That's what I've been saying all along. Saudi Arabia should have been invaded, not Iraq. But Bush won't do that, because he has Saudi Prince Bandar advising him on foreign policy.

Posted by: Voltaire at September 12, 2004 8:06 AM

Everyone:

"Khaled" is "Reza".

Posted by: CGW at September 12, 2004 9:07 AM

V.S. Naipul and my good friend, Dr. Richard Rubenstein, noted theologian, historian and former university President when he noetd in his book, "The Cunning of History" have something in common. Over three decades ago Dr. Rubenstein presciently wrote that the 21st Century would be marked by a series of endless wars of religion. As yesterday marked the third anniversary of the "Pearl Harbor" of what some observers called the "Fourth World War," the jihadists took out what they thought was a major icon of the kaffirs or unbelievers-the World Trade Center twin towers in lower Manhattan along with the "incidental" deaths of over 2,700 innocents victims, Christians, Jew, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, shintoists and doubtless a few secular humanists among the fallen. The only message that the unvanquished jihadists would understand is if one or a number of the icons of their unreasoned beliefs were "taken out."

Posted by: Chinese Gordon at September 12, 2004 9:35 AM

The way I see it, if all-out religious war is delayed to say, some 2030 or beyond, then the West is lost because by then EU demographics (with or without turkey as a full member) would've gone the moslem way, and maybe, I daresay, Canada as well.

The US, China, Japan and India would then become the new nuclei of active resistance to jihad, or so I hope.

Reminds me of what Nietzsche (probably the greatest Right wing philosopher of the last millenium) said: We of the west are become 'men without chests'....

Posted by: voletti at September 12, 2004 10:17 AM

V. S. Naipaul's two books on Muslims, "Among the Believers" and "Beyond Belief," should be widely read. Their absence from syllables on Islam, and the presence of such as Armstrong or Esposito or Michael Sell's sanitized and misleading abridged version of the Qur'an, and the failure to introduce students to the significance of the hadith or the sira (biography of Muhammad) are all dead giveaways that the course is a course in nothing at all, except apologetics, taqiyya/kitman, and lies.

Naipaul does not suffer fools gladly. His refusal to play along with those in the white and pampered circles of the Western world that will not see Islam for the threat it is (and always was, except that during decades and centuries of relative powerlessness, that threat was subdued, or dormant -- but now the virus, once dormant, is now alive). He was scathing, on his last trip to India, about those Indian "intellectuals" still wallowing in resentment of the English, or dabbling in such terms as "post-colonial" -- a term that only a Said, or one of his maudlin and sinister acolytes, could possibly still take seriously, though who knows? -- perhaps we will be treated to "post-post-colonial" literary analysis -- anything to take our minds off the most successful imperialism in human history, that attempts to destroy all interest in, even knowledge of, pre-Islamic civilization -- Islam itself, and of course the necessary arabization that accompanies, and follows up, islamization (all those "Sayeeds" in Pakistan, all those invented histories turning non-Arabs into "Arabs").

Naipaul's brown skin no doubt helps. He can say things forthrightly that those who were not born in Trinidad, and whose skin is paler, may say -- but will be dismissed. His understanding that there was no Muslim Sir William Jones, that it was the British in India who helped to recover India's Hindu and Buddhist civilization from the indifference, or contempt, of the Muslim conquerors, helped to take Indians who cared to avoid the silliness of Islamophilia (Arundhati Roy or, to judge by her latest comments, Mira Nair -- one more reason to avoid her dulling-down of Thackeray). He reminds this reader, in his appreciation of England, and of the English scholars who were sympathetic students of the Indian languages, religions, and past (see the 2 volumes of Elliott and Lawson on Islam in India, see K. S. Lal, see Bamber Gascoigne), of Nirad Chaudhuri, and especially Chaudhuri's beautiful description of his "England-in-India" schoolbooks in "Thy Hand, Great Anarch!"

Would that Indian intellectuals, instead of aping writers on The Guardian, would find their models in Chaudhuri and Naipaul -- but they, of course, are very much their own men, sui generis to a fault.

Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2004 10:22 AM

Hugh - Thanks. Two more books for the reading list!

Posted by: epg at September 12, 2004 11:04 AM

Erratum: The posting above refers to "Elliot and Lawson." It should have read: "Elliott and Dowson." The book is, as I recall, "A History of India as Told by its Own Historians." It may have been reprinted in India recently.

In apologizing to the shade of Mr. Dowson, I can assure his versifying relatives that despite the initial error, I remained true to him in my fashion.

Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2004 11:09 AM

In Naipul's two books you will read the story of how Islam first conquered a portion of Hindustan. As the Muslims massed outside the gate of one of the main cities in the Sindh with their horses and scimitars, a group of Buddhists opened the gates to let them in, in the mistaken belief that this would avoid "the clash of civilizations."

When the Muslims were allowed in they slaughtered everyone in sight, including the deluded Buddhists.

Today we have the deluded PeeCees, Leftists, multiculturalists playing the same role for our "city gates."

Remember history, and betware.

Posted by: Suzan at September 12, 2004 12:14 PM

SUZAN
An excellent example. Naipul is right , for a start we should stop the building of any more mosques on Western soil. No more Muslim immigrants either.

Posted by: Morgane at September 12, 2004 5:16 PM

Nothing upsets me more than thinking of how when islam swept though afganistan it exterminated buddism...murdering and raping the local population out of existance....the most peaceful religion on earth expunged by the most militaristic...it must have been a easy genocide. I am hoping this scenario doens't repeat itself here.

Posted by: obl r us at September 12, 2004 10:45 PM

All wars are wars of attrition. In "total" war (totaler krieg), the entire productive capacity of the belligerents is pitted against each other. The loser is the one whose economy fails first.

If the economies of the 22 nations of the Arab League over the last century is any measure of the capacity of the Islamic ideology to spur economic organization and productivity, then the non-Muslim world should not have much difficulty in winning a total war. To put it into perspective, the total GDP of the Arab countries combined is less than the GDP of Spain alone. So if the guns or butter mix swings to guns in the non-Muslim world, it won't take much to achieve the critical mass for an overwhelming force sufficient to effectively reduce the entire Muslim world to an 8th century standard of living, including its pandemic diseases, frequent famine, constant tribal warfare and attendant genocides, and 40-year expected lifespan.

The central issue is going to be what level of pain will the non-Muslim world endure before total war becomes the public choice of the median voter. How many more attacks on civilian targets in which countries are going to be enough to muster the political will to truly mobilize the non-Muslim world? I suspect that it will not take many more if the Beslan attrocity is the template for future action.

As for the "sanctity" of religion in the non-Muslim world, even the Geneva Conventions provide for the forfeit of sanctuary if religious buildings are used to conduct military operations. The message here is that the cloak of religion is no protection for ideologies that reveal themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing. Even in the United States, the cloak of religion didn't protect the Branch Davidians. There are limits to what the American median voter is willing to tolerate as a "religion". When the Islamic ideology finally becomes familiar territory to the median voter, it will no doubt lose its immunity and will be treated as the cult of Emperor worship was treated in WWII, including mass detentions and deportations.

Posted by: Hulegu Khan at September 12, 2004 11:01 PM

Hugh Nice Post

One more reason Mr. Naipaul can say with authority on Islam is that his wife Nadia is born Muslim from Pakistan. If I remember correctly she also has written some scathing critism of Pakistan's social and political condition.

Mr. Naipaul is not bound to political correctness. He writes the way he sees it. On the other hand, these days India's media especially English language news media are classic example of pswudo-secularism and dhimmitude.They will see no fault of Islamist ever. So read any thing in India's English language media with big pinch of salt.

Posted by: Oneniceguy at September 12, 2004 11:19 PM

I agree with "all-out religious war" in principle. However, I do not see the point of the current "war on terror". I would agree with the invasion of Iraq if the US/UK were planning to de-Islamify it, by executing all the clerics, burning the mosquest, prohibiting the Islam, and controlling the media and education system. However, that is not going to happen.

Given the absence of thorough de-Islamification, I think wars with or in majority-Muslim lands should be restricted to the following:
(i) Nuclear or Dresden-type bombardment of actual or potential WMD sites, but without ground troops
(ii) Similar bombardment in the case of actual invasion
(iii) Invasion of Muslim-ruled areas with large Kafir populations, followed by expulsion of all Muslims. This should be the approach in the Balkans, parts of the Caucasus, parts of Bangladesh, southern Sudan, etc.
(iv) If Arab oil is genuinely necessary, limited parts of the Middle East should be occupied, and the entire populations expelled

Other than the above extreme cases, I think anti-Jihad should be primarily non-military, taking the following forms:
(i) Expulsion of all Muslims from Kafir lands (poorly educated Muslims should be given the opportunity to apostatise)
(ii) Progressive diplomatic and commercial disengagement from Islam. Famines and horrific tyrannies will result.
(iii) Saturation propaganda of the Muslim world, by internet, leaflets, TV, radio, etc., to encourage mass apostasy. It should be clear that apostate nations will be welcomed back into the family of nations.

Posted by: Rombald at September 16, 2004 5:33 AM