I don't think the point is that war is devoid of ideas -- that would be a pretty tall order for any human endeavor. The question is whether "our" ideas could "win" against "their" ideas. Presumably, then, this would amount to an Ideological Death Match between the western liberal-capitalist world order and the non-western Islamist theocratic world order.

I think the answer is, "no," not because "our" ideas are weaker or worse or what-have-you, but because any battle of ideas presupposes some common frames of reference. Colonial revolutionaries in Mass, Georgia, etc., could challenge their royalist neighbors and the crown on shared ideological ground -- the common inheritance of the Magna Charta, etc. Blues and greys could challenge each other's interpretation of federalism and state's rights.

But Marines and Japanese naval infantry were never really able to reach consensus of the validity of Bushido, were they? And I think the same problem is at work here. It isn't that democracy or human rights aren't in some sense global concepts, but that the basic frames of reference -- what, for example, constitutes a "right"? -- between the two sides today are polar opposites.

So I'm not at all sanguine about the notion that the now-departed Karen Hughes or her successor can "win" Muslim voters over to our side. That is a fight, in idea-based terms, that Islam has to manage for itself.