It's easy to forget that within the substrata of all wars rages another battle, that of ideas.  Although the adversaries are typically seen as champions of good or evil, the rationale for going to war is usually far more mundane.  Recall that a prime cause of the Franco-Prussian war was a memorandum that Otto von Bismarck altered to appear insulting to the French.  His motivation was to establish the German Empire, a goal he realized, along with picking up the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine.

Indeed, whether it's trade routes and economic hegemony, as was the case in the Punic Wars, or seething ethnic hatreds, as in the recent case of the Balkans, ideas predicated on the proper role of the state, of the measured application of power, as well as the rights of man, are in constant battle.

Writing in the New York Sun, James K. Glassman, under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, provides a persuasive argument that real power projection can only be successful when case-hardened by a cogent assault in the arena of ideas.  He outlines the framework for the battle, its tactics and tools, and then states its goal:

A world in which the use of violence to achieve political, religious, or social objectives is no longer considered acceptable; efforts to radicalize and recruit new members are no longer successful; and the perpetrators of violent extremism are condemned and isolated.

He uses recent successes in Iraq to illustrate the ways in which raw violence can be marginalized, indeed, stigmatized.  He notes Lawrence Wright's recent piece in The New Yorker which describes how Dr. Fadil's erstwhile radical Islamic beliefs ultimately gave way to a deeper understanding of his faith, which has materially advanced the cause of non-violence among mainstream Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Among other weapons in this war are the "credible Muslim voices" that Glassman argues are crucial to sanitizing the noxious influences of radicalism in the Islamic world.  At the local level, the truth and efficacy of this methodology is evident in numerous examples, from public service announcements that encourage desired behavior and inhibit undesirable behavior to the positive influences of movies that portray morally uplifting values.

If there's anything in this formulation that gives pause it's the element of idealism, one steeped in the notion that people are instinctively drawn to goodness, which, in a world of radical Islamic hatreds seems quixotic indeed.  Yet, as Glassman notes, violence as an answer to our problems inevitably depends upon a decision, a choice, and it's equally idealistic to believe that human nature is deterministic and therefore immune to reason and entreaty.  

But it's also true that this initiative is dependent upon the confidence that our ideas are superior, and therein lies a serious problem:  To wit, although we all agree that freedom is a universal, self-evident right, the consensus begins to fray when notions of American exceptionalism are included, because they have the taint of imperialism and economic hegemony, as propagated by liberals uncomfortable with America's global pre-eminence.

The truth, of course, is that we have no choice but to attempt to win the proverbial hearts and minds of those willing to listen, and despite the fact that some Americans are inconstant allies in the war of ideas, it's a wholly worthy cause and a vital tool to inhibit violence and encourage peace.

There is ample anecdotal evidence that clearly points to a history deficit for many on the left, and Arianna Huffington drives the point home with a remarkably ill-informed piece wherein she appears astounded that Americans aren't entirely comfortable with the adulation Sen. Obama is receiving on his campaign tour of Europe.

We'll stipulate that Obama has performed well thus far, but since his appearances are in the same vein as a Beatles tour in the 60s, it's hardly surprising.  Huffington draws on quotes from a variety of Americans, and seems sincere in asking why many of her fellow countrymen might be uncomfortable with the praise that's being lavished upon Obama in Europe.  We can begin with the fact that, to many, Obama appears to be running for president of the world, not America.  Indeed, with policy recommendations that range from health care mandates to higher taxes and regulations and, which smack of a soft version of socialism, he's much more in tune with citizens of France or Germany than those of America.

Another pet preoccupation of Huffington and her leftist colleagues is the charge that America's reputation suffered under President Bush.  What they conveniently omit is the fact that 29 Democratic senators voted to support military action in Iraq and, when the war became challenging they headed for the tall grass.  History has recorded the pathetic fact that many Western European countries failed to stand with America because the war became unpopular at home.  Well, if toppling Saddam Hussein and standing up Iraq as a fledgling democracy was the right thing to do in 2003, what's changed?

The change begins with the saturation of the Western hemisphere with a liberalism that loathes authority and power projection, that stigmatizes success, that is instinctively drawn to arguments concerning the moral equivalence of all nations, and that is most comfortable with transnational agencies such as the International Criminal Court, the World Bank, and the United Nations.  Although it's ignorant of the history that informs its misguided thinking, it champions the Westphalian notion of absolute sovereignty, which China exploits to defend its horrific human rights record, and, a version of that defense is used to refute arguments for demanding that Iran cease its nuclear weapons program.

It's only in the bell jar of liberalism, where evil has been written out of the script and where America's foibles loom far larger than the good it's done for the world, that Obama traipsing across Europe to be lionized by foreigners has the ring of electoral ecstasy.  He's everything George W. Bush isn't:  He's charming, cool, hip, glib, culturally tuned-up, and on the right side of all the important issues, from being against the war in Iraq to the redistribution of wealth to on-demand abortion to an abhorrence of guns.

Well, perhaps that's why his campaign tour of Europe makes mainstream Americans queasy.  But we can't expect the likes of Arianna Huffington to understand that.