Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald suggests a change of focus for the dhimmis in the State Department:
The tarbaby of Iraq has prevented the American administration from turning its attention to, or even beginning to grasp, the menace of Europe’s islamization. It has to do several things after it gets out of Iraq and lets the divisions there take their natural course. One may anticipate that those divisions will have an effect on the two countries that benefited most from the removal of Saddam Hussein — Saudi Arabia and Iran — and both of which hope that the Americans will remain there: the Saudis because they want the Americans to hold the Shi’a in check, and the Iranians because they want the Americans bogged down, close to potential Iranian retaliation.
By leaving Iraq, the Americans will free up time and mental space for considering the islamization of Europe and what it means for European foreign policy, for the advanced weaponry including nuclear weapons in France and England, and for the continued survival of Western civilization. Not exactly small questions, but questions have been ignored.
Ignored for a number of reasons. People are lazy. At the same time they are also hectically busy, busy, busy, running around, having meetings, reading prepared one or five-page summaries of complicated matters, never stopping to allow themselves the leisure to read and to think about Islam — which should be an absolute duty for those who wish to be in the Pentagon, the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the CIA, the FBI, the Congress. It should be a duty, in short, wherever decisions are to be made by those whose duty it is to protect, and also to instruct, the populace.
It has been almost five years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It has been several decades since OPEC oil revenues, amounting to $10 trillion since 1973, began to be used, in part, to buy huge amounts of armaments and to fund mosques all over the Western world, and other campaigns of Da’wa. It has been slightly longer since, in Germany, and in France, and in England, and then all over Western Europe, large numbers of Muslims were allowed to enter, and to settle deep within the Bilad al-kufr, the Land of Infidelity or of the Infidels — the territory that was always regarded as dar al-Harb or the House of War. During that period, the number of Muslims in Europe has grown inexorably. In 1970 there were 30,000 Muslims in Holland; today there are 1 million — and the consequences for the Dutch have only in the last year or two begun to be understood. Everywhere this large-scale Muslim presence has led to a situation for Infidels that is much more unpleasant and unsettled, and much more expensive, and much less physically secure, than it would otherwise be.
For many, this is deliberately being ignored or denied, especially if they are part of the governing circles that allowed such a situation to develop and have no idea what to do about it. Many others have begun to understand the problem, despite their governments, and despite the severe inhibitions and self-censorship by the media (not only by the likes of the BBC and Le Monde). Still others, a very few, have fully grasped the problem and are full of horror and justified anxiety.
Yet the United States, for nearly a century the final guarantor of Western Europe’s peace and prosperity, has been sundered from Western Europe, partly out of its own clumsiness and inarticulateness of presentation, and partly because it has failed to grasp what is happening in Europe and how that affects America as a civilization — and threatens it militarily. This has also happened partly because in Europe, a clever campaign by Arabs, in collaboration with those eager for ideological or financial reasons to do their bidding, have played on the pre-existing mental pathologies of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, since America is seen as the great defender and ally of Israel (which has suffered from its own incapacity to articulate properly its legal, historic, and moral rights, or to identify as such the Jihad being conducted against it).
It should be a priority for this and all future administrations to focus on halting and reversing the islamization of Europe. There are many ways to do that. Some of them involve the kind of propaganda and subsidies familiar from the successful attempt to diminish Communist influence and Soviet infiltration of Western Europe during the Cold War.
But this whole Iraq business — not the invasion, not the period up to the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, which should have signaled the appropriate moment to begin departing — but the period since late 2003 has distracted both the Bush Administration and its critics. The withdrawal might have been completed by mid-2004, and then the natural processes governing the new relations of Sunni to Shi’a, and of Kurds to Arabs, might have been allowed to work their magic. Instead, everyone has been busy nattering on about such fascinating topics as to why Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger, and whether offenses at Abu Ghraib should be attributed to higher officials, and whether Rumsfeld sent enough troops, and whether it was right or wrong for Bremer to dissolve the Iraqi army, and whether it was right or wrong to put so much faith in Ahmad Chalabi, and whether Osama Bin Laden was or was not on the verge of capture at Tora Bora, and other essentially trivial matters. All these are trivial matters in light of the world-wide scope of Jihad, the permanent force of Jihad as an article of faith in the belief-system known as Islam, and the menace presented by demographic conquest, and Da’wa, and growing dhimmitude (that is, that collection of attitudes of appeasement and self-debasement when confronted by Muslim demands for changes within the West itself, exhibited by some in the Infidel lands) in Western Europe and, so far to a much lesser extent, in North America.
The State Department and the Pentagon, and the American government as a whole should now be directing its attention and most of its efforts to reversing the Muslim influence in Western Europe. Bush, given his low reputation in Europe, should not be the man to lead this effort. Others within his administration, once they have thoroughly grounded themselves in Islam as a belief-system (a summer of solid reading will do it), and in the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims should do it. Those others should be more plausible, more articulate, more clever and more cunning than Bush. Meanwhile, the administration should stop wasting money trying to “win hearts and minds” through the payment of Jizyah to Muslims in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the “Palestinian”-controlled territories of the former Mandate, seized in 1948 by Arab forces. Instead, this money should be directed toward renewing the alliance on both sides of the Atlantic, and on helping those forces within Europe willing to oppose the forces of appeasement toward Islam — the forces of dhimmitude — just as the Americans, after World War II, managed through the deployment of economic, diplomatic, intellectual (the Congress for Cultural Freedom, Encounter Magazine), and military support to help reverse the seemingly inexorable spread of Communism.
Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It uses up energy, uses up attention, clouds minds. Once the Americans have left, and once the Sunnis and Shi’a all over the world can have at it to one degree or another, and an independent Kurdistan can be supported so as to both weaken Syria and Iran and to create a model for other non-Arab Muslims (e.g., Berbers in Algeria, and even Berbers in France) of what can be done once the yoke of Arab supremacist ideology is identified and thrown off, there will be time and money for Western Europe.
And it will be amusing, will it not, to see the more intelligent and cultivated members of the State Department — those on the European desks — realize that their enemies are the apologists for Islam on the Arab desks? Then there will be, like the “Spy vs. Spy” cartoons in Mad Magazine, the spectacle of internecine warfare — of State vs. State. It will be won, and must be won, in the end, by those who represent the interests of Western civilization — and not those of Islam.