people (or at least the destruction of Israel), the elimination of women’s rights in the West, mass conversion of Christians to Islam, and the imposition of Sharia Law on the West. Proponents of development, especially the Neo-Cons, propose to inject market dynamics into the ME and to replace autocratic political structures with representative government. Their opponents accuse them of seeking simply to line Halliburton’s pockets with lucrative oil contracts.
Of course, nobody knows which side is right as we don’t really have the data one way or another to conclusively disprove either theory. But supposing that the Neo-Cons are wrong and spreading liberal democracy to the ME doesn’t reduce terrorism, at least we’ve exported our best values and improved some lives a bit. If the other side is wrong, we’ve destroyed the basis of our civilization for nothing.
It’s not a hard choice, really, and you don’t have to worry about flypaper theories or WMDs to decide where you stand.