The new terror lexicon
I'm not so sure [as Joseph Myers] that this change in lexicon constitutes a collapse of strategy. I just finished reading Dinesh D'Souza's "The Enemy At Home", and there is a good possibility that this change will separate the extremist/global domination Muslims from the general Muslim population. If the populace does not perceive the war on terror to be a war on their religion and on them, they will be less susceptible to manipulation and to participate in the attacks on the west. It will make it easier to turn their sentiments against their own leaders.
I realize that the Koran does dictate world domination, but I think that we can use Christianity as a parallel. Most Christians go to church weekly and adhere to the basic precepts of the religion, but it does not dominate their lives. I also read Michael Yon's "Moment of Truth in Iraq", and our soldiers are winning hearts and minds with simple human decency toward the civilians and determined aggression toward the terrorists. The people are turning in the terrorists to the American soldiers. Iraqi children want to grow up to be American soldiers, the Iraqi soldiers are adapting the behavior and style of the Americans. The old Muslim paradigm was that strength and courage were demonstrated by brutalizing innocents. Our soldiers are giving them a new example; quiet, even humble, professional deadliness toward armed combatants (terrorists) and respect and protectiveness toward civilians. In less than a year, the Iraqi soldiers recognize this as a superior measure of strength and courage: a soldier who is so strong and confident that he does not need to brutalize everyone, or boast of his prowess, who doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. That is a soldier.
Muslim people, like everyone else, just want to live their lives. They don't need to dominate anyone; they are accustomed to being oppressed by their own religious leaders. There have been numerous articles indicating that the Iranian people would be very happy to be relieved of their mullahs. Several years ago, I saw photos of Iranian rioters holding signs asking Bush to come and help them.
By separating the terrorist element from the Muslim people, by distinguishing the targets of the war on terror as separate from the Muslim population, we can turn the population against their own oppressive leaders and give them a superior option.
This might be a smarter strategy than is readily obvious. The other option, waging war against the entire Muslim population would mean killing or converting over a billion people. What are the odds and what would be the cost of successfully accomplishing that?
I'm not sure this needs to be published. Nothing seems to inspire the terrorists to do really stupid things like thinking they have the upper hand. They overplay it every time and become easy targets. CAIR and other islamofacist organizations can be dismantled at our leisure, the only power they have is the power to incite civilian Muslims to violence. Suppose we disarm that weapon with goodwill toward people, who despite all of the propaganda, probably have more in common with us than we realize. All that will be left is a paper tiger or as we Yanks used to call it hot air.