This is the opposite perspective that any American should consider very carefully, especially if they espouse military strategy.

Although we see them as "Evil" and "Terrorists" of course, they don't see themselves that way.

Since the Napoleon's expedition in Egypt, the Islamic world has found itself besieged by overwhelming European Empires.

Although once the dominant force that defeated Europe, with the decline of the Ottoman and Persian Empires, they found themselves weak and helpless against the Europeans. During the 20th century, when much of the Islamic world was colonized, this anxiety became acute.

Now, against an overwhelming enemy of superior strength, they are winning back ground.

To us it is a disaster, but to them it is a miracle. It is to some in the Islamic world what the American Revolution was for us - a victory of the people.

Ask yourself: If I were not blinded by my social context, would I still believe as I do?

Just to be clear... I do not support Jihad or terrorism.

I just want people to reexamine their preconceptions and reflexive opinions.

Excellent. I think it was Jimmy Carter who said something like "Understanding the validity of your opponent's position is the beginning of diplomacy."

Well, we should also note that, although we tend to take all of this personally, America is actually only tangentially involved in this fight, and certainly isn't the main target of Jihad. We simply got in the way.

As the General explains later in the article, his sense of insecurity comes not from America and Freedom but from local rival India and Hinduism. For him this is a battle to be on equal footing with a powerful neighbor. He said that with the Pakistani development of a nuclear bomb, that he felt they had become "even" but that he feels they lost that equality after the Kargyl War, allowing their insecuirty and the aggression that it mandates to re-assert itself.