Rejecting the notion that we should do nothing is not the same thing as agreeing we should 'go to war'. Personally I think the tactical approach (border checks

Rejecting the notion that we should do nothing is not the same thing as agreeing we should 'go to war'. Personally I think the tactical approach (border checks, security checks, pervasive surveillance, drone attacks, special ops, etc) has huge costs ($$$ and in lost civil liberties) with little or no return on the investment (and arguably a net loss). The core conflict is one of ideas: liberal democracy vs sharia, individual rights vs. communal strictures, equal rights vs patriarchy, and so on. Curiously, the belief in individual freedoms, tolerance, and in particular prohibitions against government preferences towards religion make it extremely difficult for the government to actively oppose ideas that are based on religion -- even when those religious ideas are diammetically opposed to the foundational principles of the system of government. Even in public debate, where the actions of the government aren't in play, we have a difficult time with the notion of public criticism of religious beliefs, never mind criticism of extreme religious beliefs. Even stranger, in some circles it is completely acceptable to harshly criticize Christianity, for example, but it is off limits to be critical of radical and extreme Islam. Strange. We have to figure out how to engage in the realm of ideas over decadal time spans if we ever want to justly declare 'mission accomplished'.