The most fascinating -- and disheartening -- aspect of the War on Terror is how well the terrorists seem to understand what's at stake, while so many Liberals seem either clueless or indifferent. While the latter are wrapped up in Bush-hatred, "suffering" from what they call Post-Election Selection Trauma, making wild accusations of voter fraud by Republicans while ignoring real incidents by Democrats, and self-indulgently "mourning" President Bush's re-election, the former are busy fighting the war. What's at stake, in much of the world, is the future of democracy itself.

In a recent taped statement, a man who identified himself as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said, "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology." The aim of terrorists in Iraq is to prevent Iraqis from exercising their right to choose their own leaders in next week's election, the first of its kind. This statement, however, reflects Zarqawi's understanding of the overall War on Terror (does he call it the War on Democracy?), and his knowledge that, in the end, he and his kind will lose. Democracy and liberty are rising in the Islamic world at last.

Afghanistan held its first-ever democratic election in October 2004. Only a few years ago, the Afghan people lived under one of the harshest and least-democratic regimes the world has ever seen. Some international observers referred to the recent Palestinian election of Mahmoud Abbas as the first truly democratic Arab ballot. The people of Iran are on the verge of rising against their own theocratic oppression. Soon Iraq will hold its first truly democratic election, and according to polls, the Iraqi people are openly enthusiastic about voting and their prospects for the future. Critics say that democracy is doomed to failure in the Muslim world, because of ethnic and/or religious inability to grasp its tenets. This elitist bigotry and knee-jerk nay-saying comes from the same people who informed us that Afghani women would not vote for fear of terrorist attacks, or that the US military could never beat Saddam Hussein's feared Republican Guard. Certainly there are problems inherent in instituting and especially sustaining a democratic government -- after more than 220 years, we Americans still have our problems. Let's not mistake problems for failure, however. Muslims are more than capable of governing themselves, as they do in Turkey and Indonesia.

In April 2004, the Center for Strategic and International Studies published a paper entitled, "Modernization and Democratization in the Muslim World: Obstacles and Remedies." More than 20 analysts of diverse backgrounds contributed to the report. According to the CSIS, the main factors that have prevented democracies from arising in Muslim countries were neither cultural nor genetic, but circumstantial in nature. The lack of freedom in the Middle East is largely due to "the excessive role of the state in the region, the weakness of the private sector, excessive military power, large scale poverty, the legacy of colonialism and the impact of the Cold War." The last part is explained by the vacuum caused by the sudden withdrawal of Soviet support and control as the USSR collapsed, which led to the rise of warlordism in some Muslim countries and "strongman" dictatorships in others. A Pew poll in 2003 found that despite anti-American sentiment, "there is considerable appetite in the Muslim world for democratic freedoms. The broader, 44-nation survey shows that people in Muslim countries place a high value on freedom of expression, freedom of the press, multi-party systems and equal treatment under the law. This includes people living in kingdoms such as Jordan and Kuwait, as well as those in authoritarian states like Uzbekistan and Pakistan. In fact, many of the Muslim publics polled expressed a stronger desire for democratic freedoms than the publics in some nations of Eastern Europe, notably Russia and Bulgaria."

In his second inaugural address, President Bush expressed his understanding of the powerful concepts in play. "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom," Bush said. This is not simply a statement of idealism, however -- the War on Terror began as a war to ensure our own safety, after all. The President continued: "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." However, there's always room for idealism in a just war. Bush also reminded us that, "we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."

Iraq holds the best prospects for stable self-government in the entire Middle East, and that terrifies the terrorists. With an educated population used to a fairly secular society, a high degree of industrialisation, and vast wealth that can be used to alleviate poverty and privation, a democratic Iraq could eventually form the center of a coalition of Middle Eastern democracies. Only a repressed, frustrated, disheartened population can provide the kind of recruiting ground that groups like al-Qaeda need to survive -- and al-Zarqawi knows it. He and his kind will do everything in their power to stop democracy.

The question is, why won't Liberals -- the self-styled guardians of freedom, democracy and justice -- do everything possible to promote it? Why the continual carping, griping, negativity and obstruction? Why the feverish effort to undermine popular support for what America is trying to do? In the end, democracy and freedom will win; Zarqawi and terrorism will lose. Which side are Liberals on?

Part of me hopes that I get the answers to these questions. Another part of me fears that I will.