Skip to content

Tough Questions for Islam

January 5, 2006

Gerard Vanderleun asks some questions about Islam, with an unsettling and surprising conclusion. (But it’s not like he’s worried about the Death of the West or something):

For, as much as we should do everything possible to avoid a second
9/11, the blunt fact is that the United States, Europe and the entire
edifice of Western Civilization, can ride out a second 9/11. It can
ride out 100 9/11s and still, in an inch of time, return and thrive. It
can even ride out the killing by weapons of mass destruction of any
kind of a number of cities. America, Europe, and Western Civilization
can survive anything the radical Islamists can throw at us. What it
will have much more difficulty surviving with its cherished "values"
intact will be what happens to Islam should it continue to attack the
West with increasing ferocity.

IT IS CLEAR that what will happen to Islam across the world should
terrorist attacks continue and increase will be the arrival at the
tipping point where the West decides, in a way that no internal
political opposition can curtail, to expel Islam and Muslims from the
infected nations and the world itself by any means necessary. A common
catch phrase of Marxism is that "The capitalist will sell you the rope
to hang him." I dread the coming catch phrase, "The Muslim will supply
the West with the excuse to eradicate him," but that is clearly lurking
in one of our possible future.

Clearly this is a scenario that all sane people want to avoid. But how?

ANYTHING YOU THINK CAN’T HAPPEN can happen. Especially those things
you think cannot possibly happen. Under the right circumstances, human
beings are capable of anything. We hold within ourselves an eternal
capacity for evil that has no bottom. Should Europe feel the threat of
Islam within its borders too keenly it is not difficult to envision it
returning to the up close and personal techniques of genocide it
perfected in the last century. Europe is very, very good at police
states, purges, death camps, massacres and Gulags. Although it may look
to be weak and appeasing, Europe’s final solution skill set is never
stored very far away.

Should the United States come to feel threatened in a similar way,
its preferred technique (also perfected in the last century) is remote
genocide. To employ it would plunge this nation into a decades-long
tunnel of political and spiritual agony, and change our destiny and
character forever. But I have no doubt that, if we feel for any reason
threatened enough, we will indeed come to the day when the unthinkable
becomes doable.

This is why I still deeply believe that the current effort in Iraq
and the Middle East to counter and expunge Islamic terrorism and turn
Islam from the road it is on towards one of reformation and
assimilation is the best path that can be taken at this time. Indeed,
for all the ineptitude of the current administration, for all the
expense in treasure and lives, this shoot-the-moon, Hail Mary of a
foreign policy in Iraq is not just a policy to make America safer at
home. It is the only thing that stands between Islam and its own
destruction.

Sometime shortly after 9/11 in an online forum I frequented then, an
exasperated idealist proclaimed that "After all, you can’t kill a
billion Muslims." Like so many others he spoke from somewhere outside
History. History, especially the world’s most recent history, shows us
all that, "Yes, if you really want to, you can."

And that is the most terrible and terrorizing thought of the 21st century.

Now that it’s even clearer that Iran wants to have nukes that can reach Europe, not to mention Israel, there’s much concern over what will happen in those places if the trigger gets pulled. It will be very bad, no doubt about it. But it could become even worse for the Muslim world. I hope it never comes to that, but as they say, hope is not a policy. Securing a reasonably functioning democracy in Iraq – which seems a lot closer today than a year ago, seems a much more considered policy at the moment- for everyone. Certainly it’s better than waiting for the next one to hit here and trying to find out what security hole it came through.

The Hail Mary pass metaphor is quite apt (I just watched USC lose in the Rose Bowl so football is sadly on the mind – a rarity). To propose such a maneuver is ludicrous but sometimes that’s all you have. We’ve made the toss, the Iraqi’s seem to have caught the ball midair- we’ll see if they’re able to land with it and run. It’s going to be a ground game from there on out.
 

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. "FecesFligher" (Timmy C) permalink
    January 8, 2006 4:37 pm

    Hey Dave:

    If I read you right you are saying that the Gulf War II was not a war of choice…

    “To propose such a maneuver is ludicrous but sometimes that’s all you have.”

    It might help you to understand those who (like myself) who supported the Afghanistan war, but opposed the Iraq “pre-emptive” invasion do so in part because we don’t view that “it was all we had.”

    As the Darfuer report showed, containment worked, as long as the UN Sanctions held, Sadaam was emasculated. On top of that, folks like Papa Bush’s National Security Advisor, General Brent Scrowcroft (who helped build to coalition for Iraq I, the Prequel) called for time for more and more strict and inspections as he wrote in a 2002 Op Ed entitled Don’t Attack Sadaam” where he writes that rather than invade…

    “…we should be pressing the United Nations Security Council to insist on an effective no-notice inspection regime for Iraq–any time, anywhere, no permission required.

    And later on meet the press, he spoke preciently about the cost of an invasion should we ignore his advice:

    “But the central point is that any campaign against Iraq, whatever the strategy, cost and risks, is certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack on Iraq at this time. So long as that sentiment persists, it would require the U.S. to pursue a virtual go-it-alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive. The most serious cost, however, would be to the war on terrorism. Ignoring that clear sentiment would result in a serious degradation in international cooperation with us against terrorism. And make no mistake, we simply cannot win that war without enthusiastic international cooperation, especially on intelligence.”

    And as he wrote about his strategy for the first Iraq war that they were trying to…

    “…set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish.” Furthermore “[had] we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land.”

    Just trying to help you understand the feelings of many of those of us who question both the strategy, wisdom and morality of our premptive war in Iraq.

    Timmy C

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: