My previous posts on the marketplace of ideas and posture/submit behavior were part of a train of thought that has been rattling around in my head for some time. It grew out of the insight that what we call the War on Terror is not a war that can be won exclusively on the battlefield; at least not in the way we are fighting. The bombs dropped and the insurgents killed just recruit more insurgents. We are not so much rooting out terrorism as “mowing the lawn” in the words of a colleague of mine. As proof of this, consider that the number of terrorist attacks around the world has increased dramatically. We are all less safe.

This is a war unlike other wars, we are told, and so it is. Previous wars were fought and won on the battlefield. Those citizens who supported the warring powers were the ones who were persuaded—by patriotism, tradition, or intimidation—to support and fight for the ideologies of their leaders. Two sides fight, one side wins. But what is different here—and often overlooked—is that there are not two sides in this conflict, but three. Besides the radical west-hating Islamists and the proponents of western democracy and modern, open societies lies the third party who really has the power to decide the outcome. For lack of a better word, let’s call them “Everyone Else”. They are the less-enthralled majority that bestow the crown of victory.

This majority includes, among others, the ambivalent Muslims who might support the Jihadists, or not. I know of no better example of this ambivalence than a wonderful passage from Tony Horowitz’ Baghdad Without a Map, in which Horowitz is watching an anti-American protest march in Tehran. As the throng marches past shouting “Death to America!”, one of the protesters comes over to Horowitz and, having identified him as an American, confides that his dream is to visit Disneyland and take his kids on the teacup ride. Then he rejoins the throng, chanting “Death to America” with all the rest. But there are plenty of others besides the Muslims of the world who look to what each side is doing and ask themselves which side they would rather see be ascendant in the world. The stakes of this war are the ability to shape world events, to wield influence, to be remake the world with the help and goodwill of the family of nations. That cannot be done without their willing cooperation. That is the prize to be conferred by Everyone Else on whoever wins the “War on Terror”.

The true believers on either side will not be converted. But that large, wavering majority whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever will lend or withhold the moral sanction that adds up to global power. Their governments may work with us or try to forestall us (Turkey’s recent refusal to participate in military strikes on Iran is an example). They are the ones who must be won over; persuaded that America and her values represent their best interests.

I am now convinced that while competent military action is an important tool for blunting terrorist organizations—as might have happened if we had captured Bin Laden at Tora Bora—the war will be won in the international marketplace of ideas. My vision of victory is to cut away the popular support that enables Islamist terrorism, reducing those hard-core radical groups to a bunch of frustrated, irrelevant men yelling at their television sets.

Only the more decent, civil, just, tolerant, innovative, progressive, generally vibrant culture will survive. The side that secures unassailable claim to the moral high ground will have a decisive advantage. From time to time I see emails or articles sent by acquaintances that purport to reveal the inner workings of Jihadists and their supporters. The emails scream how much Jihadists mock our liberalism, our open society. They gleefully scheme how they will use our tolerance and consideration against us to destroy us. These scare-mails go into gruesome detail about how these fanatics are ready to decapitate us on a whim, blow up women and children while we squeamish, wishy-washy wusses inexplicably stand by and let it happen. Yes, the Jihadists are just as nasty, bloodthirsty, narrow-minded, hateful, devious, repressive, and intolerant as all that. And that is their undoing.

What most Americans don’t remember is that after the bloodshed of 9/11 Bin Laden became a world pariah as few men have in so short a time. Had President Bush not insisted on the lone cowboy go-it-alone school during the invasion of Afghanistan, he could have gone on TV and said, “Everyone in the society of free nations who can handle a gun, drive a truck, or fly a plane pack a lunch and meet us in Afghanistan,” and the world would have eliminated the threat of global Islamist terrorism for decades to come. Even the other radical Jihadists were furious at Bin Laden and sought to distance themselves from him. Syria, Iran, and other “less friendly” Muslim nations went to great lengths to help us with intelligence and diplomatic efforts to bring down Bin Laden and his organization. At that point, we owned world opinion to do with as we wished. Victory was all but handed to us, and the Bush administration fumbled.

If the war is to be decided by Everyone Else awarding possession of the moral high ground to the side that most deserves it, how can we possibly fail to look better than these repressive, decapitating slaughterers of innocents?

I submit that our principles of how to run a just, fair, and prosperous society are better than theirs. Steven Aftergood makes an excellent argument that open democratic societies where civil liberties are protected are actually more resistant to terrorism than are repressive states. He cites recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by John C. Gannon, former CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence, whose lifetime of observation and experience proves that repressive regimes not only spawn more terrorism, they have greater difficulty fighting it than open societies do.

Should America ever unambiguously regain the moral high ground (possible, but no small feat considering how far we’ve fallen), it ought not require an act of genius to force the violent Islamists into indefensible rhetorical corners where there influence can wane from global threat to sideshow.