Why? This is the key question that has so far gone unanswered in the current struggle, the United States' so-called global war on terrorism. It is the "why" questions that can be notoriously difficult to answer. It used to be the case in American secondary education, when pupils were taught how to write, that they were prompted to consider answering the traditional battery of basic questions: who, what, when, where, how, and why. In a general sense, the "who-what-when-wherehow" questions seem rather straightforward; they involve description, characterization, classification, or basic fact-finding. But the "why" question is in a category all of its own. It can pose the thorny challenge of uncovering more than just superficial reality. In terms of human behavior, it probes deeper and requires the writer to explore such concepts as meaning, truth, falsehood, intent, passion, and belief. It demands a completely different scope and level of reasoning. Over and above description, classification, or characterization, it requires analysis. In the fields of study that address human interaction-for example in ethics, politics, international affairs, or warfare-answering "why" questions involves penetrating the underlying cultural and metaphysical belief structures that serve to guide both individual and collective behavior. While "who-what-when-where-how" questions more often lend themselves to measurement, "why" questions inevitably reach beyond the scope of data collection and processing. The latter explore the strategic high ground that forms the basis for understanding humanity in all its shades, customs, cultures, and conflicts. Policy and academic elites in the United States seem very skilled at answering the "who-what-when-where-how" questions. In the current conflict, apparently inaugurated by the shocking events of 9/11, policy and academic elites have meticulously researched the answers to this standard battery of questions. Yet few thoughtful analyses have emerged that rise to the strategic scope of explaining why the collective enemies of the United States continue to perpetuate their violence. Many pundits have contributed their thirty-second made-for-television ideological and political sound bites. What is lacking, however, is a robust and rugged exchange of ideas, or a substantive Lincoln-Douglas style debate about the "why" questions. One primary reason for the absence of this strategic debate is that today's policy and academic elites are intimidated by passionate religious faith-and the current war is unavoidably connected to religion. Whatever one thinks of the metaphysical realm, one cannot escape the fact that one side clothes itself in religious rhetoric, and often seems driven by metaphysical passion. But in the realm of American policy and academic elites, religion is persona non grata. To these elites, religion seems antiquated, troublesome, pedestrian, and unsophisticated. Their Zeitgeist is defined by the empirical rather than by metaphysical phenomena.