I'm not sure what "regressive" and "progressive" even mean in this context, much less attached to "liberal." But I'm not going to say you are mistaken, either; I'm sure you could point to an example, I'd have to facepalm and say, "oh, well. Yeah. Them."

But I honestly can't think of anyone I'd take seriously who thinks that religion is either the primary factor, or isn't a significant factor. But then, the people I take seriously start out with "it's really complicated." Even though, as Chomsky points out, it's also really simple.

But I don't think anyone thinks that the western democracies can, much less should do anything about Islam. It doesn't seem like a problem we can usefully address. If some seem to be downplaying it as a factor - well, perhaps they are naive. But it's also possible they feel that line of thought is unproductive at best.

Yes, he's right about understanding the problem first. We also have to be able to understand that some parts of the solution are ones that we cannot be part of.

What we can do is foreign policy. It's also part of the problem and it's a part we can actually change. It's the part that nobody in the middle east, with the possible exception of Israel, has much ability to usefully affect. They can affect it - but with about as much hope of a positive regional outcome as we do of preaching tolerant religious practice.

We can stop bombing people and we can stop interfering in that part of the world. That will be difficult enough, because there are many compelling arguments in favor of doing just that - but we don't have a very good track record.

On the other hand, not interfering and not taking sides will have one great virtue - it will confuse everyone. It will certainly mean that any further civilian deaths will be blamed on those within the region - at the moment, all the factions can be seen as proxies for one nation or another. Some times you have to let people sort their own issues out and then live with the outcome.