[CCIP]

I don't think the terrorists can "win" in the sense that you mean. Terrorism is a limited tactic and is aimed at instilling fear and producing dissent; it can't, by default, 'win' an entire inter-cultural struggle as you suggest. A "win" in this particular scenario would be not by terrorists but by at least a very large Muslim coalition which is yet to form; in fact as the disorder in the ME suggests, such a coalition is far, far from anything. Additionally, any wars fought against US or US-supported states by Muslim countries ended in disasters for them.

I don't think 'war' is the measure to solving them. It's much more a cultural than violent issue, and let's not bring violence into it. Asserting a strong tradition of secular government at home is the best that could be done in the West; Bush has not done a good job of that and, at points, seemed to turn it into a holy war of some sort.

I'm personally convinced that no "war against" will ever really succeed. In that case we need to define what Bush's war was for. Was it a war for American security? If so its success is marginal and has not really been tested yet. Was it a war for Iraqi/Afghani freedom/democracy? If so, it's a pretty big failure so far; democracy as a means for itself means nothing - and conditions cannot be argued to have improved (you got rid of Saddam/Taleban, but have you really made their lives better? I would argue that while there's some obvious big improvements, there are also big down-points, so the net result, especially in Iraq, is quite negative).