Victor Davis Hanson's latest OpEd looks to break the "Gordian Knot" that has become the Middle East situation.  Many on the Euro-Left in particular, view the conflict as a series of tactical, proportionate responses by our "enemy" to our policies -- one action leading to a reaction.  If we stop doing X, they'll stop doing Y and we'll both continue down our individual paths.

By contrast, our many of our "adversaries" view the conflict in decidedly moralistic tones with a vastly longer time horizon.   The West is Evil, they are Good.   We may tactically win battles A, B, C, and D.  But (after they've got nukes), they'll win battles X, Y, and Z.   Compromise is a temporary, tactical solution en route to a strategic, Moralistic Triumph.  In fact, the whole notion of a long-term binding compromise between 2 sides at a bargaining table to them intrinsically assumes a moral ambiguity -- and therefore weakness -- by both parties.

Hanson writes that in this conflict, our own Moral indecision about what's Good with the West uniquely fuels their fire:

Either we can accept that the United States is a more moral and decent culture than the tribal world of the fundamentalists and dictators, and thus must not lose out to their medieval visions — or in our self-doubt and moral conceit we can worry endlessly over why we are not liked as we would wish, and therefore choose to feed both our fears and their audacity.

Our/Bush's most recent, deliberate characterizations of the conflict as the Moral voices of democracy, free speech, freedom of Religion, etc. versus the Axis of Evil finally begins to phrase the fight in terms that give our adversaries reasons to be concerned.   They've long recognized the fervor instilled by their moralistic fight, and now, have begun to recognize the fervor in ours.

The real root causes of conflict aren't tactical policy questions around the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, or UN resolutions, or Globalization but, are rather Moral and Values questions which transcend this.   This recognition is particuarly well-baked into the US Intellectuals' What We Are Fighting For message.

Unfortunately, this search for Moral Imperative is precisely what triggers accusations of unilateralism from our erstwhile European allies.  Questions of morality are too black and white for a Continental culture accustomed to negotiating between shades of gray and who are particularly skeptical of a Moral basis for action.  

However, VDH argues that Morally driven action has been the key towards our recent, rapid progress towards breaking the Gordian knot:

Yet because of our unilateral efforts so far, the world is changing as we speak. Thus proponents of appeasement should pause and ask themselves, what was the catalyst that has led to Saddam Hussein freeing prisoners, opening his borders with Saudi Arabia, and sending peace feelers to Kuwait? And what explains the recent death of Abu Nidal in Baghdad, the New York Times interview with a suddenly contrite killer Abu Abbas, the apparent regret of former Iranian terrorists who stormed the American embassy in Tehran, or Mr. Arafat's request of Hamas to cease its killings?

Is all this sudden frenzy of criminals and killers to appear less murderous a result of the U.N. edicts? Are we to thank the efforts of a pious Jimmy Carter or the post-9/11 speeches of a lip-biting Bill Clinton listing the sins of the Crusaders and General Sherman? Do we see some progress because of a moralistic Tom Daschle's hoarse warnings about going to war? Or perhaps the visits to Baghdad of worried American Congressmen have produced moderation in our enemies? Or have the recent ethical marchers in Washington and in Europe had salutary effects? Did the French set us straight?

Keep up the good work dude!