| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
David Selbourne, author of The Losing Battle with Islam, has written a piece in the Times entitled, "Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not" (thanks to Nick). His points are well taken -- not so that we can go gentle into that good night, but so that we can begin to address these matters as quickly as possible. For it is never too late until we are actually put to the sword, and our children pay the jizya and wear the zunnar. And of course, even then begins the reconquista.
1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.
Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.
3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.
4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.
5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.
Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.
6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.
7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”
8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.
9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.
10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.
But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.
Posted by Robert at September 9, 2006 4:40 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Even if the West loses the battle, the war has already been won. The fate of those who reject Jesus Christ has already been decided, the certain outcome written in the book of Revelation.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 9, 2006 4:57 PM
Bohemond_1069,
In truth at the end of the age, it will only be the King of Kings and His army of Heaven that will in the end defeat Islam, Muhammed, and Satan, whom Muslims worship.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 9, 2006 5:08 PM
None of the points he makes cannot be changed. Some easily. I'd like to address some of his points:
10: What does he mean by "superior"? And, additionally, the West (and what about China and India?) is many things, including, in the U.S., many evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians (as well as Hasidic Jews). He's making religious-based societies and technology-based societies mutually exclusive. Islam is uncreative; technology gives us the edge.
9. Our dependency on Arab oil: Well, this is a technological issue. Definitely solvable. Of course in the long run, the problem will solve itself: they will run out of oil. Shorter run, well, we just made some huge oil discoveries in the Gulf; could be more of them. And, if we move to E85 or hydrogen, that will solve the problem pretty much completely. Once we take away oil dollars, their societies will cave.
8. C'mon, now. The web? Many groups make use of the web, including Aryan Nations, children (MySpace), gay people, anti-Dhimmis. The web is neutral. In fact, without the web and the easy access to knowledge, I would probably have never heard the term "dhimmi". The web opened the eyes of millions of people to the evil of Islam.
7. The market is not a doctrine, but a law (you know, law of supply and demand). You ignore it to your peril. No Moslem society is an economic success. The market gives us a big edge. The Soviets pretended the market didn't exist.
6. Non-Islamic fellow travelers. This is definitely a problem, but as the evils of Islam are exposed more and more (look at the recent polls in England, Denmark, Germany, Holland: all moving strongly against Islam), this problem will evaporate.
5. Another cry about the lack of moral bearing. The U.S. and South America, as well as Evangelical China and many parts of Africa are profoundly grounded morally.
4. Bad and competiive policy makers: Also a problem, like #6. But, like policy confusion before WWII, it will all go away once the curtain rises.
3. Bad Western Leadership: Definitely a problem. Nothing to be done but hope for a good leader. No advantage here to either side.
2. Underestimation of Islam: If the NY Times is a guide (and in this case I believe it is), Islam dominates the news subject and has since 9/11. This will continue. It means that we in the West will be exposed more and more to Islam. BUT, Islam is not united and has many centripedal forces, so I'm not sure what their 'strength' is. I've read that in Sunni chat rooms, Shi'ites are referred to as 'toilets'. Perhaps the author here has ignored the profound hatreds within Islam.
1. Again, like #2 and other, this is basically the argument from ignorance. Yes, there is ignorance about the nature of Islam. And yes, as time passes we will become more educated.
Seymour
Posted by: Seymour Paine at September 9, 2006 5:15 PM
He makes excellent points but he forgets Americans have always had a nasty habit of accomplishing the impossible. I might go to my maker with both thumbs deep into some mujahid eye sockets but I nor none of my family will ever submit to islam. I do not think I am alone in this nor do I feel the situation is as bleak as this author seems to. I see small signs daily the tide is turning, granted slowly but they are there. We are a long way from addressing the scope of the problem. We are completely unaware as a nation of the true threat and the methods in which islam creeps up on us. Old school leadership hinders us, they still refuse to recognize or perform their duty to defend our way of life. We are also sending our future leaders to close and destroy this same threat in close quarter combat. These new leaders will someday replace our old school leadership. I still have hope they are vastly more aware of what islam is and are rapidly learning to fight it. The so-called warriors of islam have not won even a single battle against our military even when they had numerological superiority.
We can all help; I have sent both this article and my comments of it via email to some of our deployed soldiers. Make your choice folks buy a burka, towels and whatever that fan belt thing is called or help spread the word. I could careless what you think of our current military battle, all real Americans should at least come together on the 5th anniversary of 9/11, fly a flag, high and proud. Talk to your children and remind them of why islam hates our freedoms and can never scare, intimidate or defeat us. Talk to friends and co-workers on why we will never submit. Leadership means making hard choices. Make yours.
at September 9, 2006 5:18 PM
I really think we cannot afford to sit here and wait for miracles: it just isn't going to happen.
God helps those who help themselves.
We are running out of time. Each day brings another "islamic victory" because we are so divided and have stupid lefty governments who keep on selling us for oil.
The news of an oil find in the Gulf of Mexico this week was the best news I have read for ages. We need to stop filling the coffers of the islamic oil barons and take affirmative action to ensure that our western democratic culture is preserved. None of us here can see anything positive in islam - why the f*** can't others see the obvious?
I have already posted this link on a local, large curculation news paper. I will keep doing this for as long as I can.
I am sure many of you will do the same.
at September 9, 2006 5:19 PM
All 10 points are true today.
However, the one ace up our sleeves is that the jihadist can't wait for da'wa to succeed. They are hell bent on a big terrorist strike on civilians. That type of atrocity, hopefully very soon, and on a large scale, will curtail the influence of islam in the west. Nothing educates like raw emotion elicited by the images of the dead and dying in your own country.
Before 9/11, few were aware of the terrorism/islam connection. Now they are aware. They may not know it is Koran-inspired, Robert Spencer's mission, but they know that there is some nexus between islam and terror.
Unfortunately, they lack the emotion to become anti-islamic because the rubble in NY was cleaned up long ago and it was only one strike. Life went on. That attack was rationalized as a failure of security.
But now the west is primed. It has the basic inclination that islam is bad for it, but not the emotional motivation to stand up to it. That motivation will be delivered to us in the form of the next major attack. That will be the catalyst for the average person to stand up and say, "Hey, these islamic people, I don't like them, and I don't want them in my neighborhood, in my city, in my country."
If millions of people start to say that, things will change. The MSM and the politicians can only mislead us if we are sitting on the fence between taking action and not taking action. But if the bulk of the population has come down from that fence and taken a stand against islam, then the MSM and the politicians will fall into line. The left will still be in the camp of islam, but they will be isolated in left field. The tide will have turned.
Posted by: August22 at September 9, 2006 5:22 PM
Another important thing Americans need to remember is that whatever we must do to bring down our Islamic enemies, Europe is NOT going to be of any help to us whatsoever (if anything Europe will be an albatross around our necks, and watch for the EU to cut more idiotic and suicidal deals with the Islamosphere AND grow more anti-Semitic). America will be forced to handle this crisis pretty much on its own, as much as I hate to say it. The US needs to plan combating jihad without Europe on board and may even find it ncessary to take steps to combat EU interference. Taking this problem seriously will be one of the most critical aspects in surviving let alone winning this war. I think the US government is still be in denial about this and that may be a problem too. And it is tough to believe that Europe would rather commit suicide than assist America face down another global enemy--but it appears nonetheless to be true at this time--we'll have to accept it.
There is also a need to get India out of the Islam enabling mode, if we can. Despite India's claims to being anti-jihad (which it SHOULD BE, like Europe), India continues to trade with and pour petro-dollars into Iran and other parts of Islamia. America will face tougher odds in bringing down the Islamic juggernaut as long as this continues. India like Europe (although with less anti-American rhetoric) is proving resistant to taking necessary steps in combating jihad. Which is unfortunate for the entire global community in addition to India. For now, America probably won't be able to dislodge India from the jihad-enabling camp, I regret to say.
Still another thing NOT mentioned in this article above but which I consider critical in order to win the war against jihad is the need for Americans to face down and deal with Islam's enablers: primarily Russia and China, but anywhere Communist ideology (aka "socialism") has taken root, such as Brazil and other parts of Latin America, and France. Until Islam's enablers quit enabling Islam (usually through providing the Islamofascists with logistical and propaganda support as well as war material),this horrible political-ideological monstrosity we call Islam will grow ever stronger and stronger. And the Europeans' thumbs will dig ever deeper into their rectums as we Americans try valiantly to keep the flame of liberty from being extinguished.
Posted by: pythagoras at September 9, 2006 5:35 PM
Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them.
The teachings of Islam are the exact opposite of "progressive" values, as he correctly points out. If the Islamopologists someday learn what it is that they are defending, they will recoil in horror at their mistake. If one is all for inclusion, then one cannot be for inclusion of a movement that is based at its core on exclusion (and violently forced conversions at that).
Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not.
I hope he means within the Islamic world, because in the West, with it's history and cultural framework, the violence of Islam is no match for freedom and democracy. There is no way that any sizeable portion of the U.S. (or I presume, the U.K. or Canada or Australia) can be indoctrinated into the jihad. All the misguided support that one sees today in the Western media and government is based on a lack of knowledge about Islam, and is influenced by the well funded taqqiyah that is spread by our "staunch allies" on the Arabian Peninsula ("Islam is an Abrahamic faith just like Judaism and Christianity", "it is only a small extremist sect of Islam that is violent", etc.). As I see it, popular support for Islam can only go down from here, as the information about what the Qur'an actually contains is getting out.
If he is talking about within the Islamic world, that is right, and we are wasting our money and our soldiers' lives in trying to "teach" them our values. They have their history and culture, let them keep them. Instead, our leaders should be educating us and defending us from the Islamic values and hatreds.
But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.
I disagree with this. Its "belief system" hasn't changed in 1,350 years. As Hugh has pointed out, Islam's "revival" (did it ever leave?) is due mainly to a huge influx of petrodollars with which to fund the spread of Islam. Both through funding mosques and madrasses, and also by funding "social aid programs" in nominally secular Islamic nations. Hamas and Hizb'Allah have both overtly violent and ostensibly non-violent wings, but all are dedicated to the same goals.
Posted by: special_guest at September 9, 2006 5:36 PM
Bah they said the same thing about the Nazis
That they were super human. They were unbeatable. That they had the will to fight while the West was weak.
And the Japanese. That they were willing to die by the planeloads in suicide attacks. That the US wasnt willing to pay the deaths to defeat them.
Many have pointed out that there is always an attempt to demonize the enemy to make war easier. That cultures make the enemy seem so repugnant that wars become a neccesity.
There has always been a counter attempt to make the enemy so unbeatable that you are more willing not to try and fight them. They enemy is invicible. They have the will to win and pay the price to do so.
Some wear Chi Guevera T shirts or shout slogans that Ho Chi Min was a super foe.
War has always been about willpower. And there will always be those weak in willpower far to ready to say "If you cant beat em, join them"
I say to them please go join them but keep your slogans and propaganda to yourself.
Posted by: Bill A at September 9, 2006 5:37 PM
Regard this article and David Selbourne's book as an excellent WAKE UP CALL rather than FAIT ACCOMPLI.Mind you,when one reads the rubbish printed in Al Guardian-citing lunatic professor Griffin's '9/11 Conspriracy Theories-Islamist Apologists at many other media Rags-how many WAKE UP calls are needed??
Sadly only more bombings and terrorist acts will alert the lazy and force the likes of Esposito and Karen Armstrong to ADMIT THEY WERE WRONG-SO TERRIBLY WRONG about Islam. Expect quick back peddling from our politicians and leaders denying there were ever to blame for admitting Muslims into Western countries...
This remain's the West's terrible dilemma-what to do with millions of Muslims inside our borders-some of them [you don't need many] poised to strike at any time at our economies,buildings,airports,power plants,etc.
In WW2 you at least knew who and where the enemy was-now like frightened children we grope in the dark not knowing where the next Jihadist is or when they will strike...Yes, we are in a global war already and every delay in acknowledging this fact
strengthens our implacable enemy.Islam will never be defeated by reason,exposure to Western values-this has been tried many times before and has been a failure EVERY time-which just leaves
FORCE.
at September 9, 2006 5:41 PM
Seymour:
Nice post and thanks for taking the time. I have always believed that if Dar al-Harb ever gets its act together it can easily kick the economic legs right out from under Dar al-Islam. Essentially the Isamlic world produces little of value that can't be pumped out of the ground (with the assistance of foreigners). Even supposedly successful countries such as Malaysia are very much dependent upon Indian (Hindu and Sikh) and Chineses entrepreneurs. Indonesia may have been progressing but a little dose of sharia will send investors packing elsewhere - China or India anyone.
Posted by: johnb at September 9, 2006 5:52 PM
“The West calls for freedom and liberty. National Socialism rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to the Fuhrer.”-this could be what Hitler said.
We have been down this road before. I think Islam is on a suicide trip, not unlike Nazi Germany, and the Mideast will become a nuclear battlefield after a terrible miscalculation by Mideast Muslims re Israel sometime in the future. Israel will survive. I'm not so sure the Muslim Mideast will survive, and it may be that a Providential balance must be made for centuries of Arab oppression of Infidels, including the more recent genocide in Darfur. (Though I am a religious man, I do believe Providence requires a balance for things such as the genocide going on in Darfur.) Frankly, I think Islam has nothing left but threats and violence and genocide-and the Muslim world is having a collective nervous breakdown as they deny reality. They want to regress to a make-believe world, a pipe-dream golden age in the past, a mad return to the 8th and 9th centuries.
It is the nature of human beings that they do not leave or let go of something unless they have something to go to, to grasp on to. I think many in the Muslim world are like abused wives, beaten wives that stay with a wife-beater because there is no place to run to for safety. I hope the point of refuge for Muslims comes before they go en mass into an Mahmoud Ahmadinejad martyrdom.
Only the so-called elites, big baby professors at Harvard, don't see what's coming...
Posted by: Frank at September 9, 2006 5:57 PM
Just today, on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 atrocity perpetrated by mostly Saudi nationals, we've received another bit of evidence to support Selbourne's argument:
Our State Department has approved the visas of 15,000 Saudi students to come here and attend American universities; said universities are jumping for joy in anticipation of all the money that's coming with them. See Little Green Footballs for details (and be sure to see the readers' posts).
What will they learn here, from the American professoriat? Is comment really necessary?
Posted by: Frieda
at September 9, 2006 6:10 PM
Posted by Bohemond_1069: "Even if the West loses the battle, the war has already been won. The fate of those who reject Jesus Christ has already been decided, the certain outcome written in the book of Revelation.
This is not about Christians against the Muslims; it is about Muslims against everybody else. One of the things that will spell our defeat is to pit Christians against Muslims and non-Christians. I don not give a hoot if my ally is an atheist or a Buddhist. We are all at risk.
Those Christians who seem to know all about the Book of Revelation are rather self-deluded. I hope Bohemond is not one.
Having faith in the Judeo-Christian God is not enough; a little bit of seven-point-six-two-millimeter-full-metal-jacket is also needed.
at September 9, 2006 6:16 PM
15,000 Saudi students
What will we Americans do when we realize that the ballot box is not achieving the ends that are necessary to ensure our protection?
An Iman in Dearborn can preach to the faithful and repeat his desire to destroy US Constitution without fear of being arrested. I fear that an Anglo-Saxon American who speaks of revolution will be thrown under the jail, so, I'll keep silent.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 9, 2006 6:28 PM
"Even if the West loses the battle, the war has already been won. The fate of those who reject Jesus Christ has already been decided, the certain outcome written in the book of Revelation."
-- from a posting above
"Americans have always had a nasty habit of accomplishing the impossible. I might go to my maker with both thumbs deep into some mujahid eye sockets but I nor none of my family will ever submit to Islam."
-- from a seond posting above
The Selbourne article lists "ten reasons" why the West may lose the war against Islam. Among the reasons the author does not list are two unlikely to have been noticed by a British writer, but which help to explain, for example, the messianic recklessnes and waste of the Bush Adminisetration's failure to act with sufficient cunning and ruthlessness in exploiting the ethnic and sectarian divisions within Islam, and its failure outside Iraq to incite divisions based on the rich-poor divide within the camp of Islam. That is the belief that people all "want the same thing," and that this "same thing" has to do with "freedom" and with man defined solely as "homo economicus" by those who in their messianism -- their belief that the American way, or their definition of the American way, must in the end prove so attractive as to outweigh any belief-system, no matter how deeply impressed on the minds of a billion people that belief-system may be, and that if Muslims have prosperity (but when they didn't have the oil, that is had no prosperity anywhere, the wherewithal was lacking to put into practical effect the doctrinal promptings of Jihad), and that "democracy" -- defined as mere head-counting, somehow, in some way never explained, though we are apparently to take on faith that somehow bringing "democracy" (that is, the vote-counting method of transferring power to the Shi'a) to Iraq will lessen the appeal of Islam, and of its most malevolent tenets.
Selbourne may not realize that there are those content to allow themselves to believe that those "who have rejected Jesus Christ" are doomed to fail. Well, not all of us are quite prepared to play pollayannas on that pious basis, especially those of us who are content non-believers.
Nor can one's anxiety be reduced by the belief, expressed in another posting, that somehow, in some mysterious way, America will come to its senses, and know how to deal with the problem, and all manner of things shall be well. Does anyone think the $500 billion now sunk in Iraq was worth it, was worth more than, say, putting that $500 billion into alternative-energy and conservation programs? Are you well content with the cunning of our leaders, in the way they set to work learning about Islam, reading the texts, reading the histories, articulating the problems, instructing us all -- or are you, rather, horrified at the spectacle of America as large, stupid Baby Huey, not really knowing how to deal with this enemy which, by the way, is not an enemy of "the West" alone, as one might think from Selbourne's article and book, but an enemy of all Infidels --and those Infidels, whoever they are, should be made allies, whatever systems of government they have, just as Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt did not hesitate to become close allies of Stalin's Russia -- for completely understandable
One of them is expressed in the first posting: the notion that those "who have rejected Jesus Christ" are doomed to fail. Well, what about those of us who never accepted Jesus Christ in the first place -- who are Hindus or Jews or Buddhists, or completely contented atheists? Would it not make more sense to make common cause with such people, and would it also make more sense not to complacently put all one's eggs in the basket of religious faith, as if we need not worry because God will see us through, and defeat the Antichrist, and so on and so forth. Sorry -- that just won't do.
The next is the faith in the United States as the great and powerful democracy that in the end knows what it has to do, and does it, and thereby will be victorious. Did the United States "defeat" Communism -- or did the United States "help to defeat" Communism, rather, by ensuring the creation of conditions that forced many in the upper ranks of Soviet Communism to realize that on its own terms, Communism had failed? And who won World War II? If the United States was mainly responsible for the defeat of Imperial Japan, what country suffered by far the most casualties from, but more importantly inflicted by far the most casualties upon, the armies of Nazi Germany? It was not the United States, not Great Britain, not both "democracies" together, but rather the slave-state of the Soviet Union, its people animated, despite their condition, to fight for their lives, for their country.
Fatalism -- the fatalism of the devout, or the fatalism of those who believe that "in the end" America will do the right thing, and will prevail, are far too sanguine.
No time for any kind, even a hint, of the Pollyannish instinct.
The line from the World War I song went like this:
"Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition."
I'd update it thus:
"Praise the Lord, but pass the ammunition."
As for the idea that Americans always pull things out, this is small consolation. Countries, and civilizations, and peoples, rise and fall, and some entirely worthy civilizations, and states, and peoples are overwhelmed -- they didn't deserve it, they should have survived, but the primitive can, for short periods or for long periods, succumb to others far more primitive than they.
The entire history of Muslim conquest is, almost everywhere, of more advanced and more interesting civilizations -- Sassanian Persia, for example, or Hindustan, or the Hindus and Buddhists of the East Indian archipelago, or the Christians of the Balkans, or Christians and Jews of Mesopotamia, Syria, Judea, or the Christians of Egypt and the rest of North Africa (what would North Africa look like if the Muslim conquest had never occured, if the Christian civilization that had produced St. Augustine and so many others, had not been destroyed?) -- succumbing to the more primitive.
We do not have leaders who understand this. The modern political system encourages survival of the misfittest -- Republicans, Democrats, mugwumps or muggletonians or little-enders -- the right leaders have not yet appeared, or if they have appeared, are not yet learning themselves, and instructing others rightly, in what is needed. Cometh the hour, cometh the man may be comforting thought -- but is it true? Does the right side always win, or win without monstrous suffering?
In England, Churchill was finally put into power, and did what he did that was so important, but still, great destruction and mass murder took place because he, and those like him, only came to power when it was too late to avoid such destrcution and such mass murder.
Intelligent people learn from the evidence of others -- the evidence of the texts, the evidence of the historical record. They do not deny the evidence of their senses. They do not fail to make sense of such seemingly disparate things as the Arab Leaugue's protection of Sudan and of its behavior in Darfur and, before that, in the southern Sudan; they do not fail to make sense of the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, or how that destruction connects to the destruction of a Hindu temple last year in Kuala Lumpur, or the indifference of the new Antiquities authorities in Baghdad to all the pre-Islamic artifacts in the Baghdad museum, as reported by museum director Donny George; they do not fail to make sense of what Khomeini said and did, what Khatami failed to say and failed to do, what Khameini says and does, what Ahmedinajad says and does; they do not fail to make sense of what is written in Saudi, Jordanian, Egyptian, and other Arab Muslim textbooks; they do not fail to make sense of the stoning to death of women in Afghanistan, the banninng of music and kite-flying, all under the Taliban; they do not fail to make sense of the Jihad Manual of General Malik of Pakistan, or the statements of many Pakistani generals, or the hero-worship, all over Pakistan, of the sinister Dr. A. Q. Khan; they do not fail to make sense of the murders of Buddhist monks and farmers and schoolteachers in southern Thailand; they do not fail to make sense of the disguised Jizyah of the Bumiputra system in Malaysia; they do not fail to make sense of all the examples of Muslims demanding special treatment, up to and including changes in the most essential individual rights, the very essence of the liberal democracies of the West, and the demand that Muslims be subject to their own laws, not the laws of Infidels -- demands made all over the Western world, wherever Muslims have felt numerous and confident enough to make such demands.
The "Ten Reasons" above summarize much of what has already been stated, and provide a useful list from which to begin. But if one were to expand it, one would start, perhaps, by revising the title: not Why the West is Losing the War, but why all the Infidels, in West and East, are losing the war of self-defense against Islam.
Indeed, limiting the discussion to "the West" suggests another problem. For a list of "Ten Reasons" why "the West" is "losing the war against Islam" offers its own example of a reason that has been overlooked -- the failure of the leaders of the Western world to identify, and appeal to, all the victims, past, present, and intended, of Islam, and in order to appeal to Westerners of a certain ideological bent, who can become agitated only when it is a question of Arab Muslims in the Sudan, killing black Africans, or of other Muslims killing Buddhists in Thailand or Hindus in Bangladesh or Bali or India itself, then it is important to emphasize, even to rally the West, to talk about much more than the West.
Posted by: Hugh at September 9, 2006 6:28 PM
Points 1,3,4,5 and 6 of Selbourne's adumbration could be conflated into one -- they all deal with various aspects of the Western mind in its response to the problem of Islam.
Posted by: remote_control at September 9, 2006 6:33 PM
Hugh writes:
I'd update it thus:
"Praise the Lord, but pass the ammunition."
I've heard and read many an American Protestant (they are the usual suspects in this) bank all their fideistic money in an imminent eschatology -- to which I say, "Okay fine, but in the meantime (since it could be another 2,000 years before that happens), let's man the bastions and be locked and loaded."
Posted by: remote_control at September 9, 2006 6:39 PM
I recommend watching this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xnVkqycZ1M&NR
at September 9, 2006 6:54 PM
Hugh-
I agree that the democracy fantasy of the Bush Administration is as much a delusion as the "golden age of Islam" is to Jihadists. Neither view embraces reality.
In the end, unless there is a terrible miscalculation by Muslims in the Mideast re Israel, this monster will self-destruct if 1) it is defunded, and goes broke a la USSR and 2) a very tight policy re immigration is implemented in the West and elsewhere so that the Intolerance and mandate to violence against unbelievers that is central to Islam is contained.
Recently, there have been major advances in a technology that will enable the US to take oil from Colorado (an area with more oil than all the Mideast) and a great discovery of oil has been made in the Gulf. (Even Israel may be able to develop oil because of the technology that will extract oil in Colorado.) We must do all we can to move as quickly as possible on these finds, and other alternative energy to defund this Serial-killer belief system. On the matter of immigration, I think even permissive Holland is waking up to the Intolerance of this belief-system-and many other nations see Muslims as a big debit that costs lives, time and money.
Islam has nothing to offer the world, has nothing to run to for refuge, and if contained, the world will see why it had to be contained, as it watches the spectacle of a violent rage with no place to go to. On this matter, we have to follow the old wisdom, "Don't just do something, sit there."
However, all that being said, I think Israel will be attacked with nuclear missiles, will fend off the attack, will respond with nuclear weapons, and much of the Muslim Mideast will be a graveyard. I think prudent people in Israel are planning for that eventuality. Islam is not avant-garde, it's rear guard when it comes to reality and good judgement-especially re Islam's crazy view of the Jewish people.
at September 9, 2006 8:14 PM
The Neo-Victorians are coming. It is just taking a little while.
Posted by: Mentat at September 9, 2006 8:32 PM
The belief systems like Islam and Nazism create an alternate reality which their adherents accept as the 'true' reality. This is the strength of such systems but also their fatal flaw. The difference I see is that Nazism had all power in a flawed human ... Islam is decentralized but brittle and inflexible.
This thing will push its agenda harder and harder as it believes its own propaganda and will overreach its ability in some catastrophe. Then most of the 10 points listed above will be disproven. Islam is going to make the choice very simple for us. The agendas and topics will center on how to destroy IT rather than 'what it is'.
Unfortunately it will come at the cost of millions of lives in the free world, before we finally 'get it'. But we will. We will.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 9, 2006 8:38 PM
As always - words of wisdom from Hugh.
But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.”
If America will be destroyed, what would the future look like? Surely Europe will be destroyed also by then. The islamists would be working on destroying the South American countries by then. What would happen to all the countries that depend on foreign aid. The commerce of the countries that fall to islam will collapse. The petrodollars will have run out by then. Just take a look at what the muslim countries looked like in 1900. THAT is what the whole world will live like if this future comes to pass. A new, permanent dark age, over the whole world. With no hope of ever coming out of it. Ever.
Muslims slowly move accross the borders of their neighbor country for economic benefits, jobs, a better life. Then they force changes to accomodate their lifestyle (it's only fair, right?). Then they try to take control politically. If they can't take control, they start fighting to break away. Make a new islamic country. Sink into the pits.
Muslims slowly move accross the borders.....repeat...until the whole world is islamic.
Muslim immigration needs to be stopped. And reversed. It is the only solution.
And Jonathan-that video- it's the save the planet types spreading their message of no population growth that can be thanked for the lack of children. Maybe they should go preach in the middle east and pakistan.
Posted by: Borg at September 9, 2006 9:02 PM
Hugh writes:
"Praise the Lord, but pass the ammunition."
The Mohammadan version is
"Trust in God but tie your camel."
Posted by: root_cause at September 9, 2006 9:03 PM
I would like to de-emphasize "The West." Hell's bells, it is not just the West. It is India, Thailand, Philipines, and the whole damn world. Although those countries have, to varying degrees, adopted western values; they are also under attack.
Why have we never heard of an Imam speaking destruction from a Mosque in Japan? Japan is the most westernized of any Asian country. Is Japan somehow immune from Islamic intrusion? Did the Japanese do the right thing by restricting immigration in the first place? As Australia was the last refuge from atomic fallot in "On the Beach," could Japan be the last refuge from the Islamic horde in real life.
Japan is 99% Japanese; 84 percent practice Shintoism and Buddhism. Its literacy rate is 99%. There are other reasons. but that is a quick study from the CIA World Fact Book.
Posted by: Pelayo at September 9, 2006 9:06 PM
Things always look worse before it gets better.
KNOWLEDGE will destroy islam!
at September 9, 2006 10:00 PM
I refuse to accept Mr. Selbourne's grim and dark tone. Things are nowhere near as dark as he makes them out to be.
Mr. Selbourne laments the fact that we're still arguing amongst ourselves about the scope of the threat and how best to deal with it. And about the lack of leadership. But Mr. Selbourne should have realized that this is how democracies solve their problems. The fact that we're having a vigorous debate about what to do and who can do it, is a vast improvement over six years ago, when no one in America was talking about such things. And in Western Europe, multiculturalism is now under almost daily attack by prominent politicians, thinkers, and even some in the mass media. At least they're debating whether to scrap multiculturalism; six years ago there was no debate! The public attitudes are definitely changing, as most public opinion polls show. They're still unsure what to do. But they're looking for answers, and that's all to the good.
And as for the lack of proper leadership, how do democracies choose their leaders? By a long, and tortuous, process of debate and campaigning. Great leaders like Roosevelt, Churchill, Reagan, did not seize power suddenly in some coup d'etat. They had to convince the public, however slowly, to put their trust in their leadership. I remember Reagan first entered the political spotlight in 1964, with his speeches endorsing Barry Goldwater. It took 16 more years for Reagan to be elected President.
In short, this is a slow process. Fascist imperialism made its debut in 1931 with Japan's invasion of Manchuria. But the U.S. didn't enter World War II till 8 December 1941 and the war wasn't won till August 1945--14 years after Japan's invasion of Manchuria.
But we have the time. There is no marching army of Islamist warriors about to invade Long Island or Hawaii. Even Ahmedinijhad is not so stupid as to nuke America and risk a devastating military response. Instead, mostly the Islamists will go the "slow jihad" route, attempting to insinuate themselves into the West and gradually subvert its ideology. But the U.S. is a big country of 300 million people and they can't subvert us with the numbers they have.
In the meantime, we must look to our own defenses--there is pretty universal agreement on the need to keep our military strong and to keep our homeland security measures effective--until we as a nation can decide on a more effective course of action.
My one major disappointment, where Mr. Selbourne is unfortunately correct, is on energy. It's appalling that we're not having a vigorous debate about that. Every day now we talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, homeland security measures, terrorist threats. But not about how Western thirst for oil is subsidizing Islamism. None of our elected officials, of either major political party, has dared to examine too closely the way Saudi Arabia masquerades as a strategic ally and oil supplier while simultaneously being an ideological enabler of Islamist extremism. (Except for Howard Dean, and look what happened to him.) And none of our elected officials dares to explain to the American people that according to the basic economic law of supply and demand, effective conservation of oil is impossible as long as the American public demands that the price stays low.
That issue is off-topic for this blog; this is Jihad Watch, not Energy Watch. But somebody, somewhere, needs to make it their main concern.
at September 9, 2006 10:04 PM
Here is one stellar example of why we might very well lose this war, an excerpt from a story in the NY Times:
"In 2005, more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades. More than 40,000 of them were admitted last year, the highest annual number since the terrorist attacks, according to data on 22 countries provided by the Department of Homeland Security."
The Bush administration spends billions on homeland security, but refuses to protect our borders. In addition, this paradoxical administration continues to allow muslims to immigrate en masse to America! Why?! Could someone, anyone, please tell me why. Every muslim that arrives in America is one more potential terrorist unleashed on an unsuspecting population. How could it be in the best interests of the American people to play Russian Roulette with their security? Our immigration policies are utterly insane and self-destructive.
at September 9, 2006 10:15 PM
Most posters here have been far too kind to Selbourne. For example, this from his poorly referenced book:
"No faith can be summed up in a phrase. Christianity is no more describable, in essence or in practice, as a 'religion of love', or Judaism as a 'religion of justice', than is Islam as a 'religion of peace'. Islam, now in an ascendant phase and strong in its sense of righteousness and truth, is at the very least a faith both of peace and war. Moreover, it is not open to Christians or Jews to dispraise it for its militancies, when the Old Testament sagas, the annals of Christianity and the history of 'civilised' twentieth-century Europe are together steeped in gore. Indeed, Christianity has a long and bloody record of taking the sword to Muslims and Jews alike, and used the epithet 'infidels' to describe Muslims exactly as do Muslims of Christians and Jews. Furthermore, the most solemn ethical principles of Hebraism are betrayed daily in the politics of the state of Israel, and in the conduct of some - even many - of its citizens towards the Palestinians." (The Losing Battle with Islam p.387)
In Selbourne's own words, this demonstrates exactly how he himself is "adding to this incoherence" (Point 1) through "the nature of Islam [being] misunderstood" (Point 2).
He has made some progress from 2005 but still has a way to go.
at September 9, 2006 10:54 PM
Pelayo, I believe the Bible is the word of God and that prophecy is just history from God's perspective. I am not against any cult, pseudo-religion, athiest or agnostic as long as they do not try and harm me or my family or attack my country. Their right to extend their arm ends where my nose begins. The best I can do is present the facts and hope that they will see the truth. Every night when I go to bed I load my gun, kiss my wife, and pray that I won't be called on to use either one. Jesus told us to be patient and kind to our fellow man, not stupid.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at September 10, 2006 12:36 AM
Every night when I go to bed I load my gun, kiss my wife, and pray that I won't be called on to use either one.
Either one? If you have an intruder at night, best to use your gun. Don't use your wife. lol
Sorry, but how else could I interpret that?
LOL!!!
Posted by: August22 at September 10, 2006 1:11 AM
We are losing this war because we choose to, because we are unwilling to fight back. Either we defeat the islamic jihad, or we convert, submit, or die. Pick one. We need to use overwhelmimg force until the enemy capitulates. This is the only way. We need to break their will. Until we do this we will continue to lose this war, and our enemy will continue to be emboldened because they see us (unfortunately correctly) as a paper tiger and beatable.
Bush had a lot of tough talk after 9/11, but apparently he didn't mean a word of it. I'll only believe he is serious about defeating this enemy when I see the B-52 bombers leaving en masse for Iran. Sadly it will probably take 100,000 dead in a single attack here in the U.S. before we begin to even consider doing anything substantive. Even then we would probably twiddle around with the U.N. for a couple years debating the appropriateness of us defending ourselves. Thank God for the 2nd Ammendment! Got ammo?
Posted by: thematrix at September 10, 2006 2:44 AM
Steven L.-
Agree with your thoughts. When in college, I had a professor who was an intelligence officer in post WW2 Germany. Occasionally, he would talk of that time and make observations re Nazi Germany. I've never forgotten his comment that the most surprising thing that US OSS people discovered re Nazi Germany was its inefficiency. He told the class that the regime was good at making it appear that it was efficient-but that it was anything but efficient. He said that democracies, places where people argue about everything, seem so messy and unfocused, but that in reality they are much more efficient than systems that control the individual.
"True Islam" is in fact represented by Osamma Bin Laden and it is a controlling belief system. In the long term secular democracy will prevail so long as people are able to freely and openly express ideas and opinions. JihadWatch is one means to that end.
Posted by: Frank at September 10, 2006 6:11 AM
I vehemently disagree with #7.
It is precisely our love for "freedom 'n liberty" that is our greatest asset in this war. It is the one ideological component in the West that is capable not only of motivating our people, but of challenging the moral certainties of our enemy.
Tragically, as one recent study indicated, our universities have sacrificed the concept and even the word 'freedom' on the alter of 'diversity.'
Nobody is going to fight and die for the cause of "diversity."
Posted by: Cornelius at September 10, 2006 10:27 AM
I agree in theory that this is not just the west’s problem and would love to live in a world where all non muslims would rally together to face this threat. Unfortunately I live in this world. The west can not win it alone but if we don’t get off our butts and soon many of our allies will be lost. Yesterday I met a lovely couple from England they told me they left because their nation has lost its struggle with islam. I don’t know if that is true but I do know this. No amount of muslims will ever cause me to leave my home. If we are to survive this assault then we have to be prepared to use every resource we have. To do otherwise is suicide. Suicide is a poor excuse for policy.
Posted by: Ronin at September 10, 2006 10:52 AM
Taken off the net:
To see why, and to appreciate what we stand to lose, we must begin by understanding what is meant by “Western”. Let us be clear that “Western” refers to a set of ideas -- it is not a racial or ethnic epithet. Anyone can embrace the ideas, just as anyone can reject them, regardless of his race, country of birth, or upbringing. Thus we can speak of Japan and Hong Kong having adopted “Western” principles as accurately as we can speak of Canada having done so.
In the broadest and most essentialized sense, the term “Western” denotes a set of fundamental ideas first discovered and adopted by the ancient Greeks. It was they who, for the first time in history, challenged the age-old notion that only the life of a society’s rulers and/or priests was important -- to instead assert that every man’s life is of crucial value. It was they who turned their focus from an obsession with death and the after-life -- to instead seek success and joy in this life. It was they who dispensed with all-encompassing superstition and from cowering before the supernatural –- to instead assert that the world was knowable, that no question was off-limits, and that the questioning mind was among the most revered of attributes. Finally, and as a consequence of all the others, it was they who cast away the resignation of living as unhappy subjects in an unknowable world -- to instead realize that with freedom to live, happiness on earth was possible for every man.
These groundbreaking ideas led to an unheralded flourishing of man and an outpouring of man’s achievements, both spiritual and material. Few, if any, periods in history can rival the developments and accomplishments made by the ancient Greeks in arts, science, mathematics, humanities, medicine, athletics and general living conditions. And it is for this reason that “Western” ideas and values are rightfully described as life-affirming: for they lead to man’s freedom to pursue success and happiness in this life.
Historically, the transmission and implementation of Western ideas, the so-called Western tradition, was rocky and uneven at best, and its biggest opponent was always authority and dogmatic faith. In fact, during the Dark Ages, Western tradition was nearly extinguished by Christianity, whose irrational doctrines rejected the importance of the individual’s happiness on earth and of the existence of a knowable world; to instead preach abject self-denial in this world and salvation in a mystical after-life. Not until men reacquainted themselves with ancient Greek ideas did they find themselves back on the “Western” track; and only then did they turn away from blind faith, question and reject the Church and its authority, and eventually produce the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and modern Western society.
Concomitant with the emergence and development of Western ideas came man’s political desire to form societies which would allow him to achieve the promise of these ideas: individual joy and happiness on earth. Defining and building such societies was an arduous task, one much more difficult than it might seem in hindsight, but by fits and starts, Westerners rose to the challenge.
Indeed the solution lay in the uniquely Western focus on the value and importance of every individual’s life. For with the gradual elucidation of a theory of rights (i.e. an understanding that every man has natural and inalienable rights) came a political system whose specific function was to protect those rights. In this type of system, each individual delegates his use of retaliatory force to the government, and the government wields that force in the protection of each individual’s rights and freedom. Protection is understood to be protection from other men’s violence, i.e. the protection of each individual citizen from attacks from abroad and from criminals and tyrants at home. This political development ultimately led to the founding of the United States, the writing of its Constitution, and the subsequent understanding that protection of individuals must be applied universally, i.e. it must extend to all races and genders. In the past hundred years or so, the purpose of government has been construed to range well beyond the protection of rights (improperly in my opinion), but nonetheless protection of individuals and their rights is still the basic and unifying principle of Western government.
The unique relationship existing between each man and his government cannot be overemphasized: in the West, and only in the West, government exists for the sake of each individual, not vice versa. As Lincoln put it so famously: ours is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.
Yet though government exists for the sake of each man, its proper implementation involves having each individual delegate his use of retaliatory force to the government, which then acts as his agent to protect his rights. Thus in civilized nations, the government is the sole legitimate wielder of force, and its central charge -- and solemn obligation -- is to wield that force when (and only when) necessary to protect its citizens in the exercise of their legal rights.
The benefits of this system are manifold. There is strength in numbers, and by assigning the use of force to the government, we can effectively defend ourselves from attacks by foreign nations, something which would be much less practical for individuals to attempt on their own, or on an ad-hoc basis.
Justice too is made possible when the use of force is put in objective hands, for in doing so, standard procedures and processes (the legal system) can be developed to ensure that violations of rights are punished by a rational and proportional standard. This again would not be possible if every individual tried to mete out justice on his own.
Finally, because each individual knows that his government has the means and responsibility to defend him, he does not have to seek out other forms of protection. Specifically, he does not need to join a gang or tribe whose members will help him battle others. In civilized society there is no need to ally oneself with members of one’s race or ethnicity (as do the Tutsi’s and Hutus in Rwanda; or the Serbs, Croats and Albanians in the Balkans), or of one’s religious sect (as do Sunni’s, Shiites, Jews and Christians throughout most of the Middle East), or with criminals (as do those seeking the “protection” of a mafia Don) or with the politically-connected and politically-favored (as does almost everyone in the Third World). In a word, because the individual is sovereign and consistently protected by his government, there is no gang warfare of the type so prevalent around the rest of the world.
The result is modern Western society; a society whose overwhelming advantages include: freedom for each individual to live, think, question and speak as he sees fit; respect for the law and the rights of others; individual safety and empowerment; and a benevolent atmosphere of cooperation and peace among men.
But along with all the advantages of an individual-based society comes one inherent risk. In delegating his use of force, and forsaking adherence to any gang or tribe, each individual is disarmed and essentially helpless should his government fail to act on his behalf.
It would therefore be of the highest treason for a government to abandon any law-abiding citizen who comes under attack. In fact failing to protect an individual would be beyond treason: it would essentially reverse and betray 2,500 years of Western development. It would be tantamount to taking the individual, whose life and happiness is for the first time important, stripping him of all his defenses, and then offering him up to any mindless brute or savage to skin alive as he pleased.
And yet, in the past few decades, this is exactly what Western governments have done repeatedly. If it is not stopped soon, Western, i.e. civil and peaceful, society will break down -– and we will return to the primitive state of gang rule and utter contempt for the individual which currently exists in the entire non-Westernized world.
To understand the pattern of failures, and to see how it must be broken, it is important to survey the relevant historical events of the past 25 years or so. For though the faltering of Western governments could be decried since the end of World War II, and even more so with the events in Korea and Vietnam, a watershed of sorts began with our response to the rise of fundamentalist Islamic nations and their self-proclaimed hatred and hostility towards the West and all things Western.
The pattern began in 1979 when the newly empowered supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, took power. Khomeini was an Islamic ideologue, who on every main point opposed and declaimed the views of the ancient Greeks and of the West. Man is not the measure of things; only Allah is. Man’s happiness on earth is unimportant; only the after-life matters. Man is not to be successful at living; martyrdom is the surest way to happiness. Knowledge is not achieved by studying a knowable reality; prostrate yourself to Allah instead and you will learn all there is to know. And since there is no knowledge other than that revealed by Allah; if anyone disagrees with us -– kill him.
The political organization he implemented, that of a theocratic Islamic Republic, flowed logically from his ideas and values. In this type of government, the supreme religious leader and his clerics hold absolute power. Individuals are of no value and have no inalienable rights, with the result that all Islamic states are also brutal dictatorships.
It is worth emphasizing that Khomeini’s ideas and philosophy were those of a revered and highly knowledgeable exponent of Islamic doctrine, one who represented the basic views of his countrymen. In other words, he was no “hijacker” of Islam, but a consistent practitioner of it -- and Iran’s actions from his time onward must therefore be interpreted as true expressions of Islamic policy.
So what happened when he took power? In the first days of his rule, on Nov. 4, 1979, Khomeini’s religious followers stormed the US embassy in Tehran and captured 66 Americans. Most of the hostages were held for 444 days, during which time many were beaten, psychologically tortured, and subjected to extended periods of solitary confinement.
Now remember that these were American citizens, working directly for, or with, the American government, captured in an embassy (which is technically American soil and to which International Law has provided the highest form of immunity going as far back as the Congress of Vienna in 1814). Breaking such immunity has always been an act of war. So did our government declare war to protect its citizens, who not only were acting lawfully, but who were in fact put in harm’s way at the request of their government? No. Instead our government, under the pacifist Jimmy Carter, wrung its hands and negotiated with a regime which had just broken the most basic law of diplomacy. (Two half-hearted, under-manned and under-planned rescue attempts were made, but the fiascos only underscored how unwilling the government was to use its military force to remedy the problem).
This event signaled to all observers, that though the West still had abundant physical means to defend its citizens, it had lost its will to do so. In fact, not only would it not defend its citizens, it would even act against them, as did the US State Department when, after the eventual release of the hostages, it quashed their attempt to seek redress in international courts, simply to avoid “stirring up” trouble with foreign nations!
The absence of any military response and the complete abdication of the government’s responsibility to its citizens was the first sign to the Islamic world that it could act with impunity against any Western citizen -- and act it did. A series of attacks throughout the Middle East followed.
As a sampling, and not including incessant Islamic attacks on Israel and Israelis, which are just too numerous to list, consider: 1982, various dates –30 Westerners taken hostage in Lebanon by Iranian-sponsored terrorist group Hezbollah, some killed, some died in captivity, some released (Terry Anderson held for 2454 days). April 18,1983 -- US embassy in Beirut bombed, 63 dead. Oct 23, 1983 -- 241 Marines and 58 French Paratroopers killed in their barracks in Beirut. Dec 12, 1983 -- Shiites attack US embassy in Kuwait City, 5 killed, 80 injured. Sept 20, 1984 -- truck bomb outside US embassy annex in Beirut kills 24. June 14, 1985 -- Hezbollah hijacks plane en route from Athens to Rome, beats and kills American Navy Diver Robert Stethem. October 7, 1985 -- Syrian and Libyan-backed Palestinian Liberation Front hijacks ocean liner Achille Lauro, kills one wheelchair-bound American. December 18th, 1985 -- Rome and Vienna, Libyan-backed terrorists bomb airports, 20 killed. April 2, 1986 -- Palestinian group detonates bomb on TWA flight 840 en route to Athens killing 4. April 5, 1986 –- Libyan terrorists bomb disco in West Berlin killing 3 and injuring 230.
In its only true retaliatory attack against state sponsors of terrorism, on April 14, 1986, the US (under President Reagan) launches air strikes against 5 targets in Libya. Predictably, the poster child of Western appeasement, France, condemns the US’ defense of its rights. And though the retaliatory strikes were immediately followed by two significant airline bombings, one against French UTA flight 772 in which 170 people were killed, and one against Pan Am flight 103 in which 270 people were killed (over Lockerbie Scotland), the action was generally successful in decreasing Libyan sponsorship of terrorism. In fact, since 1988 Libya has scarcely been heard from, and in 2002 it actually admitted responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing -- and offered $2.7 billion in reparations to the victims’ families.
Seeing the bombing of Libya as an exception to the rule, and correctly realizing that France’s attitude truly represented that of the West and of Western intellectuals, the Islamists decided to test whether they could directly control the lives and minds of Westerners, overtly attacking that most important aspect of Western life, the freedom to speak one’s mind.
The attack adopted the age-old military strategy of “divide and conquer”: in this case it consisted in isolating defenseless individuals (who in an effort to create a peaceful society had delegated their right and means of self-defense to their governments), and threatening them should they dare to disobey Islamic rule. And because Western governments and intellectuals were by now so craven and depraved -- the strategy actually worked.
The test case, of course, was the Rushdie affair. This was, until recently, the most famous example of Western governments failing to protect their law-abiding citizens. In 1988, British citizen Salman Rushdie wrote a book titled The Satanic Verses which contained what Islamists deemed an irreverent depiction of the prophet Mohammed. By Western standards the critical depiction was mild, but more importantly, the book was a simple expression of the freedom of speech which exists, and is protected by statute, in every Western nation.
The book was banned in many Muslim countries and book burnings were staged in some countries including England itself. But the true attack on Western citizens began on February 14, 1989, when the leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa calling for the murder of the author and worldwide publishers of The Satanic Verses, with a $3 million dollar bounty tacked onto Rushdie’s head for good measure.
This state-issued death sentence against Western citizens should have been seen for what it was, a declaration of war, and every Western country should have demanded that Iran immediately retract and rescind the fatwa. Had they refused, Western governments should then have marshaled forces to protect their disarmed citizens by attacking and destroying the Iranian nation which was overtly threatening them.
Instead what happened? Apart from some feigned outrage, Western governments did nothing but engage in “diplomacy” and then proclaim that we must “tolerate” differences of opinion and respect the “feelings” of those who would murder us. And the result? Rushdie went into prolonged hiding, a Japanese translator was stabbed and killed in Tokyo, an Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan, a Norwegian publisher was shot and severely wounded, 37 people were incinerated in Turkey as executioners burned down the hotel of a translator, and publishing houses and bookstores in the US were firebombed to destruction. Those were just the direct results. Indirectly, westerners learned that freedom of speech only applied if it were directed against lawful, peaceful targets. There would be no protection for discourse about Islam or any doctrine whose adherents backed it up with violence. Moreover, it set the precedent of foreign nations placing bounties on the heads of Western citizens with impunity, which would encourage similar behavior by every ardent fundamentalist given that the tactic had proven effective and without any risk to the issuer.
In some respects the Rushdie affair was worse than the embassy hostage taking. For example, in the hostage crisis, though the hostage-takers were sympathizers of the Khomeini regime, and though the regime publicly acknowledged support for the hostage-takers, an argument, however implausible, could have been made that the hostage-takers were not direct agents of the Iranian government. In the Rushdie case, however, not even that thin veneer of an argument existed, since it was the commander in chief and supreme theocrat (which are one and the same in Islamic states) who issued the fatwa himself. Thus there was absolutely no question that the call to kill Western citizens came directly from the Iranian government, and that it was therefore an act of war.
The cowardice of the West, and its non-reaction to overt acts of war, encouraged further Islamic attacks, including in America itself. On Feb 6, 1993, 6 people were killed and 1040 injured when Islamists detonated 1,500 lbs of explosives in the basement of the World Trade Center in New York. On Nov 13, 1995, a car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killed 5 at US military headquarters. On June 25, 1996, a truck bomb in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia killed 19 and injured 502 at an American military housing complex.
On Aug 7, 1998, simultaneous explosions at US embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania killed 224 and wounded 4,500. The attacks, perpetrated by Bin Laden’s Al Qaeda network, prompted President Clinton to lob a few token cruise missiles at a factory in Sudan and at a couple of physical Al Qaeda training facilities in Afghanistan. He followed this limp response with an unnecessarily appeasing gesture, one which would become standard White House protocol, assuring all who would listen that Islam was not the target: “I want the world to understand that our actions today were not aimed against Islam, the faith of hundreds of millions of good, peace-loving people all around the world (but) at the fanatics and killers who…profane the great religion in whose name they claim to act.”
Realizing that we could not even name the ideology motivating the perpetrators, supporters, state sponsors, and funders of terrorist acts, let alone challenge them intellectually or existentially – Islamists continued their attacks.
On Oct 12, 2000, 17 sailors were killed when Al-Qaeda bombed the US Navy destroyer the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. On Sep 11, 2001, in an attack worse than the one on Pearl Harbor, Al-Qaeda crashed two airliners into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon and one into a field in Pennsylvania, killing a total of 2,986 people and injuring another 6,350.
Though outrage reigned and most average citizens saw the attacks for what they were -- an expression of Islamist global jihad – the intellectual climate of appeasement, i.e. our fear of “fostering” further dissension and unrest, of riling the so-called “Arab Street”, prevented us from naming the anti-Western ideology underlying the attacks. Our own President even went out of his way to assure us that, contrary to all evidence, “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace” (“As long as you submit mindlessly to its every edict and spokesman” he conveniently forgot to add.)
When the US made a military response, it did so by fighting a “compassionate” war in Afghanistan, one which involved dropping food interspersed with bombs, and which featured “respecting Islamic sensitivities” such as sparing holy sites and taking Islamic holidays into consideration as part of its military planning.
This “compassionate” fighting was extended to the war on (relatively) secular Iraq, which was fought to eliminate weapons of mass destruction and to bring freedom to the Iraqi’s, not to destroy the militant Islamists who threaten us. And though removing a madman hostile to the US is justifiable, never did we declare “This war is being fought to defend Americans from attack. Threaten a hair on the head of a single law-abiding American -- and this is the consequence.” Of course, if defending Americans were our true goal, the war would have been waged against Iran not Iraq.
Once again our inability to name and confront our enemy, coupled with our unwillingness to fight an all-out war, were taken as signs of weakness by the Islamists, and encouraged insurgency and Islamic posturing as a result.
(As an aside, it should be noted that the one good thing to come out of these wars is to see the superlative devotion, bravery and effectiveness of our military forces, even when they are constrained to fighting with a proverbial “hand tied behind their backs”. Not enough has been said about their willingness and ability to defend their countries and values; and should we ever truly find the will to defend ourselves, their skills and courage will all but assure our victory.)
Given that the compassionate wars were taken as a sign of weakness, not of strength, Islamists continued their attacks on Western soil. On the morning of March 11, 2004, in the worst terrorist attack in Spanish history, Islamic terrorists detonated bombs aboard four commuter trains during rush hour in Madrid, killing 192 and injuring another 2,050. The bombing came two days before a national election. The ruling party (Partido Popular), which was committed to keeping Spanish troops in Iraq, was leading the polls, however, after the bombing, the opposing party (Partido Socialista) won in an upset, and quickly withdrew Spanish troops from Iraq (signaling to Islamists that their barbaric acts could be used to influence Western governments).
The next test of Western governments’ willingness to defend their citizens came with the production of the 10 minute film “Submission”. The film, which was written by Islamic dissident Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and directed by Dutch social critic Theo Van Gogh, portrays the plight of women under Islam, including being beaten and raped as proscribed by the Koran for women who “misbehave”. Islamic death threats against Van Gogh and Ali followed the film’s release, and on Nov 2, 2004, Van Gogh was murdered in broad daylight on a Dutch street. The killer was an unrepentant Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri, who claimed to be “carrying out Allah’s will”. The murder was a “show killing” aimed not just at silencing Van Gogh, but at silencing all critics of Islam. After shooting Van Gogh eight times, Bouyeri proceeded to slit his throat and then skewer him with two daggers to which he attached Jihadist manifestos and death threats against Ms. Ali. And although the evidence showed connections with the Egyptian terrorist group, Takfir wal-Hijra, no attempts were made by the Dutch to root them out of Egypt (with or without Egyptian help). Ms Ali, brave as she is, is no longer in hiding, but her life is clearly at risk, and she must be accompanied by bodyguards 24 hours a day.
The killing and lack of any retribution had its intended chilling effect on the Dutch, many of whom now openly admit to being deathly afraid of publicly criticizing Islam.
The general state of fear was reinforced when, on July 7, 2005, Islamic suicide bombers killed 56 and injured 700 in a series of coordinated attacks on London’s subways and a double-decker bus. A similar attack on July 21 failed when four bombs malfunctioned (only the detonators went off).
The fear of Islamic attacks was now so prevalent in Europe that when Danish writer Kare Bluitgen tried to find illustrators for his biography of the prophet Muhammad, all potential candidates declined citing fear of violent retribution by Islamists -- noting not only the murder of Van Gogh, but also attacks on lecturers at the University of Copenhagen (who had been beaten simply for reading the Koran to non-believers).
Editors at the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, decided to investigate just how widespread the impact of Islamic intimidation had become, and to do so, they invited forty cartoonists to give their interpretation of how Muhammad may have looked. Twelve responded with cartoons of varying degrees of irreverence (though all mild by any standard, they are especially so when contrasted to those in Islamic countries where Jews and others are routinely caricatured in much more grotesque and inflammatory cartoons). But this, again, is irrelevant, as the cartoons were legal expressions of free speech, made by law-abiding citizens, and should have been subject to every possible protection which a government can muster.
The first reaction to the cartoons was sad but predictable, with Islamic leaders petitioning every possible government and quasi-government agency to censure the cartoonists and castigate the offending newspaper. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s initial stand was laudatory, as he proclaimed that he “cannot, and will not, decide what the newspapers are allowed to print”. Early on, he also refused to meet with Muslim ambassadors saying that meeting with them would give the impression that “this issue is something to be discussed. It is not.”
But when stonewalled by a principled Danish nation, Islamists gathered and fomented their believers to engage in a rash of violent protests, arson, and killings around the globe. Protesters in England promised that “Bin Laden is coming back”, that the “Annihilation of Europe” was imminent, then warned Europeans “to heed the lesson of Theo Van Gogh” and “your 9/11 is coming”. Western buildings and embassies were again attacked and destroyed, including ones in Beirut, Damascus and Tehran. Islamic clerics, in both India and Pakistan, issued death sentence fatwas against the cartoonists and backed them up with bounties totaling $12 million. The Indian and Pakistani clerics carried out their death threats in full public view, surrounded by chanting and rabid supporters -- the Danish cartoonists are hiding in isolation, possibly for the rest of their lives.
What has been the Western response? Some continental European newspapers, understanding the issue and the stakes, reprinted the cartoons as a show of solidarity and in the name of free speech. Many editors were fired and/or are under death threats as a result. American press was less courageous, realizing that their government would not act to protect them, so only a handful of papers reprinted the cartoons. Others disingenuously claimed to be respecting Muslims’ “feelings” by not doing so, yet the “feelings” of peaceful targets had never previously stopped them from publishing offensive material. A Boston newsweekly, the Phoenix, perhaps most clearly stated the real reasons for which they were not republishing the cartoons: “Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists … This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question … we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix … in physical jeopardy … this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.”
In reality though, it is not the role of the press, but of the government to stand up to those who threaten violence. Yet Western governments have acted deplorably, once again breaking their most solemn promise and contravening their very raison-d’etre. Said the US State Department: “These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims." "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable.” (The Department later mitigated its position somewhat, but in the face of death threats, killings, etc., it was clear that it had no principled defense of free speech or of Western values and citizens.)
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw “praised the UK media for refusing to reprint the cartoons” saying that “I believe the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.” He later added that “freedom of speech did not mean an open season on religious taboos.” EU commissioner Frattini capitulated completely and suggested that the press adopt a “voluntary code” of self-censorship.
No Western government has taken a single action to eliminate the sources of the bounties on the heads of Western citizens, to hunt down the issuers of death threats against editors and publishers, nor even to pledge full and unconditional protection to any citizen who wishes to exercise his statutory rights in the face of violent Islamic opposition.
The historical pattern is clear and consistent. For twenty five plus years, Islamists have isolated and targeted Western citizens around the world with impunity, and have succeeded in fostering fear in most citizens. They have effectively used a divide and conquer strategy, with little or no opposition. The pattern must be broken immediately.
To see how, imagine a neo-Nazi state arising and declaring to Western nations: “We have no quarrel with you, we just want to exterminate the Jews who reside within your borders.” The proper response would of course be: “if you want to harm our law-abiding citizens, you DO have a quarrel with us, in fact you have a war, for no one may threaten our citizens without threatening our nation as a whole.” Similar reasoning extends from a segment of the population to a single individual citizen. If a nation threatens one citizen, it threatens the nation, and we must do everything in our power, including going to war if necessary, to eradicate the threat. Otherwise there is no point for individuals to delegate their use of force to the state, and every enemy will employ a “divide and conquer” tactic to eliminate us one citizen at a time.
As a reminder of this, let us resurrect Dumas’ famous Musketeers’ rallying call: “One for All and All for One” emphasizing the latter phrase. For only by standing together to defend each individual can a peaceful society exist. Thus we must stand together and protect the lonely author who dares question a religion and who is sentenced to death because of it. We must stand together to defend his publishers who are firebombed for printing the book. We must stand together to defend the individual film-maker and political dissident who criticize Islam and are sentenced to death because of it. We must stand together to defend the benign cartoonist, who pens a simple cartoon, and is then forced into hiding by death threats and bounties.
To stand together means to assert our rights with our government as our agent. To those who threaten us with force, asserting our rights means responding with force, in fact, with overwhelming force. We must say to Iran (which on February 14 just reconfirmed the Rushdie fatwa) “oust and turn over the regime which sees fit to condemn a single citizen of ours to death, or face all out war.” And if they refuse, give them the war they started, but be sure to win it decisively, not protecting their mosques and infrastructure, but instead doing everything necessary to ensure they have no capacity to ever threaten us again. To Pakistan and India, which host clerics bold enough to put bounties on the heads of our citizens, demand that they turn over the men and their supporters, and if they refuse, go in and take them by force.
For if we fail to reverse our pattern, men will continue to learn that their rights are a sham, that the government’s promise to protect the individual is a hoax, and that only by refraining from thinking and speaking out might they be momentarily safe. Men will then go on to realize that they must seek out true protectors, in the form of some gang; ethnic, religious or otherwise; who may afford them a measure of security, albeit at the cost of complete obedience. Eventually the gangs will fight it out in an effort to wrest absolute power and to subjugate the others.
So will end the great intellectual and political achievement of the West, which began 2,500 years ago in Greece with its discovery and reverence for the individual, and which culminated in the enunciation of the guiding principles of the United States. The end will not come because an over-powering enemy has arisen –- no, to our everlasting shame, the end will come because Western governments, in a display of incredible cowardice and treason, have abandoned and delivered their disarmed individual citizens to a mob of stone-age savages.
http://amitghate.blogspot.com/2006/03/all-for-one.html
at September 10, 2006 4:54 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)