Feingold

The important ideas in this post can gleaned by reading the bolded paragraphs.

According to an AP news article, on Tuesday Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) told a meeting of the Arab American Institute, "We must avoid using misleading and offensive terms that link Islam with those who subvert this great religion or who distort its teachings to justify terrorist activities." Feingold continued, "Fascist ideology doesn't have anything to do with the way global terrorist networks think or operate, and it doesn't have anything to do with the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world who practice the peaceful teachings of Islam." My interpretation of what motivates Feingold's speech is that Feingold believes that if we lump all Muslims together under some label of evil, they will fight back as a group, which means more support for terrorism.

Now, I think we are at war with the whole of Islam and that Feingold is in denial. Feingold does admit the terrorism is real and he is proposing a strategy to deal with it. Choosing between Feingold's strategy and my more aggressive strategy for dealing with Islamic terrorism seems to me to come down to some fairly simple empirical questions:

1.Is Islam a religion of peace?
2.Is terrorism a distortion of its teachings?
3.Can saying nice things about Islam make it play nice with the rest of us?

I believe that the answer to first two question is a resounding no, but I have no interest in rehashing what you can read on Jihadwatch. I also believe that the answer to the third question is no. Once again, you can read in many places is that an aggressor's response to appeasement is more demands, but I want to go two additional issues here.
One additional issue with Feingold's appeasement strategy is if we don't attack Islam for its viciousness, how can any moderate faction even get enough influence to become part of the conversation. Currently, there are no moderate factions with any influence. They are only likely to get even mild influence if we force them down the throat of an unwilling Islamic world. Admittedly, I don't think moderate Islam has any chance at all, but if non-muslims want it to have some influence, we will have to demand and fund its influence.
A second additional issue with Feingold's appeasement approch is that it would need to be part of a coordinated strategy to win the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. Such a strategy would also require efforts to improve the image of America in the world and promote capitalism and tolerance. Feingold would vehemently oppose any effort to do any of that. The man spends virtually every waking second doing what he can do to hurt America's image and promote socialist fantasies and political correctness—which is the opposite of tolerance. So, yes, while there is a chance that Feingold's strategy could work in tune with other strategies, there is no chance they work would given Feingold's other objectives.
A third additional issue is we have to consider the time that it takes social change to occur. Social change is rather slow. Iran will have nuclear weapons soon. I don't think any nice guy strategy to Islam stands a prayer under that tight deadline.