Whenever I post on such topics as Moderate Muslims and Islam and Democracy, I receive numerous comments supporting the contention that there is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim and that Islam is incompatible with democracy. There is little doubt that any form of Islam that supports Sharia law is, in fact, incompatible with democracy. For the purposes of this post, I will even go further and agree, for argument's sake, that the vast majority of Muslims have incorporated some of the most egregious tenets of their religion. Let us assume that they believe that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, that the Koran is the infallible and unchangeable word of Allah, and that every devout Muslim must wage Jihad against infidels. Further, let us agree that most Muslims clearly recognize that Jihad does not refer to a spiritual struggle but to a more prosaic struggle to force infidels to submit to Islam. What are the implications of such a position?
The ultimate conclusion to be drawn from the supposition that Western Civilization and expansionist Islam are mutually exclusive and inexorably heading toward a clash, is that the planet is simply not big enough to support both civilizations. This supports the idea that at some indeterminate point, the second of Richard Fernandez's Three Conjectures will come to fruition:
Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam
[If you have never read The Three Conjectures, read it now; this post will still be here when you return.]
Since Iran is speedily approaching the point of no return in their quest for a deliverable nuclear weapon, despite the NIE which chose to err on the side of inanity, Conjecture 2 is looking more and more possible.
I suspect even those of us who take the dimmest view of Islam would agree that losing Western cities in exchange for destroying hundreds of millions of Muslims is the worst case scenario. That raises the question of what policies and behaviors the West could adopt which could minimize the risk of the worst case scenario. After all, we should not particularly care if 75% or 90% of Muslims think they are superior to us and want us all to submit or die, as long as they do not actively seek to bring it about. The question then becomes, how do we best convince them to leave us alone.
Thus far, in some areas we are doing an adequate job, in some areas we are doing a poor job, and in other areas we are actively advancing the worst case scenarios.
Iraq and Afghanistan represent theaters in which we are doing an adequate job. Even if you suppose that all Iraqis and Afghanis hate America and the West (and they don't), it is quite clear that they hate the thugs and terrorists of radical Islam, al Qaeda and the Taliban, more. The Iraqis and Afghanis have had the "pleasure" of living under the rule of the radical Islamists and once assured we would stay and protect them, they have eagerly repudiated and betrayed the Islamists. Even in the front where we have done most poorly, the information war, the brutality of the Islamists has managed to make its way into the news cycle and discredited their ideology for many Muslims. As long as the Taliban and al Qaeda in Iraq do not receive a second chance to gain control over those two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan have been effectively removed from the Civilizational War for some time to come.
As noted, an area where we have done a poor job has been the information war. In this, our own MSM has been complicit in presenting our action in the worst possible light, in ways guaranteed to be used by the Islamists to enrage those who are already predisposed to distrust us and most likely to make the progression from naive, outraged young Muslim to active supporter of murderous Jihad. By consistently down playing Muslim terrorism and atrocities while constantly harping on the "brutality" and "torture" by our military (more than 50 abu Graib stories on the front page of the paper of record!) we have done more to recruit for al Qaeda than anything they have been able to accomplish. However, even in the context of such inadvertent self destructive behavior by our MSM, the reality of Islamic torture and brutality has not gone unnoticed by those most directly affected by it, their Muslim co-religionists.
There are several additional areas in which we seem to be actively advancing worst case scenarios.
Our own governments have been extraordinarily reluctant to support our own values. This is much more advanced in Europe, where people are being censored and pre-emptively censoring themselves for fear of offending the easily offended Muslims. By appeasing these nbullies, we are actively empowering them. Once a bully has been empowered, the nature of the beast is to be unable to modulate their aggression and arrogance. Bruce Bawer notes that Sharia law is already in effect for European gays, First They Came for the Gays, and Pam Meister notes that once again in Europe, books are being banned, This Little Piggy Was Banned from Market. The Holocaust is no longer taught in some English schools and crosses must be covered up for fear of offending those who commit "anti-Islamic activity." This is appeasement, pure and simple.
We see the same kind of behavior on the international scene. The current administration has gone from being exceptionally clear in setting standards for acceptable civilized behavior, to muddying the waters with ambiguity in search of an illusion of progress. By setting strict limits and then moving the lines when they are transgressed, we merely show the Islamist, whether in Gaza or Tehran, that we might speak loudly but we carry a very small stick. Threatening a bully with a small stick, or a piece of paper, is unlikely to deter him from stealing your lunch money.
Our goal must always be to convince the marginal and potential Islamist that it is not in his best interest to make the progression to full and active support of violent Jihad. We do this by shortening the life span of those who are actively engaged in violent Jihad against us and setting firm limits on behavior that transgresses acceptable bounds. We need to actively address such forms of Jihad as lawfare and liable tourism; we need to monitor Mosques and deport those Imams who misuse our hospitality. Most of all we have to stop giving our enemies evidence that we will continually back down in fear of confrontation. Bullies, and Islamists are nothing if not bullies, behave like choir boys when confronted with someone bigger than them who is wiling to smack them down for misbehavior. By allowing the Lilliputians of multiculturalism to tie down our hands, we are making it all the more likely that when the threshold of abuse is crossed, our response will be overwhelming. We do not know where that threshold is (1 city? 2? 5?) but we need to establish that the threshold exists in order to minimize the risk of losing any cities.
We need to stop worrying about offending the easily offended, stop appeasing the radical Islamists, and start standing up for what is best in our culture. If we do that, the question of whether or not there can be a moderate Islam will effectively become mooted.
Recent Comments