The mythical “moderate” Muslim — the Muslim who embraces traditional Islam but wants a peaceful coexistence with the West — is effectively non-existent because to the extent he exists, he has no voice.
Any serious student of Islam – of historical, traditional, and authoritative Islam – understands that Islam is as much a political ideology with hegemonic designs as it is a monotheistic religion. All major legal schools of Islam take the same view of the non-Muslim world: it must be converted through peaceful means, and if that is not possible, subdued through coercion, and if that is not successful, conquered militarily through war and the death (i.e., murder) of the infidels. Strategies and emphasis on active Jihad (i.e., offensive vs. defensive Jihad) differ, but the goal of all major Islamic sects — of their legal rulings and of their faithful followers — is quite focused and directed.
And, it is also true that Islam’s war against the Christian West, which began soon after Mohammed’s death by his successors, has continued unabated to this day although it remained dormant as long as Christian Europe was prepared to fight back and the ruling Caliphate was weak. Such was the case during the decline and ultimate breakup of the Ottoman Empire, but the political and theological teachings, exhortations, and jurisprudence demanding Jihad against the infidel nations of the West have remained a central aspect of Islam.
In the West, and in America specifically, we have found the way to PC-spin our approach to Islam’s long-standing war against the West. One PC response suggests that Islam is a “noble religion of peace” on par with Judaism and Christianity “as one of the three great monotheistic faiths” which has been hijacked by a small group of militant extremists. The group which takes this view is now notoriously associated with the “democracy-builders” – men who preach their own ideology that all people, everywhere, and at all times desire nothing more than freedom and democracy and if we but “liberate” the Muslim world from oppression, the Muslim masses will embrace liberal democracy with the same passion as the Christian world has. This group spends their time running around looking for that rather invisible (or quite “silent majority”) of “moderate Muslims.”
Another group responds to Islam by suggesting that Islam’s complaint against the West is our one-sided and imperialistic behavior in the Islamic world, notably the Middle East. They argue that if we but abandon the Middle East and our senseless support of the Jews in Israel (typically referred to as “Zionists” or “Jewish Settlers” to avoid the deadly charge of anti-Semitism), we can separate ourselves from the Muslim world and live, if not live in peace, at least in a state of peaceful divorce.
There are of course many other “interpretations” but these represent the two extremes of the West’s response to Islam’s long-standing war against the Christian world.
The Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), an organization I founded but which now boasts the active participation of military men with more than half a century of military, intelligence and counter-terrorism experience in the Middle East, approaches the threat we face from Islam quite differently. At SANE, we approach Islam and the Muslims on their own terms. We take what they preach and what they teach and what they do seriously. We also understand that while only a small percentage of any “people” will actively enlist for war as combatants, the overwhelming majority of Muslims around the world, as documented in survey after survey, embrace Islamic law or Shari’a as divine and authoritative. This law mandates a worldwide Islamic Caliphate as a reality in the here and now and not as some future eschatological event, such as in the coming of the Messiah as taught (albeit with material differences) in both Judaism and Christianity.
We assess Muslims by what they do and what they themselves say. But mostly by what they do. In this context, we witness Muslims actively pursuing and supporting the worldwide Jihad, Muslims passively supporting the worldwide Jihad, and the largest group moving between these two poles but wholly committed to traditional Islam and Islamic law.
You also have a handful of brave and courageous Muslims and “former Muslims” who reject Islam as it is and demand it be radically reformed to make it more Western, and in a very real sense, to make it Christian-like. But these men and women, as few as they may be, are not “moderate Muslims” because “moderation” is not a viable alternative in Islam. These men and women are the Reformers, like Dr. Tawfik Hamid and the Rejectionists, like Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The former calls for a wholesale reformation of traditional Shari’a and Quranic interpretation while the latter rejects Islam outright and indeed any religious expression in the public square, including Christianity. Our view is Dr. Hamid has it right; Ms. Hirsi Ali is just a former Muslim turned radical secularist. (Don’t get us wrong; we respect her courage for standing up against Islam but it takes far more courage and fortitude to confront Islam as a Reformer.)
The mythical “moderate” Muslim, however, the Muslim who embraces traditional Islam but wants a peaceful coexistence with the West, is effectively non-existent because to the extent he exists, he has no voice. And he is voiceless precisely because he chooses to remain within traditional Shari’a-based Islam, where the Ulamā or Islamic legal scholars, and the Muftoon (singular: Mufti) who issue fatawa (singular: fatwa) or legal edicts, reign supreme together with the lesser mullahs, imams, and maulvis. A “moderate” among these men will simply be shouted down, coerced into silence, or murdered.
In contrast, the Muslim Reformer takes the proper position that Islam as it was created, as it has existed for 1,300 years, and as it exists now, is an evil political ideology the goal of which is a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. These brave men and women risk death to reform Islam radically into that which it is not today.
To talk of moderating Islam is a blurring of this most important distinction. And, it is not a matter of semantics. “Moderators” will fail because there simply is no institutional or social base from which to operate. And, precisely because Islam (like Judaism) is a juridical religion based upon laws, legal decisions, precedent, legal schools of jurisprudence dating back hundreds of years, the effect of a policy to hunt out “moderate” Muslims to “moderate” this massive jurisprudence is beyond silly – it is dangerous because it is a search based upon a false hope when time and effort is in short supply.
As a result, SANE has staked out an approach which is to Know the Enemy by declaring the enemy historical, traditional, and authoritative Islam or Shari’a and those men and women who support Shari’a or Islamic law. We also actively support the Reformers and we ignore the call by mostly non-Muslims (and typically those of the so-called “neo-con” variety) who are in search of the “moderate” Muslim to “reclaim” his “noble religion of peace” from the “extremists.”
But the question remains, what to do as a practical matter since our government and most of the political Elite are fixated on the futile and ultimately dangerous search for a “moderate” Muslim and Islam. SANE has developed the answer. The answer is now before you in our Mapping Shari’a in America! This project is directed by Dave Gaubatz, SANE’s Director of Intelligence and Counter-terrorism Studies, a 25-year veteran federal special agent who knows Arabic and Islam from his years working counter-terrorism in the Middle East. The plan is straightforward but requires a substantial effort by a team of dedicated professionals.
Dave is now selecting and training a team of intel and CT professionals to visit, map, and index every mosque and Islamic day school in the country where they teach and preach Islamic law or Shari’a and Jihad. This team will then collect and analyze the data with the goal being to map each location on a digital interactive map, to identify, index, and grade each group as to the particular sect, its school of Islamic jurisprudence, what that means relative to the threat potential, the Jihad threat level, and other pertinent information about the key leadership, the associated businesses, and proximity to schools, infrastructure and national security installations.
For those of you still unclear Why this is all necessary and why SANE should undertake this critically important task, I might suggest you read an essay written by the Director, Dave Gaubatz, entitled "Mapping Shari'a in America." This essay responds quite specifically to the double edged query: Why do we need to map out all of the mosques and Islamic day schools in America? And, even if you can show that the threat from Islam proper is real and imminent, is this not a job for federal law enforcement agencies?
We urge you to read this answer with care.
dyerushalmi@saneworks.us
http://www.saneworks.us
Read more articles by David Yerushalmi
For those interested look up the "blood tax". It is generally not taught in PC history courses because it makes Islam look like what it really is a culture (not really a religion) bent on exterminating everyone not a member or paying taxes to be able to live!
Comment by Mickey G | May 10, 2007
"Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe is lashing back at his country's Catholic bishops, who courageously condemned his dictatorial rule as corrupt and repressive in a special pastoral letter before Easter."
"Mugabe Lashes Out at Catholic Bishops"
By Mark D. Tooley
May 9, 2007
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28204
I have posted this before, but it is worth repeating. The above article prompts me to ask a question of those who think there is moderate Islam and moderate Muslims, and of those who try to sell us the idea: If there are Catholic bishops willing to risk their lives by criticizing a violent dictator like Mugabe, where are the equally courageous moderate Imams to condemn radical Muslim acts of violence?
Comment by sedonaman | May 10, 2007
Well, there was the whole protests in Turkey against sharia episode.
Comment by WolvenBear | May 10, 2007
WolvenBear:
What episode, and were they Imams? In order to compare apples to apples, you would have to find a group of bishop-equivalents in Islam who stood up and condemned radical Islamic violence, and did it in an Islamic country that supports terrorists and terrorism, where the Imams will fear for their lives. Only THEN will you have an apples-to-apples comparison.
Comment by sedonaman | May 10, 2007
Sedonaman's response to WolvenBear is right on target. Ataturk's secularization experiment in Turkey is fast unwinding. But those who like to point to Turkey as an example of a western style democracy where Islam stays in its place have always ignored the reality of Turkey.
Yes, Ataturk and the later Kemalists successfully and forcefully created a secular society. Then they introduced a kind of democracy but every time the majority of Turks (not Arabs mind you) began to lean toward Islam as the majority always does, the secular military as the "guardians" of the secular society stepped in to undo democracy and overthrow the government. This has occurred many times since Ataturk's death and has been threatened many more times like the last episode just this past week where the legitimately elected Islamic Party had to withdraw its candidate for president because the military threatened to step in and overthrow the government.
In other words, when democracy is left alone even in Turkey the masses vote in Islam. Only the secular military acting quite un-democratically prevents another Sharia based regime via democratic means in the Middle East.
More, it was the EU and our State Department who just last week criticized the Turkish military for threatening "civilian democracy"!
As Americans we have terribly confused the purpose of representative government and even liberty. Today, we view these as the telos of a nation; but in truth, our founders understood that they were means for the prosperity of our nation—the American people. That of course is why “democracy” was quite a limited affair until even the early 20th century. In today’s world, including in President Bush’s world, liberty and democracy is the end and the American nation or people is not a discreet people but an “idea”. Thus, Turkey; Hamas in Palestine; chaos in Iraq; and on and on.
Comment by David Yerushalmi | May 10, 2007
Moderate Muslimhood only exists in places where they can seek refuge against Muslims who would kill a moderate Muslim for seeking some kind of peaceful coexistence with any power deemed an enemy by other Muslims, namely at this current time, the west and it's allies. Moderate Muslims that do speak out against those that have fouled Islam with their austere notions of it are branded heretics and blasphemers against the prophet and Allah. Then if they are found, they are summarily killed along with their families.
So in essence what happens is, is that if you are a moderate Muslim you have two choices; either be quiet and never say anything about Islam and it's trappings, or if you do say something, it's to go along with other Muslims in the typical group-think way for fear of reprisals. Typical mafioso tactics, but when coupled with arabism and then throwing radical Islam into the mix, you have a very bad cultural problem for moderates who know that their religion in it's current form is crazy and it's zealotous practitioners even crazier.
Comment by Asmodeus | May 10, 2007
The good Muslims are the 'extremists'.
The bad Muslims are the 'moderates' or the apologists.
You can never trust the bad Muslims because of taqiyya.
At least the good Muslims tell the truth.
That is why our leaders are so easily deceived.
Comment by BuckD | May 10, 2007
The point of the article is that there are no moderate Muslims, or, alternatively, if they do exist, they say nothing. This is false. And to negate the very positive significance of the demonstrations against Sharia because they weren't made by imams is insanely short sighted.
Ayran Hirsh Ali is a good ally in the fight against Islam from within. As is Walid Shoebat. Irshad Manji. Salman Rushdie. Etc.
We need to recognize our allies in the Islam, and understand that any movement to reform Islam isn't going to come from imams from from average everyday Muslims.
Comment by WolvenBear | May 10, 2007
The fact that you can map Shari’a in America is support for my contention that this is an immigration problem, not a military problem. In Europe it is immigration and Euros not having enough babies problem. Open immigration and a refusal to procreate at replacement rates are the result of LIBERALISM. Liberalism is the problem. If a “war” is needed it is against liberalism. As long as Muslims, by and large, are over there and Euros are over here (the West), then there is no problem. Islam does not represent a military threat to America or Europe.
I continue to maintain that you can not make 1 billion people the definitional enemy. It is not accurate. It is not necessary. And it could easily lead to barbarism on a mass scale. Especially with all the talk of Clausewitz and total war.
More later.
Comment by Dan Phillips | May 11, 2007
WolvenBear:
“The point of the article is that there are no moderate Muslims, or, alternatively, if they do exist, they say nothing. This is false.”
So, where are they? IFthere are moderate Muslims, surely there must be SOME of them among their clergy (just like there are liberal priests in the Catholic Church) who are willing to speak out against violence. After all, Imams are suppose to be the thinkers and interpreters of the Koran. Since they are not speaking out, they either do not exist or are remaining silent.
“And to negate the very positive significance of the demonstrations against Sharia because they weren’t made by imams is insanely short sighted.”
And this statement is an insane oversimplification. As David Yerushalmi observed, that demonstration was like an anti-communist demonstration outside Hitler’s office in Nazi Germany. To demonstrate against something the ruling military is against is not taking any personal risk at all, like the bishops of Zimbawe did.
“We need to recognize our allies in the Islam, and understand that any movement to reform Islam isn’t going to come from imams from from (sic) average everyday Muslims.”
I will agree that it will not come from Imams. For an Imam to step forward and criticize Islam would be heresy calling for a death sentence. That’s why it will not come at all. Ergo, there are no moderate “Muslims”, the whole point of the article. Those lay "Muslims" you mentioned are not practicing real Islam, for Islam by its very nature is about war, conquest, and violence in general. In short, it’s a Mafia with a manual, and like the Mafia, its members have a job for life.
Comment by sedonaman | May 11, 2007
"Except to the extent we meddle with Islam and allow Islam into our homeland, it is no threat to America. The standpoint he (Charley Reese) is coming from, as I see it, is that it is not America’s business to become a tool for battles among foreign interests. If they were not over here and we were not over there, it would not matter what the nature of Islam is."
This is a recent quote from Dr. Clyde Wilson that appeared in the comments section of the Chronicles website. He is exactly correct. I would link to the Reese article he is referring to but Lew Rockwell seems to be down. (Liberal and/or neocon hackers I suspect.) For the record, I think Reese is being naive, but the point is that the nature of Islam isn’t the ultimate issue.
Comment by Dan Phillips | May 11, 2007
I understand this doesn't go to the heart of WolvenBear's comments, but I don't think it is quite accurate to describe Ms. Ali as a "moderate Muslim." She is a self-described atheist. That's moderation in the extreme. (I'm not sure if the same applies to Mr. Rushdie.)
Comment by Katzen | May 11, 2007
As to WolvenBear's assertions. Katzen is correct in the main. The list is mostly secularists. Muslim Rejectionists. They have turned their back on Islam altogether.
But more to the point. Even if these relatively lone voices (even as they are feted by western non-Muslims as heroes (and they are most certainly brave for speaking out), "moderate" Islam has no voice.
Anyone who addresses Islam as a series of quotes from the Koran or ahadeeth simply does not understand that Islam, from the death of Mohammed, became institutionally a legal theology. There are five major schools of jurisprudence. They tell Muslims what is Islam and what it is not. They have the institutional, organizational, social, and cultural framework of 1000 years behind them. Any given individual or group which attempts to say that this jurisprudence is simply wrong and that Islam has been "hijacked" and that in its essence Islam is a noble religion of peace is subsumed and co-opted within the sole framework which exists today for Muslims.
Go ask Ms. Hirsi Ali how many Muslims turn out for her speeches. Then ask her how many non-Muslims turn out. Now, it isn't that there are not millions of Muslims around the world who would wish Islam to be different. But there are 1.3+ billion of them and survey after survey confirms that a majority support Shari'a — the Islamic legal tradition they grew up with, as did their parents and their grandparents — and a worldwide Caliphate. But even more importantly than sheer numbers, the institutions of Islam simply do not allow one to operate outside of the legal framework and remain a voice for Islam.
As to Dan Phillips. We have had this discussion time and time again and he continues to bait the discussion and then to walk away, never to respond substantively. I challenge him once again.
Mr. Phillips asserts that Islam is ONLY an immigration problem. I will be the first to agree and have taken the very public position of setting forth a SANE immigration policy, which if memory serves correctly was published here at IC (and if not certainly at SANE). At a minimum, we must rid ourselves of the enemy. By the by, aside from the historical and empirical evidence around the world which suggests that Shari'a faithful Muslims are our enemy and especially those in the Homeland, the Mapping Shar'a project is meant to document that fact so it moves from argument to demonstration.
But the second half of Mr. Phillips' assertion is that Islam OUTSIDE the homeland is not our enemy. If we but abandon the Middle East, Islam will leave the West alone.
But, Mr. Phillips has never answered three distinct points. One, Islam's doctrine of "opening dar al'Harb", the Land of War (i.e., the land of the infidels) to Islam began literally with Mohammed. And, of course it was not just theory. Ask the pagan Arab tribes in Arabia, the inhabitants of North Africa, the Buddhists in India, and finally the Christians of southern Europe, notably Spain, Italy, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In other words, ideologically and empirically Islam has demonstrated that what it preaches about a world wide Caliphate it takes quite seriously if and when it has the military might to flex its muscles.
At this point, Mr. Phillips tends to fall back on the Buchanan view: If we but abandon Israel and the Middle East, even if Iran gets a nuclear bomb, and even if Pakistan, which has at least 30-50 nuclear warheads in its arsenal falls to al Qaeda or the Taliban, they would never dare use it against us.
That is, given the evidence of the suicidal nature of Jihad, quite simply asinine.
(Parenthetically, given the hot debate here at IC between “neo-cons” and “paleo-cons”, given our disdain for these rubrics except as short-hand descriptions, permit me to say on behalf of SANE the following: While we believe (Jews and Christians alike) that the US ought to tell Israel to “grow up”, get off the US taxpayers’ dole, and solve its own problems, we would also say, the Palestinians deserve no help from us either. Indeed, they have demonstrated to the world through their electoral process and their celebrations following 9-11 where they stand.)
But Mr. Phillips’ geo-strategic policy of burying his head in the sand until the Jihadists get their hands on a nuclear weapon and detonate it in NY or LA, is so patently irresponsible that one wonders what ideology drives his passion for “isolationism”. Isolationism worked fine when we could rely on two great oceans to shield our Homeland from attack. That is no longer the case. A man who fails to recognize that threat has abandoned reason and responsibility and has embraced an ideology because it fits a rubric.
Comment by David Yerushalmi | May 11, 2007
Mr. Yurishalmi is basically right about the nature of Islam except he goes a bit too far in saying Islamic moderates are “effectively non-existent”. WolvenBear’s comment about Turkey is quite legitimate. However, that doesn’t change the big-picture reality about the Muslim world. Militant Islam is by far the predominant force within modern Islam and we have to stop putting our heads in the sand by pretending (or saying) that it is a “religion of peace”. We must judge Islam holistically and realize that it is at war with us and basically has always been, with significant periods of informal truce.
That being said, we must also realize that Mr. Yurishalmi is largely motivated by his desire that we not react to our Middle East problem by abandoning Israel. But that is exactly what we need to do. Israel has been a disaster for us from the very beginning. We have gotten nothing positive from our relationship with that tiny country. Leaving Israel will by no means make our Muslim problems disappear but our relationship with the Jewish Nation is a severely aggravating factor. We also need to put as much geographical space between us and the Muslim world as possible and we need the military strength to hit them hard if they hit us first. This is my unrealistic dream. I know that we are too gullible to escape the Jewish influence we are doomed to forever fight their wars, finance their country, and suffer Islamic terrorism.
Comment by Liberius | May 11, 2007
"As to Dan Phillips. We have had this discussion time and time again and he continues to bait the discussion and then to walk away, never to respond substantively."
David: I'm sure there's some web link to Aristotle or the Articles of Confederation Dan can point you to.
Take care, Phil
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 11, 2007
Phil,
Because invoking Aristotle and the Article of Confederation among other ancient and traditional sources is what CONSERVATIVE do. I'm sure, in contrast, your very eloquent defense of the Constitution as a living and breathing document would find very strong support from modern sources like Harvard Law.
Comment by Dan Phillips | May 12, 2007
David Y.,
It is not my intent to bait the conversation and then leave. It is just that I don’t always have time, especially to respond at length. I will do my best to answer your query above.
I am an “isolationists” at least partially because I am a conservative. Non-intervention (a less loaded term) is the inherently small-government conservative position. It is the historic position of conservatism, which of course doesn’t matter to the Phil Jackson style modernists of the world, but it matters to me. It is the position of the Founding Fathers, and it is the only position allowed by the Constitution as originally intended. (Or have we lived and breathed our way out of that unnecessarily binding interpretation?) David would you at least agree that we should actually declare war? On Iraq and on Iran before we bomb them as I am sure you intend? It is the only position consistent with Christian Just War doctrine. (Not binding at the level of Scripture but still important.) It is also the national level extension of a “good neighbor policy.” It recognizes the limits to which man can be molded and perfected by the State at the point of a gun. (See the Claes Ryn articles archived at Lew Rock I have linked to before.) Although that applies more to the neocons who want to “democratize” the enemy and less to you who just wants to eliminate them. The State has proven very ineffective at perfecting people but it is spectacularly good at killing them.
I believe eliminating the “threat” of Islam is a fool’s errand, short of massive scale barbarism. You assert it can be done, but that is highly debatable. It is at least as supportable to assert that our attempts to eliminate it will just breed more terrorism and resentment. (I think it is much more supportable to assert that.) Even if it could conceivable be done, the public does not have the stomach for it. They want us out of Iraq. How are you going to carry on a War against Iran, Syria, etc.? Are you going to declare a military coup, the will of the people be damned? Reinstitute the draft?
I don’t think you disagree with me that Islam does not represent a traditional military threat to America. But for the sake of the other readers I will go over it. Let’s look at Iran for example. I hope Iran doesn’t get the bomb, but I have no doubt they are working on it. Why wouldn’t they? Having the bomb clearly makes you a player internationally, and America and Israel is potentially threatening them. All the saber-rattling arguably makes it more likely and more in Iran’s best interest to get the bomb. But Iran is a sovereign nation. If they want to get the bomb, America has no ultimate say over that. If they had the bomb, and there were no American troops anywhere in the Middle East, as it should be, then that would not be a traditional military threat to America. (It might represent a treat to Israel, but that would be Israel’s problem. It would be up to the people of Israel and their government to decide how to respond to that threat. In the same way it would arguably be in America’s national interest to not allow Cuba to get a nuke due to proximity even though that would violate my invocation of national sovereignty that I invoked above. So national defense could trump the sovereignty concerns depending on the perceived threat.) But back to Iran. If they get a nuke, how would they threaten America militarily? They don’t have ICBMs. They don’t have subs capable of launching nukes. Nor ships. Nor a transatlantic bombing threat. How are they going to get the nuke here? By a SCUD? And if they did get the bomb, how many would they have? What would possibly be the point of Iran getting a few bombs and then nuking the US? If they did so they would be reduced to glass in a matter of hours. All the above scenarios are laughable. They are absurd on their face. So Iran does not represent a traditional military threat to America. Do you disagree?
So that is why you have to invoke scenarios of a State such as Iran creating a nuke and then them giving it to a terrorist organization and then the terrorists managing to get it here and detonate it. (By the way, using your example of the Taliban taking control of Pakistan, are you implying that we should not “allow” Pakistan to have the bomb? What on earth do you purpose to do about that?) The threat of terrorism, real but exaggerated by the “right-wing” security state advocates, is not primarily a military issue. It is an intelligence and law enforcement and immigration and border security issue. It might be a smale scale military issue if you identify the location of a cell or something like that. (For the record, if we had concrete evidence that Iran did give a nuke to terrorists that would obviously be an act of war.)
What your are suggesting is killing a lot of people to prevent the possibility, arguably very remote possibility, that a large scale terrorist event is going to happen in America. And that attempts to prevent it actually make it less likely and not more which is an arguable proposition in itself. How many people are you willing to kill to prevent that possible scenario? 1 million? 2 million? 6 million? But I’m the one being irresponsible? If you don’t want to commit genocide to prevent some arguably small threat, you have your “head buried in the sand?”
I have more to say on the problem of making a group of people the inherent definitional enemy which I will address later. But I would think that the problem with defining people groups as the inherent enemy would not be lost on Mr. Yerushalmi.
Comment by Dan Phillips | May 12, 2007
Dan Phillips:
“But Iran is a sovereign nation…”
The time is long passed when we should look at the absoluteness of sovereignty. I question the sovereignty of any nation whose leaders got their way to power through murder and treachery. Where is the "Just War Doctrine" equivalent that defines what constitutes a sovereign nation, a "Legitimate Sovereignty Doctrine" if you will? “We must challenge the primacy of national sovereignty. Governments that rule their own people by force and tyranny ought not to be considered the legal, sovereign equal of those that rule with the consent of their people. Whether one uses the term ‘rogue’ or ‘outlaw’ or some other term, states that fail to meet a minimum standard of governance and behavior ought not to receive the protection of international law.” – Richard Perle, “An End to Evil” by Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 18, 2004. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12233
“If they (Iranians) want to get the bomb, America has no ultimate say over that.”
Then of what value is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or any treaty for that matter? Iran signed the NNPT, agreeing not to develop nuclear weapons. You are advocating the moral equivalent of letting the mob have guns just because the authorities have them. What I detect here is a tolerance for evil regimes when you excuse a country from keeping its treaty obligations.
“If they had the bomb, and there were no American troops anywhere in the Middle East, as it should be, then that would not be a traditional military threat to America.”
At the risk of sounding impolite, I must say that you live in a fool’s paradise in addition to having a very limited concept of what does and what does not constitute a threat to America’s security. Not only that, but what makes you so sure a crazy man like Ahmadinejad will act like you think he will? These are not rational people we are dealing with. Plus, since when was any oppressive regime satisfied with confining itself to its own borders? Take a lesson from Natan Sharanski who knows a thing or two about “fear societies”:
“…the critical factor that prevents democratic nations from fighting against each other is not values that are particular to democratic peoples but rather the fact that the power of a democratic government is ultimately dependent on the popular will. … Non-democratic leaders, on the other hand, have far more tools at their disposal to ensure they never relinquish power. The dynamics that force their democratic counterparts from office are systematically controlled or thwarted. If they subject themselves to a vote, it is a carefully orchestrated fraud. If they allow their actions to be reported, the press serves as a mouthpiece of the regime. If they face a challenge from within, they suppress it. If they face meaningful opposition, they ban it. If they face popular dissent, they crush it. In other words, to stay in power, non-democratic leaders invariably build and maintain fear societies. … A fear society controls its subjects first and foremost through physical force … But … propaganda, state control of the media, personality cults, and so on will go only so far. … In time, the truth will emerge, and the forces of disaffection will gather strength. … Accordingly, fear regimes look to other methods to stay in power. One of the oldest and most effective is the creation of external enemies.” – Natan Sharanski, The Case For Democracy, p. 78.
Islamic societies are fear societies – apostates get the death penalty. Once an Islamic society gets the bomb, they will create an external threat to maintain their internal power, and once nuclear devices start going off, there will be no place for Dan Philips to hide.
“If they (Iranians) get a nuke, how would they threaten America militarily? They don’t have ICBMs. They don’t have subs capable of launching nukes. Nor ships. Nor a transatlantic bombing threat. How are they going to get the nuke here? By a SCUD?”
So you would be content to wait until they DID have a way of delivering it (assuming they don’t now)?
“And if they did get the bomb, how many would they have? What would possibly be the point of Iran getting a few bombs and then nuking the US? If they did so they would be reduced to glass in a matter of hours.”
So, how many would you let them have? 1, 10, 100, 1000?
What would be their point? THEY ARE CRAZY PEOPLE. They don’t HAVE to have “a point.” And they don’t care if they die trying; THEY HAVE ALREADY TOLD US THAT – just like Hitler in Mein Kampf told us what he was going to do, and we dismissed it as the rantings of a madman. How many times do we have to repeat the same appeasement scenario before the Dan Philipses of the world figure out there's a pattern here?
But, all of this is fine with Dan Philips. He is willing to let the U.S. endure a nuclear 9/11 … just as long as the bomb falls downwind at least a few hundred miles away and not on his toe. How comforting for the victims who are sacrificed just so you can feel good about the U.S. not being a bad guy. Methinks you have been watching far too many old B-Western movies.
Comment by sedonaman | May 12, 2007
Before I began to write for The Intellectual Conservative, I thought that deliberately misrepresenting another person’s position was a tactic employed by Liberals who can’t win an honest debate on the merits of an issue. But I stand corrected. Apparently, Looney Liberals aren’t the only ones who feel the need to mischaracterize a position in order to make their points.
Consider the author of the quote about “your [Phil Jackson’s] very eloquent defense of the Constitution as a living and breathing document”. It refers to an exchange several weeks ago in which I offered the following position.
“There is nothing in the Constitution that defines what a president may or may not use justify his decision to commit troops to battle under his Commander in Chief authority. Left unchecked, this will lead to abuses as all unchecked power does. By giving Congress standing in this matter, a check is introduced on the unrestrained exercise of that authority. Also, the CiC power of the president is a check on the Congress’ formal authority to declare war. If the nation is faced with a very real threat and Congress decides that it is just a ‘situation to be managed’ not a threat to be confronted, the president can order troops into battle. The consequences of all this will play out in the political arena. But Constitutionally, each side has a role to play in committing the nation to war. The fact that the dividing line between these respective authorities is not 100% clear is not a matter of fostering deliberate confusion, but rather allowing for action while simultaneously placing checks and balances on those actions.”
I resurrect this only to ask you all, again, to consider the source of any statements about the nature of the threat we face from Islamo fascism. If a person can’t honestly portray what I said about the Constitutional authority of the President to commit troops to battle without a formal declaration of war — reducing it to alleged support for a “living” Constitution — then how can we take anything else he says seriously?
I compliment David for a reasoned analysis that lays out a factual basis for assessing the threat of radical Islam, and contrast this with a ‘response’ that thinks because Iran has no ICBMs or submarines, it can never use a nuclear device against American interests. How do you even begin to address such sophistry? Weapons (and the technology) can be transferred to third parties, placed in the hull of a ship and docked in an American harbor, used against US interests outside our territorial boundaries, or simply be used as a club to intimidate other countries into acting against US interests, to name but four ways. This is the world we live in, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that reality.
To this point, as intelligent a man as Aristotle was, and as important as his pronouncements about earth, water, air and fire seem to be to True Conservative philosophy, I just don’t think he’s up to speed on 21st century geo-political military and economic politics. So perhaps we should take our queues from someone who, oh, say, doesn’t believe that lightning strikes come from an angry god.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 12, 2007
Dan, nice of you to flush out your position a bit. As to Israel, and this applies to Liberius' comment on my position, national existence demands that America be concerned about America's well being, not Israel's. If Israel's is important for ours, fine. But as a senior member of the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies, I have long taken the position that America should cease aid to Israel and instruct Israel to act in its own interests as we would. The Institute gave testimony to Congress during Bush I (I was there as legal counsel) on the ten billion dollar loan guarantees. We were the only organization to oppose them.
But our position is based on what is best for America and what we think would be best for Israel. It is not based on the propaganda that Israel and the Jews in the Middle East are the source of Islam's war against the West. Islam's war preceded by centuries the Jews' political return to that part of the world.
(Liberius' statement on Turkey supporting WolvenBear is nothing more than mere assertion not supported by fact or argument.)
On Dan's position of "non-intervention". The idea that you are a "non-interventionist" because you are a conservative (you wrote: "I am an 'isolationists' at least partially because I am a conservative. Non-intervention (a less loaded term) is the inherently small-government conservative position") is it seems to me precisely the opposite of what you should say. If you take geo-political positions because they are the dogma of a conservative, you are an ideologue (and by common definition not a conservative) and there is nothing gained by discourse. Ideologues, like the Bush democracy-builders, build arguments around "concepts" that are devoid of reality.
What you should say of course is that limited government, constitutionalism, and non-intervention are principles inherent to proper political order and that has come to be termed "conservatism". In that sense, I too am conservative.
Where we differ in practical terms, which will translate into theoretical ones later as you shall see, is in assessing the threat and the response to the threat. As to the threat, we live in the 21st century where post 9-11 we have learned that one doesn't need a "traditional military threat" to bring a great nation to its knees. Indeed, had the passenger planes been armed with nuclear warheads smuggled in by land, air or sea (something almost impossible to prevent), the catastrophe would have been felt on the ground even today.
I am not prepared to allow any Islamic Shari'a based regime to have WMD. Period. If Musharraf goes and Pakistan goes Taliban, Pakistan's nuclear arsenal must go. Iran should never be allowed this kind of destructive force. And, it has absolutely nothing to do with Israel. You are quite right on that score. Let Israel defend its own interests.
But you seem quite prepared to allow a nuclear terrorist attack and only then to reduce the enemy "to glass". But because you don't understand Islam's war to create a global hegemony, and precisely because you claim "terror" to be a law enforcement/intel matter and not war, you will be left with trying to pin the nuclear tail on the Iranian donkey. And, as we see with international intel, these matters are never clear and unambiguous. So as city after city is attacked by nameless terorrists with no actual fingerprints to Tehran or Islamabad (they might even claim some nuclear material was "lost" or "stolen" as Russia has and Pakistan already has conceded), your law enforcement modality would leave you breathless.
But even more importantly, and this you need to focus on, I simply don't accept the wanton sacrifice of American lives for the sake of some ideological purity. In that I am even more "conservative" than you. If I am going to err, it will be on the side of preserving American lives and American national security and existence. If we must war “barbarically” against Islam, so be it; they certainly have proven their bona fides in this affair.
Finally, as to your remarks about Christian Just War doctrine. Your logic escapes me. Colonel Snodgrass just published an essay on Christian Just War doctrine at SANE and it has been submitted for posting at IC. I recommend it. In short, Christian Just War theory was and is intended as a doctrine of war between Christian peoples. It was never intended as a suicide pact when Christians are confronted with the most barbaric and murderous of political ideologies parading as a religion. I made the same kind of argument in my essay On Torture which I had previously recommended to you because of your insistence that in war, we must be bound by a restraint even when we can demonstrate that our enemies not only show no similar restraint, they use ours to their advantage. You never responded to the arguments I presented there.
Finally, I most certainly accept the constitution's limitations on power. That is why I argue for a Declaration of War against Shari'a based Islam and its adherents. Anything short of that is merely PC avoidance if not convergence.
And, as a post-script, you like to hearken to our founders and their "non-interventionist" policies. I once posted in a comment thread where you and I engaged briefly a listing of America's wars. Quite a long list. Many of which occurred in our earliest history. I asked you to tell us which of those wars you supported on principle and which you opposed. You never responded. Indeed, given your "principles" enunciated here, you would have opposed the Revolutionary War and indeed the wars against the Indians. Most certainly the war to gain the Southwest from Mexico. And, of course, you see the absurdity of that dilemma. For you would be today without a nation. Now we begin to see how your “practical” refusal to confront the danger of Islam because to do so would be “barbaric” and somehow not fit a pre-determined rubric you term “conservatism” informs your theoretical or principled understandings.
All the best,
David Yerushalmi
David
Comment by David Yerushalmi | May 12, 2007
David:
I greatly appreciate your position against further aid to Israel. So exactly what do you want America to do for Israel? Please tell us how our relationship with Israel has benefited the U.S. in the past and will in the future? Of course, I’m convinced that whatever possible benefits you could point to would be vastly outweighed by the negative but please take a shot to convince us non-interventionists.
Comment by Liberius | May 13, 2007
Liberius: you don't convince me that you approach this seriously. Your failure to have read the penultimate paragraph in comment no. 13 which preceded yours at no. 14, your remark about Turkey, and your "assessment" that what motivates my geo-strategic approach to the threat from Islam is that America not abandon Israel suggests you have no desire or ability for serious discourse.
This pseudo-challenge of yours here is of the same order. I have never suggested that America's interests were furthered or will be furthered by its support of Israel. While one might make that argument, the other argument is stronger given the fact that Israel has become a basket-case given its dependence on foreign aid and the fact that political Zionism (the dominant branch) was and is nothing more than a statist ideology developed by secular European Jews very much enamored of Marxism, or at the very least, of socialism.
Israel is simply not in my equation. That it continues in yours if only by disguised "non-interventionism" is hardly important given the tenor and the level of your "contributions" to this discussion.
America's "intervention" should be measured by one and only one index: What is the threat we face from Shari'a based Islam which has for 1300 years preached the need for a worldwide Caliphate and which has only been hindered when Christian Europe defeated it in war and held it at bay? The other aspect of this threat index must take into account the threat from WMD and the ease by which these weapons can be transferred to terrorist networks and delivered to our doorstep.
Dan Phillips and others of his school suggest we can afford risking the loss of an American city or two if Iran or a Taliban-led Pakistan carries out such a clandestine attack.
I say the conscious decision to take that risk so that one "fits into a conservative rubric" of "non-interventionism" amounts to treason. No government, whose first and primary duty is to protect the people from external attack, may sacrifice its own in order not to be perceived as barbaric. Indeed, Colonel Snodgrass and I have made the argument, and one I suggest we have made cogently if not persuasively, that to take such a head-in-sand approach and sacrifice some X thousand of one's own fellow citizens before "reducing to glass" the enemy is itself an act of barbarism against one's own nation. If I were to be in the business of “measuring” barbarisms, I’d suggest that an act of barbarity against one’s own is far more heinous than against one’s avowed and self-declared enemy.
DY
Comment by David Yerushalmi | May 13, 2007
David Y:
First, I submitted my post #14 before your post #13 actually appeared. You know there is a significant delay between submission and posting so you should not make the assumption that you did. Second, you are making too much of the comment about Turkey. It is a widely held belief that Turkey is a relatively moderate Muslim country and there are many legitimate reasons to support that. Nevertheless, as I pointed out, it is a minor exception and I strongly agree with you on your basic point about Islam. Third, my suspicion of your motivation is quite reasonable given the language in your article, to wit:
“They argue that if we but abandon the Middle East and our senseless support of the Jews in Israel (typically referred to as “Zionists” or “Jewish Settlers” to avoid the deadly charge of anti-Semitism), we can separate ourselves from the Muslim world and live, if not live in peace, at least in a state of peaceful divorce.” You then identified such as an extremist belief and the implied purpose of your article was to oppose such a position.
Mr. Yerushalmi, now you say, “Israel is simply not in my equation”. Baloney. Israel is always part of everybody’s equation and you expressly raised it in your article.
Let me be clear in my positions. I am a sincere non-interventionist. Of course every policy has exceptions and I am for all reasonable policies to prevent nuclear proliferation. I am for three policy changes: 1) Stop foreign aid generally, especially to Israel, the Palestinians, and other countries in the Middle East. 2) Stop putting our troops on the ground in foreign countries generally, especially Middle East and Muslim countries. 3) Restrict immigration generally and deport non-U.S. citizens who demonstrate hatred for or a conflict of interest with America.
Those three policy changes would put needed distance between us and them and reduce the friction between two peoples who are simply not compatible. I know the objective of Islam is worldwide conquest but the militants will have far less fuel to feed their fire of hatred if we stay in our world and they stay in theirs. If we get out of their way many Muslims will turn on themselves. As I said earlier, if they strike us, we strike them back harder but we should forget about long-term presence in the Muslim world. It is counter-productive.
So you now be clear in your positions. Where exactly, sir, do you disagree with me? When you criticize the idea of abandoning the Middle East and the “Jews in Israel” as you wrote, just what exactly do you want the U.S. to do or not to do in that regard?
Comment by Liberius | May 14, 2007
Phil,
I was referencing your entire exchange with Katzen and less significantly with me. As I read your justification I was struck by how it was barely distinguishable from the "living and breathing" Constitution justification that liberals rely on. Maybe your explanation wasn’t quite as openly out there and contemptuous of the past, but the justification was the same. I have struggled to find a name for what you were describing. Since you kept referring to the Constitution as a “framework,” I thought “framework theory” might be a fair designation. What do you think? Please read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers and find me one bit of evidence to justify your framework theory. Then get back to me about “misrepresentation.” And it is really rich of you to act aggrieved that someone has “misrepresented” your position when you have spent entire threads acting like any deviation from a liberal PC “colorblind” mindset makes one a hate-filled racist. Misrepresentation indeed.
“I compliment David for a reasoned analysis that lays out a factual basis for assessing the threat of radical Islam, and contrast this with a ‘response’ that thinks because Iran has no ICBMs or submarines, it can never use a nuclear device against American interests. How do you even begin to address such sophistry? Weapons (and the technology) can be transferred to third parties, placed in the hull of a ship and docked in an American harbor, used against US interests outside our territorial boundaries, or simply be used as a club to intimidate other countries into acting against US interests, to name but four ways.”
I said that Iran does not represent a traditional military threat to America. You make my point. Transferring a nuke to a third party who then place it in the hull of a ship is not a traditional military threat. That would be state sponsored terrorism. Actually placing a nuke in a ship and docking it here would not be a terribly difficult thing to do. Building and procuring the nuke is. America is practically immune from a true military threat to our shores. We are very vulnerable to a terrorist attack. Every free country is. That is why it is foolish to think you can ever make America totally safe. It can’t be done. People live with risks all the time. That is also why this is not primarily a military issue. Terrorism can not be prevented entirely if the terrorist are committed enough. But multiple small acts of terrorism are much more likely than is a terrorist nuclear attack. (Y’all watch too much 24.) And I would argue the likelihood of small terrorist attacks goes up by what we are doing in the Middle East. It is not preventing it. We need to give them less reason to hate us, not more. There is very little terrorism in Switzerland last time I checked.
Sedonaman,
“One of the oldest and most effective is the creation of external enemies.”
Exactly. And what is it that you think you are doing re. Islam? I am reminded that “they are crazy people” in all caps. And you can’t say that that only refers to some of them because the whole point of this article and the argument of what I have dubbed the “just kill ‘em all” (I coined that so I want credit ) conservatives is that there are no non-crazy Muslims to speak of. Hence, it is perfectly acceptable to kill them indiscriminately. This robbing the enemy of all humanity and making them the unique locus of all evil has a tract record as old as humanity. And it leads to genocide. I would think the extremely problematic nature of this would not be lost on certain members of this forum. Perhaps it is not lost on me because as a Southerner my forefathers were also similarly objectified and subjected to a total war to stamp them out as a focus of evil.
The world is not that simple. All people groups and cultures, just like all individuals, are some mixture of good and bad. There are no all good societies, and there are no all bad societies just as there are no all good or all bad people. (Some are of course more bad or good than others.) Young children think in such purely dichotomous terms. As we get older and more mature, we learn to accept things as complicated. Your reference to B Westerns is apropos. One of the things that separated the B Western from the really good Western was character development. Good characters are complex. (The hired gun who redeems himself defending the weak for example is a recurring theme that comes to mind.) Not simplistic all good or all bad stick figures. Characterized in B Westerns by white hats and black hats. In your B Western view of the world, America is the sheriff with the white hat, ready to rid the world of black hat wearing evil bad guys (Muslims). If those evil bad guys can just be vanquished then all would be well with the world.
Funny also that you should reference “The End of Evil,” a work that couldn’t be a more farcical caricature if it intended to be so. It is profoundly un-Christian to think that the world can be rid of evil. Evil we have forever with us.
But Sedonaman, your answer included a lot of neocon sounding rhetoric about democracy, that I suspect David Y. recognizes and is probably rolling his eyes. At the risk of being guilty of the oversimplification that I just accused you of, think of it this way. The David Y. strategy is just kill ‘em all before they kill us. Less naïve, but more brutal. The neocon strategy is just democratize them all and kill all the recalcitrants that get in the way. Naïve but arguably more humane.
But here are a couple of points. First, conservatives have traditionally been skeptical of democracy, not elevating it to the position of highest good as neocons do. Democracy is an important means to an end of a free and orderly society, but it is not an end in itself.
Second, if you dissect the French Revolution down to its most fundamental element/issue, a good case could be made that the fundamental issue was the idea of consent that you cite. The RIGHT argued Church and Crown did not derive their authority from consent. Their authority was inherent. It was the LEFT that was clamoring about consent. (More evidence that neocons are of the left if any more was needed.) A book could be written on this issue, and I don’t have time to elaborate, but as a conservative I would not hang my hat solely on the issue of consent.
Also, your desire to downplay sovereignty in the name of enforcing some enlightened new world order is pure globalist neoliberal/neocon alternative reality. It is also hypocritical. Isn’t the criticism of Shari’a Islam that it doesn’t recognize legitimate boundaries? That it wants to impose that type of regime on other inferior societies that are practicing something different. Shari’s Law Islam and democracy worshipping neoconservatism are flip sides of the same universalist coin. That is part of the reason they can’t get along. Both claim some unique universally applicable knowledge and can’t tolerate dissent.
As for the NNPT, if Iran signed it then they should follow it assuming it was entered into in a way that was consistent with their law and is hence valid. If they are not following it then they should openly refute it. Of course they don’t do that because I suspect they suspect that if they did the bombs raining down on their head would soon follow. So you get subterfuge as a result. But America has no business enforcing the NNPT even if Iran is violating it.
“But, all of this is fine with Dan Philips. He is willing to let the U.S. endure a nuclear 9/11 … just as long as the bomb falls downwind at least a few hundred miles away and not on his toe.”
Of course that is just silly and argumentative. It would be a catastrophe if there was a nuclear 9/11. We differ on how likely we believe that possibility to be and how is the best way to prevent it.
Comment by Dan Phillips | May 14, 2007
David Y.,
Answering your posts and queries could easily be a part time job. I will break this one up into sections for simplicity.
Israel –
I think you are assuming a lot about me based on other paleos/anti-war rightists. I actually intentionally reframe from bringing up Israel too often because when anyone does it immediately becomes a distraction to the bigger picture of non-intervention. People either want to purity test your fidelity to Israel or your ability to trace every ill back to them. For some, bringing Israel up at all in reference to potential influence over American foreign policy is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. For others anything other than non-stop, foot-stomping condemnation is evidence you are naïve or a pawn. I find all that very tiresome. I brought Israel up in relation to Iran only because some would argue that America can not allow Iran to get nukes because that would be a threat to Israel. Tancredo and McCain said basically that in the debate. (You know, the debate that Ron Paul won.) Look back at what I have written and you will find very few references to Israel. Partially because like you, I am not a liberal hung up on universality. I have no problem with Israel being a particular ethnic state. When rightist criticize Israel for not being a multicultural democracy, it makes me cringe. Jimmy Carter can criticize Israel for “apartheid” all he wants because he is an unrepentant liberal and is at least being consistent.
Ideology –
I am not sure what is to be gained by semantic nit-picking. I actually have some quibble with Kirk on the ideology thing. He is right that true conservatism rejects systematic, all encompassing ideologies like libertarianism, Marxism and neo-conservatism, but I think a lot of moderates have used what he said to rob conservatism of any specific content. I am actually working on an article on this issue. But that said, what I meant by I am a non-interventionist because I am a conservative is that the former is inherent in the proper understanding of the later. One can no more be a pro-intervention (outside certain justifiable contexts) conservative than one can be a big-government conservative or a “living breathing Constitution” conservative. (Body blow.)
Treason –
I think the t word is inflammatory and argumentative. When some on my side have brought it up re the border or Israel, I have counseled them against its use. It doesn’t advance the debate. It just inflames it. Also, treason is technically a legal term. It is a charge potentially punishable by death. I am sure you are not suggesting that anti-war rightist (and leftist for that matter) should be subject to the death penalty for dissenting.
Historical Wars –
One reason I have not answered your “what historical wars were justified” question is because it warrants a book length response. Of course I could be an “American exceptionalism” simpleton and say they all were because America is uniquely virtuous and never does anything wrong, or I could be a pacifist and say none were. But my real feelings are complicated and require a great deal of elaboration. Also, I am not familiar enough with all of our wars to comment in an informed manner.
Murray Rothbard said that the American War for Independence and the South resisting invasion were the only two justified wars in American history. I am certainly not a pure Rothbardite, but I am inclined to generally trust his judgment on this. But I will elaborate on my feeling were I have enough info to comment.
I think the War for Independence was justified but it should be looked at correctly for what it was – a war for independence or a war of secession, not a “revolution.” Philosophically it makes a big difference. We declared independence and England forcefully tried to keep us in the Realm. So our resistance to that was justified. I do not reject the “right” to revolution, but I think we have much more justification for a revolution (based on casual disregard for the Constitution) today than the Colonists did, and I am not advocating revolution now.
The South lawfully and peacefully seceded and the North invaded to prevent that. So the South’s resistance to invasion was certainly justified.
Beyond that it gets murky. A military action against the Barbary Pirates was justified, but we should have declared war. It was justified but it wasn’t necessarily obligatory. A case could be made that paying a tribute was the cost of doing business. That is essentially what the Congress argued. I support Jefferson’s actions but he should have declared war, or gotten some sort of Congressional resolution that such was not necessary because it was a “policing action” or something like that.
WWI was clearly not America’s fight. Our entry into that war was tragic. Our entry arguably allowed for the unworkable Treaty of Versailles. Had America not entered and tipped the balance, then a more workable end to the stalemate would likely have been worked out. It is also likely that without the ToV, there would have been no rise of Hitler and no WWII. Our entry on the side of England was driven by an Anglophile element in America that clearly wanted us to intervene. Had our policies been neutral then there would have been no confrontation with the Germans at sea.
WWII was also not America’s fight. Clearly the War in the Pacific was after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, but the historical evidence is clear that FDR was intentionally antagonizing the Japanese in order to provoke an attack. Whether he knew in advance of Pearl Harbor is highly debatable, but it is not debatable that we were engaging in a policy deliberately intended to provoke Japan. The drive for American entry was again driven by Anglophile elements that wanted America to save England’s bacon as well as by Jewish elements. But the conservative instincts of the American people wanted to stay out of another European war. (To be fair some resistance to the War was driven by people who were sympathetic to Germany [not necessarily Nazism]). Antagonizing Japan was FDRs way of forcing America into that conflict.
The Spanish American War was unjust because an internal conflict in Cuba was not our concern.
The Philippine-American War was unjust because you can’t purchase from Spain what does not rightfully belong to Spain.
The various Indian Wars are complicated. In many of those cases the Indians did actually represent a threat which is more than can be said about Cuba or the Philippines. That said, our overall treatment of the Indians was atrocious. Since I have no dogma of American exceptionalism to defend, I can say that.
Terrorism –
Terrorism, whether small scale or large, whether involving WMD or not, is a POTENTIAL threat. Smart people can and do disagree about the extent of that threat. But the policy you advocate to prevent potential acts, would have massive and certain implications. It would involve the death of hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of Muslims. It would involve the death of many thousand US soldiers. It would cost a fortune and potentially bankrupt America. It would require the reinstitution of the draft. The imposition of the security state would and has cost freedom and civil liberties. It would drive the price of oil incredibly high. If the dollar was replaced by the Euro as the reserve currency for oil, the dollar would plummet in value immediately. America would continue to lose credibility around the world. I could go on. All of this to possibly prevent an act of terrorism that may or may not happen, with a policy that may or may not work and might even increase the potential for terrorism. Yet I am the irresponsible one. I am the ideologue warped by my desire for purism. How many Muslims and Americans are you willing to kill and get killed “just to be on the safe side?” (To use the wording of another person on another thread whose name I do not recall.)
Politics –
I am certainly not one who confines my political opinions to what is politically feasible at the moment. Heck, I want to shut down the 80-90% of the federal government that is not authorized by the Constitution. But how do you plan to sell to the masses your global crusade to rid the world of evil Muslims? The masses want us out of Iraq. How do you plan to carry on this crusade? Do you think a Democrat will do it? Do you think the next President if he is a Republican will do it? Will Congress, which will very likely remain Democratic, support it? (McCain, Gingrich and Giuliani might like to but you can’t get blood from a turnip.) Please explain to me how you intend to sell this?
Comment by Dan Phillips | May 14, 2007
Dan Phillips:
Perhaps I should have clarified my reference to B Westerns. It was a metaphor not intended to be “vanquish-evil-and-all-would-be-well-with-the-world,” one but rather the “good-guy-must-always-give-the-bad-guy-more-than-an-even-break-in-the-final-fight.” In that chase scene, he has to expend his advantage (i.e., run out of ammunition) and take on the bad guy using only his fists. Hence, America should act in a similar fashion – deny itself the use of its military advantage in order to remain pure. The reality of the world is that military strength, whether used or not, ultimately decides who wins, not how much the of the audience likes you. Golda Meir said it best: “We are not going to die just so the world will think well of us.”
“Isn’t the criticism of Shari’a Islam that it doesn’t recognize legitimate boundaries? That it wants to impose that type of regime on other inferior societies that are practicing something different.”
It wasn’t America who started this fight; it goes back to the seventh century when Mohammed’s followers set off for conquest. Not having a dog in the fight, so to speak, I used to be neutral in the Muslim/Israeli conflict, but one day the thought occurred to me that the Muslims had 99.44% of a huge swath of land between the Atlantic coast of N. Africa and the S. Pacific, and 100% of its oil; yet for some reason, they simply cannot do without one little itsy-bitsy strip of land with no oil on it. Taken this way, one can see how absurd the Muslim position is with regard to Israel, unless of course you accept the elimination of Israel as a viable option. You have condemned what you call the “just kill ‘em all” philosophy, but then draw a moral equivalency between the Western democracies and Islam which has stated in no uncertain terms, “just kill ‘em all” with respect to everyone not a Muslim.
Having lived in the Orient and traveled to many countries, I don’t believe that what we are doing in the United States is merely “practicing something different.”
“We differ on how likely we believe that possibility to be and how is the best way to prevent it.”
That’s the only thing you have said that I agree with.
So, where are your moderate Muslims?
Comment by sedonaman | May 14, 2007
Dan:
Not to disparage your laudable attempt to understand the American political process through self-education, one of the disadvantages of this approach is the constant need to categorize every thought by some label, classification system, or other shorthand way of coming to terms with a complex issue. These categories/labels can help provide context, but they aren’t context in themselves. Unfortunately, you don’t seem to understand this. This is why your so-called analysis is always filled with website references and “Liberal PC Colorblind Living-and-Breathing Hate Filled Racist Neocon” ad infinitum labels.
Rather than look at what the other person is actually saying and responds to that, you tend to put their words (not ideas) into a value laden category (with all the baggage attached to that label), and then extrapolate from that. I contend that if someone can’t understand the fairly straightforward analysis I cited above of the President’s constitutional authority to commit us to war, then they either don’t want to understand what I said, or somehow are incapable of understanding it. Katzen, if you remember, disagreed with my conclusions without the necessity of attaching all the labels you do to debate the issue. Your political evaluations are more propaganda than analysis, which is why it’s difficult to take you seriously.
To this point —- You somehow think that because Iran has no ICBMs and submarines (i.e. “traditional” weapons systems), the nuclear weapons it possesses will not … what? Be as deadly when exploded? Not be as threatening and destabilizing to the region? Not be capable of being given to a third party who can get it onto US soil?
Okay, so it’s not a “traditional” threat. Neither was a 747 being slammed into the World Trade Center. Yet these victims are just as dead. Was the impact on our economy less because the towers came down due to burning jet fuel than a conventional explosion delivered by an ICBM? Like the French with the Maginot line, you’re fighting the wrong war with the wrong strategy, and when your position is overrun, you’ll be scratching your head pointing to Aristotle and the Articles of Confederation to explain why you were right all along amid the carnage and debris you’ve permitted to happen.
Your optimism that Iran would never do such a mean thing to the US is nice, but not supported by any real evidence. In fact, one only has to look at Iran’s long history of state-sponsored terrorism to draw a more plausible opposite conclusion.
You raise straw man arguments by saying that “That is why it is foolish to think you can ever make America TOTALLY SAFE. It can’t be done.” No one is arguing this position. The world is not black-white (totally safe-unsafe). Governments don’t act only when they are guaranteed to achieve 100% of their objectives, and ordinary people don’t make decisions this way. They look at the world as it really is, and act accordingly. To make policy based on your “totally safe” concern is juvenile and more than a bit silly. [I put your originals words in caps to highlight them because I haven’t figured out how to bold or italicize a passage in the reader comment section]
As for fighting terrorists, again your prescription is based on the black-white issue of “Terrorism can not be prevented ENTIRELY if the terrorist are committed enough.” I presume this is a meaningful revelation to you, but as a basis upon which to make policy it’s just plain silly. The same was true of Kamakazi attacks during WWII. That didn’t stop the US from doing things to foil these attacks that eventually resulted in ending them (along with the war in the Pacific).
You introduce another straw man by saying that “I would argue the likelihood of small terrorist attacks goes up by what we are doing in the Middle East. It is not preventing it.” Yes, you have stumbled upon another truth of life. If we are mean to the terrorists they will not like us. And if we try to stop terrorism, the terrorists will resist. For someone who looks at policy and policy outcomes in terms of days, weeks and discrete events — rather than long term goals and objectives — this can be very distressing.
Then we come to the Rodney King School of International Relations. “We need to give them [the terrorists] less reason to hate us, not more.” Since I don’t want to convert to Islam, take away my wife’s drivers license and make her wear a Burkha, and turn over US foreign and domestic policy to a bunch of murderous religious zealots, I guess they’re going to hate me. It’s just something I’ll have to get used to.
And finally, we come to the silliest comment of all: “There is very little terrorism in Switzerland last time I checked.” I’d try to explain to you why a country that survives politically by accommodating everyone’s interests from banking to drugs, which prides itself on having no values worth defending against outside aggression, and which has a minimal impact on the world’s politics or economy (other than to help launder money and give amnesty to international criminals), would not have invoked the wrath of Islamic extremists … yet — but I doubt you’d understand, given the way you classify the world.
Suffice to say, I’m sure that if the entire planet “converted” to Islam except for Switzerland, the religious fanatics we’re fighting today would just walk away peacefully and leave them alone.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 14, 2007
Dan Phillips,
Underlying your opinions on the jusitifcations of various wars is an assumption that the United States should not get involved in a war that "isn't our fight." You don't really explain what would constitute "our fight," but I gather you make the judgment based on a calculation of American national interest, and that you do not count moral concerns (such as the murderous rampages of Japan and Germany).
However, you demand to know how many Muslims Mr. Yerushalmi is willing to kill–implying that there is such a thing as moral conduct for a nation.
Are all national moral obligations negative (refrain from mass murder) rather than positive (stop Hitler)? If so, why? And is there some positive moral objective so great that can be acheived at a cost so small that you would support American intervention to accomplish it–even if no vital American interests were at stake? And if so, would that be a departure from your principles?
Comment by Katzen | May 14, 2007
Liberius: let's move past the posting issues and your poor references to Turkey. (If you have something substantive to say about Turkey other than it is "a widely held belief", I'd be happy to respond.)
To your point of my motivation, interest, or concern about Israel. You are simply attempting to manufacture a position I do not hold. I raised the fallacious argument made by many about Israel/Zionists/Jews being the focus of the Islamic Jihad against the West to suggest that the advocates of such a theory are almost a priori suspect because they have ignored history, Islamic jurisprudence, verse, and the contemporary declarations by the Jihadists. Maybe this "Israel is the cause of all of our problems" crowd believes they know Islam better than the Jihadists themselves but that would appear on its face to be a rather imbalanced position to take.
But when I say Israel is not in my calculation I mean just that. America should act in its and only its best interest. It is quite obviously the case that Israel's interests are not necessarily ours any more than England's are necessarily ours. Each threat and geo-strategic move by the US must be weighed in context of our interests. Our allies may or may not figure into that equation, but good and sound judgment needs to be exercised.
As to your three positions: "1) Stop foreign aid generally, especially to Israel, the Palestinians, and other countries in the Middle East. 2) Stop putting our troops on the ground in foreign countries generally, especially Middle East and Muslim countries. 3) Restrict immigration generally and deport non-U.S. citizens who demonstrate hatred for or a conflict of interest with America. "
As to the first, I have made clear, as has my public record with IASPS dating back to the 1980s, I am in complete agreement.
As to the third, I am also in agreement except I have made clear that all non-citizen Muslims should be deported. Only after we can determine that a Muslim has wholly rejected Shari'a should we even consider him/her a candidate for immigration.
As to the second, I disagree NOT on principle but because this is the battlefield of the war. If it is correct to say that Islam is at war with the West (irrespective of our presence in the Middle East), and if it is correct to say that if we simply cede all of the ME to them in peace and security they will quite likely use the freedom of movement to plan and carry out a massive WMD attack on us through Jihadist surrogates, and if it is correct to say that only a foolish or suicidal ideologue would take the position that we should allow them one nuclear attack before we respond (especially given their history), then our presence in the ME is necessary but only to this extent: Any where Shari'a is the basis for the society, the regime, or the Jihadist network, we need manpower on the ground in the form of special ops and intel to go along with massive aerial bombardment. If you go to the SANE Immigration Proposal you will see what I have proposed based upon SANE’s military experts. First, no nation building. Second, you use drones, special ops, intel, rendition, and assassination teams to take out key leaders of the Shari'a-Jihad networks/nations. Third, you bomb out of existence the infrastructure that will allow them to train, arm, communicate and finance with their networks. Then you leave. They rebuild, you take them out again. There is no room given for "proportionality" or "collateral damage". This is war. So, as you see, the manpower used to keep WMD away from the Jihadists exploits precisely the massive destructive power of our air power.
I might note the US government, including its military, has never been good at building. Building must be done by private entrepreneurs in a civil environment within a society of laws. We have seen how the US government manages even public works in this country. The ability to destroy, however, is a different matter altogether. And this our military does better when allowed to than any other power in the history of man. Until we impose strict immigration controls and outlaw Shari’a, we will never stop Islamic domestic terrorism. But we can prevent the use of WMD on our shores if we attack their nerve centers and their WMD suppliers with such overwhelming force there will be very little left behind.
That might sound “barbaric” but the position you support is manifestly heinous: the willing sacrifice of one or more US cities to a WMD attack because you believe/hope that al Qaeda run Pakistan or the Twelver Imams in Tehran will rationally consider the consequences of a WMD suicide attack on the US. Moreover, how will you know whom to attack? You have abandoned the ME. You will have absolutely ZERO intel of any value. Iran ships a nuclear warhead to a group. Libya provides them with a “used” black market fighter jet previously decommissioned and reassembled; or even a used passenger jet. The terrorists fly it to a safe haven in South America. There are lots of them now. From there, flying in below radar, they cross US territory on the way to LA.
If you think that is fiction, you belong to the same crowd who dismissed the few lone voices in US counter-terrorism who said OBL would likely use passenger jets commandeered by terrorists in some kind of terrorist operation.
Now you understand clearly where we agree and where we don't.
DY
Comment by David Yerushalmi | May 14, 2007
Phillip Ellis Jackson:
Here is an HTML Code Tag chart that explains how to get the various effects:
http://www.csun.edu/science/help/help_docs/html_tags.html
Comment by sedonaman | May 14, 2007
An interesting article. I'm glad somebody is keeping an eye on sharia in America.
I saw nothing in the article regarding a worldwide war against Islam, so I'm not sure why this is the focus of discussion. Whatever the theoretical pros and cons of such a step, there is no public support for it. There is not even support for our vastly more limited efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether we should wage such a worldwide war or not, it seems clear that we are not going to. Rather than fight with each other over hypothethicals, why not work on real world areas where you agree?
Comment by PatrickW | May 14, 2007
I like Dan and most of the able commenters here have other myriad responsibilities so I must keep this response to Dan short. More, many of the commentators (and indeed Dan himself) have said more than what needs to be said.
I limit myself to two points. Two important points.
One, Dan's "kill 'em all" is a rhetorical ploy. I have said time and time again that the enemy of the West is the Shari'a faithful for it is the murderous political ideology of Shari'a developed in infancy under Mohammed and matured under his successors that has itself declared war on the West.
A Muslim can get out of the way of this war by rejecting Shari'a. I would dare say that a key element of a conservative man is his ability and his willingness to discriminate. I discriminate between my fellow countrymen and my friends and between my friends and my enemies and between my enemies with the capability to do me harm and the harmless ones.
Two, in the query on the justification for war, I did not ask you if our methods of war were "atrocious" or not. Granted, nations err and commit grave sins as it were because they are governed by men who quite obviously have moral shortcomings.
But if we were to try and glean some theory of war out of all that you have written, I dare say we'd not get very far. Katzen's comments are particularly on point.
Let's take two wars of particular importance for our young country at its founding. You seem to subscribe to the notion that a given subset of a nation may secede at will. Or, might you restrict that privilege? Why were the colonists justified in demanding independence? Why the Confederates? What if you and I formed a society in Arizona or Wyoming and enough like minded folks joined us, might we declare independence? How do we declare our ownership if we purchased the land based upon the law of the land we now reject?
Further, the point you make about the Indians. The Indians were a threat because we were forcefully taking their tribal lands which they had occupied for countless generations. On what basis were we justified to occupy any land in the New World?
DY
Comment by David Yerushalmi | May 14, 2007
Note on my previous comment: "friends" should have been "allies".
Comment by David Yerushalmi | May 14, 2007
Sedonaman:
Thanks for the reference, but I'm an old guy who knows how to turn a computer on and off. Anything beyond that is all Greek to me. What I normally try to do is type a response in Word so it catches my egregious typos, then copy and paste it into the comment box. What I bold or italicize in Word doesn't transfer.
Could you send me a brief note to my public email address (jackson-ic) and tell me what I can do, specifically, after I transfer the comments. Can I highlight a word or phrase, insert a specific command, then bold or italicize that? If not, what is the specific command for these if I type directly into the comment box?
Appreciate it.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 14, 2007
David Y:
Non-interventionists such as myself don't claim that Israel is the source of ALL our problems but it is undeniably a huge problem and it cannot be “removed from the equation” as you indicated. I do understand history. Iraq has for many years been deemed as the worst threat to Israel. In 1981 Israeli fighter jets bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant. Saddam built up the fourth largest army in the world and Israel was horrified. In the Gulf War Saddam sent Scuds into Tel Aviv. Saddam openly awarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with checks for $25,000. The Israeli lobby has an extremely powerful influence on the American government and Zionists like Perle, Feith, Libby, and Wolfowitz had much to do with manipulating the U.S. into going to Iraq. Iraq was not a threat to us but it was a real threat to Israel. We cannot ignore that the over-shadowing reason for the 9/11 attack was because our troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia and the reason our troops were there was, in large part, to protect Israel.
No person believes that we should simply wait for a nuclear attack; that is not a fair assessment of non-interventionism. There are many other ways of working against nuclear proliferation and deterring nuclear attack. Most people realize now that our efforts in Iraq have not made the situation better. It has made it worse. We have been fighting there for four years. It’s time to declare victory and leave. Of course we should forget nation building. We never promised them a rose garden. I’m for getting our troops out of that quagmire and practicing strict neutrality, especially as to Israel. This would probably heal most wounds with the Muslim world. Yes, a certain number of militants will not be satisfied and continue to demand world-wide Shari’a but what you ignore is that they would be much less likely able to motivate other Muslims if the primary fuel has been eliminated from the fire. At the very least, we need to give it a chance. If that fails and we suffer another 9/11-type attack only then should we engage in the types of actions you contemplate.
Comment by Liberius | May 16, 2007
Liberius,
I would appreciate it if you could list your sources for the following claims:
That "Iraq has for many years been deemed as the worst threat to Israel." (Deemed by whom? And worse, in the early part of this decade, than Iran?)
That Paul Wolfowitz is a Zionist.
That our troops were in Saudi Arabia to protect Israel. (Not Saudi Arabia?)
Comment by Katzen | May 16, 2007
Liberius:
“If that fails and we suffer another 9/11-type attack only then should we engage in the types of actions you contemplate.”
In an interview for frontpagemag.com http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23176 , Peter Beinart "seeks legitimacy" for America's power and also desires to hold America up to the "highest standards" of democracy and human rights. For him, the morality of a nation is determined not by its actions measured against an objective standard such as international law, but subjectively and inversely to its perceived degree of military power. To this Leninist way of thinking, because America is strong, it is immoral and needs to be made "legitimate." When Israel was the underdog, the world rooted for it. Its perceived degree of power has shifted in the minds of world, and now as the "overdog," so to speak, it is automatically immoral, even though the political situation has not changed. It too must re-legitimize itself by meeting "higher standards" of human rights by giving terrorists more than an even break. The fact of the matter is, neither America nor Israel will ever live up to Beinart's "highest standards" because, having jettisoned objective international law as a yardstick, he and other liberal Left-thinkers will always seek ever higher standards no matter how well America or Israel perform. The more they do to overcome their shortcomings, the worse - not better - America and Israel appear to them; and the more perfect America and Israel are, the more unbearable and unjust seem even their remaining imperfections.
Now you have set the price America must pay to re-establish its “legitimacy,” as Beinart puts it, at one more of its cities. And who will pay the price of this repeated folly? Certainly not you, nor Dan Phillips, nor Peter Beinart and his Leftist friends, but the unsuspecting citizens of some American city that you are so willing to sacrifice to meet some subjective, arbitrary concept of “legitimacy,” or just to make you feel good.
God help us.
Comment by sedonaman | May 16, 2007
And I'd like to know the "many other ways of working against nuclear proliferation and deterring nuclear attack." Diplomacy, Jimmy Carter and the UN did not deter North Korea from going nuclear, while attaching Iraq scared Kadaffi into surrendering his nuclear technology.
"If that fails and we suffer another 9/11-type attack only then should we engage in the types of actions you contemplate." So, is the new rule of thumb that we need two 9/11's — not one — to figure out that these people really mean us harm and take aggressive measures to defeat them? Why not three 9/11's, or four, or five or more, since one apparently isn't enough?
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 16, 2007
Phil:
"And I’d like to know the 'many other ways of working against nuclear proliferation and deterring nuclear attack.'”
Thank you. I forgot to ask Liberius this question in my last post. I eagerly await his answer.
Comment by sedonaman | May 16, 2007
Katzen:
I don’t base each opinion I have on a single source. I’ve studied history and I pay close attention to current events and politics. That being said, I’ll respond as follows:
1. Now that Iraq has been cut down, the new big Israeli threat is Iran. But before that, Iraq was the bigger threat. I gave you specific examples already of the contention between them. Iran did not send scuds to Israel, Iraq did. Israel didn’t attack Iran from the air; that was Iraq. Iraq had the largest army and Iraq was closer to Israel than Iran. Saddam was the one bragged on TV his about payments in support of suicide bombers. They are simply facts of history. You don’t doubt them do you? I recommend you read the Harvard University study, “The Israeli Lobby”. It provided in part, “As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to Israel…Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical…the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’” http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
2. Paul Wolfowitz is commonly regarded as a Zionist. His father, Jacob, is a noted “fervent Zionist”. Paul’s sister lives in Israel. Paul is a Jew who is known as a passionate advocate for Israel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz. The very definition of a Zionist expressly includes someone who “is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zionist.
3. Initially, in 1991, our troops were sent to Saudi Arabia, in part, for its protection. But it also was for Israel and it also was to be a staging area to launch the strike against Iraq. After the Gulf War, we stayed there primarily to keep pressure on Iraq and stage the second war. Many Saudis like OBL saw our presence in Saudi as an offensive occupation and that was their primary motivation for 9/11.
Comment by Liberius | May 16, 2007
Sedonaman / Phil:
What are you talking about? I have not argued anything about our “legitimacy”, “standards of democracy”, or “human rights”. I think we have absolutely nothing to prove in those categories. There is not a country in the history of the world more honorable than the U.S. I am a patriot and a conservative. I’ve been in the U.S. military for more than 23 years. My complaint is that we don’t do enough to protect our own interests.
Can’t you see that we probably would have never had 9/11 if not for the interventionist policies in the Middle East? Once we had 9/11, the proper response was war in Afghanistan and other counter-terrorist measures we took. Iraq only diverted our attention and our resources. Regardless, it’s now time to move on to a different foreign policy. The previous method has failed.
In no way do I support the pathetic methods of Clinton and Carter. They paid extortion to N.K. There are a thousand things we do to stop nuclear besides war and tribute. Do I really have to spell them all out for you?
Comment by Liberius | May 16, 2007
Note: This may be a duplicate post. My first one didn't seem to take.
Liberius:
No one is questioning your patriotism, only your judgment.
You say “Can’t you see that we probably would have never had 9/11 if not for the interventionist policies in the Middle East?”
Actually, no. We aren’t having a little disagreement with these people. To them, anyone who isn’t a follower of Islam (or more correctly, their brand of Islam) is an Infidel. And Infidels are an affront to God. And what does a religious zealot do when his God is affronted? He removes the source of the blasphemy.
These people didn’t attack us because of our policies. They attacked us because we’re unholy. But Unless you’re planning on converting, you’re a target. And no amount of Ron Paul-inspired wishful thinking will change that fact.
“In no way do I support the pathetic methods of Clinton and Carter. They paid extortion to N.K. There are a thousand things we do to stop nuclear besides war and tribute. Do I really have to spell them all out for you?”
Actually, yes. You said there are “many other ways of working against nuclear proliferation and deterring nuclear attack.” (Now, a “thousand things”). If Carter, Clinton, the UN and Bush’s Middle East policy are flawed in your opinion, then it’s a legitimate question to ask you what these “many other/thousands of ways” are that would block Iran from acquiring the bomb and stop nuclear proliferation. The only proven success to date is Bush’s attack on Iraq, which prompted Kadaffi to get rid of his nuclear program. Tell us specifically what will work instead.
I don’t think you will (or can), because we both know you were only making a rhetorical statement (much like your 9/11 statement). However, rhetoric isn’t a basis for making policy.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 16, 2007
Liberius:
When you said to David Y, “If that (‘getting our troops out of that quagmire and practicing strict neutrality, especially as to Israel’) fails and we suffer another 9/11-type attack only then should we engage in the types of actions (‘attack their nerve centers and their WMD suppliers with such overwhelming force there will be very little left behind’) you contemplate,” it sure sounded like you were playing the same tune Beinart was, i.e., giving terrorists more than an even break by requiring that America ensure its “legitimacy” by doing nothing until they attack another one of our cities. Hence, Phil’s question, why only one more 9/11; why not two, three, four, etc.?
“Can’t you see that we probably would have never had 9/11 if not for the interventionist policies in the Middle East?”
No, I can’t because Islam’s war against non-Islamic nations pre-dates the modern state of Israel. Take a look at its history from the view from 100,000 feet. Every time Islam takes a defeat, it retreats back until it builds up its war-making resources for another go at it. This is what Mohammed did. He was driven out of Mecca, and he retreated to Medina until he had a large enough army to go back and conquer Mecca. Since their prophet is considered perfect, this is their model for their modus operandi. This will go on until Islam is crushed militarily so that it cannot recover. Until then, fighting these little brushfire wars like Afghanistan and Iraq will be nothing more than engaging in amputation one inch at a time.
“Once we had 9/11, the proper response was war in Afghanistan and other counter-terrorist measures we took. Iraq only diverted our attention and our resources.”
Not to re-hash old arguments, I personally don’t believe the two are unrelated, but we can pull your thread and assume they are. At the end of the hostilities of the First Gulf War, Saddam agreed to disarm himself of certain weapons and to remain so disarmed. As a condition of this cease-fire (not a peace treaty), he also agreed to cooperate with inspections to verify his compliance. He did not cooperate, or at least he did everything he could to create the impression that he was not going to live up to his agreement. Therefore, the re-commencement of hostilities was prima facie justified. (The question of the legitimacy of “pre-emptive” war is thus utterly irrelevant; the action against Iraq was no more “pre-emptive” than is the arrest of a convicted felon for violating the terms of his parole.) Some thought Bush was going too far by “attacking another sovereign nation” that “hadn’t attacked us” or was “not invading us” or was “not a threat to us.” In a post-9/11 world, this bumper-sticker mentality overlooks the real possibility of Saddam someday slipping a terrorist group a WMD for use against the US. Assuming all that anti-war rhetoric was not a symptom of “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” I conclude it amounts to nothing more than a desire to give a bad guy more than an even break so some people can feel good. Since he was a bad guy who achieved power by murder and treachery, we cannot assume he will suddenly see the error of his ways as a result of our good nature and repent. No, he will use that advantage against us and someone will pay with their lives. Unfortunately, it’s never those who gave him the more-than-an-even break to begin with.
Now, to Phil’s other question: What are some of the “many other ways of working against nuclear proliferation and deterring nuclear attack.” (Now, a “thousand things”) ?
Comment by sedonaman | May 16, 2007
Phil:
A minor point I think you will agree on. Allah is not God. apparently, they have two completely opposite natures, hence the distinction.
Comment by sedonaman | May 16, 2007
"These people didn’t attack us because of our policies. They attacked us because we’re unholy. But unless you’re planning on converting, you’re a target. And no amount of Ron Paul-inspired wishful thinking will change that fact."
Here is what drives me insane about this line of argument. Saying that our policies contribute to Muslim and Arab resentment of us is not a debatable proposition. It is a fact. It is akin to saying the sky is blue. Does anyone seriously believe that our policies have NOTHING to do with their resentment of us? Of course it does. OBL said so. The CIA says so. The US Government's own report on 9/11 says so. Common sense says so. It is a self-evident fact.
Phil, you can not possibly be claiming that US policies play no roll in Islamic resentment of America. That is not credible. That is not a serious position to take. We disagree on a lot, but you are not stupid.
So what Rudy did was shameless grandstanding and demagoguery. By suggesting that American policies have nothing to do with 9/11 he reveals himself as either a colossal fool or a liar. And all the shameful word twisting by FOX News (sic) and the GOP pro-War shills makes me sick. Words like "invited," "asked for" etc. are inflammatory demagoguery of the crudest sort. Conservatives should be above that kind of wanton distortion.
What Ron Paul was suggesting, that our policies contributed to the Islamic resentment that lead to 9/11, is not seriously debatable. Now we can argue to what extent it was a factor. What percent was our foreign policy and what percent was related to Islamic theology, that sort of thing. And we can argue about whether that should bring about a change in our policy. Those are separate issues. But too suggest our policies played no part whatsoever is just not credible.
Now what I think Phil is likely suggesting is that our policies were an inconsequential part of the equation. That 9/11 would have happened with or without our policies. OK fine. But that is as far out there on a limb as you can be. What evidence is there for that? Why do you choose to disbelieve what OBL himself said? Isn’t that pretty much straight from the horse’s mouth. Was OBL just kidding?
At least you said they don’t like us because we are infidels instead of the normal garbage about they hate us because we are “free” or “rich” or “have freedom for women” or whatever the current boilerplate talking point is. The fact that they consider us infidels surely plays into the equation as well, but what other than mindless regurgitation of group think makes anyone suggest that is the only issue.
You can not have an intelligent debate on foreign policy in an environment where anyone who brings up a significant part of the equation is shouted down by demagogues.
Consider this: Spain and England became the target of terrorism arguably because of their support for the Iraq war. And there is no terrorism in Switzerland which is equally infidel. Go figure.
Of course liberal, pro-regulation Phil doesn’t like Switzerland because they don’t regulate their banking to his liking. Of course the rest of us call that the free-market.
Comment by Dan Phillips | May 16, 2007
“Phil, you can not possibly be claiming that US policies play no roll in Islamic resentment of America. That is not credible. That is not a serious position to take. We disagree on a lot, but you are not stupid.”
I appreciate the vote of confidence in my mental abilities, Dan. Yes, they hate us for our policies too, as I’ve pointed out at length in my Looney Liberal Chronicles, and my essay on the connection between moral relativism, abortion, and islamo-fascism. And for letting women drive. And for eating pork. And for supporting the Jews. And for shaving every morning. And for not praying to Mecca 5 times a day, and so on, and so on.
They hate us for a lot of things, some specific, some general. But underlying it all, they hate us for not being good Muslims as they define that term. That fundamental issue caused them to kill 3000 innocent Americans on 9/11, unlike the French who also hate us for introducing English phrases into the French lexicon and for breaking up their cozy oil-for-food deal with Saddam. However, unlike the Islamo fascists, the French don’t terror bomb our cities as a sign of protest. They just call us bad names and give Michael Moore an award for his contributions to the entertainment industry. So, both the French and the Islamo fascists have strong disagreements with our policies, but only one uses terror against innocent civilians.
Policy differences, therefore, do not account for 9/11. This is not a difficult concept to grasp … if you’re really trying to understand.
More to the point, the statement by Liberius I was reacting to was “Can’t you see that we probably would have never had 9/11 if not for the interventionist policies in the Middle East?” The Ron Paul school of International Relations, as expressed in the debate last night, that 9/11 occurred because of our policies and actions toward Iraq, is just plain silly. So yes, the Islamo Nazis perhaps hate us MORE because we’ve been fighting back against them, but the fact that we attacked Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, or even supported Israel isn’t what motivates the terrorists to attack the Western world. If that was true, the Islamic-dominated suburbs of France would be a paradise right now instead of a tinderbox.
By the way, speaking of Ron Paul, he’s the only guy I know who can make a direct statement on live TV and then immediately claim he was misquoted, when it became instantly clear what a fool he was. What we saw last night is the true position he and his followers hold: The US is responsible for the radical Islamo-fascist attacks against our country, its interests, and our citizens. When there’s virtually no difference between the positions you espouse and those articulated by Rosie O’Donnell, it’s time to re-examine your position (or at least loosen the tinfoil cap you’re wearing just a tiny bit).
“Now what I think Phil is likely suggesting is that our policies were an inconsequential part of the equation.”
You only think this — again incorrectly — because, like I have repeatedly pointed out before, you are virtually incapable of forming an independent thought that hasn’t been previously expressed by another person (preferably someone dead for a few dozen centuries), and then attaching a label to those words (“liberal, pro-regulation Phil“) to supposedly give them added context. Your template-driven world view as a substitute for actual analysis leads you to make silly statements like you did above, for which I repeatedly slap you, which you simply ignore and then proceed to go on to the next fringe position.
To this point, I listed a half-dozen reasons why there is no terrorism in Switzerland, which you do not respond to. Instead, you say “And there is no terrorism in Switzerland which is equally infidel. Go figure.”
Go figure indeed.
Tell you what. I’ll promise never to practice medicine if you’ll stop pretending to understand anything of substance about domestic and international politics.
Comment by Phillip Ellis Jackson | May 16, 2007
Phil:
As I’ve already said, Islam is our enemy but you are being overly simplistic. We being “infidels” would not, in itself, be enough to motivate major terrorist attacks against us like 9/11. Virtually every Muslim terrorist attack was motivated primarily because of our financial and military support for Israel and because of the presence or activity of our military forces in their part of the world.
Even if our invasion of Iraq played a role in Libya’s change of policy, what do you think will happen after we leave? We can’t maintain the present situation in Iraq for eternity. Here’s a dozen better ways to prevent a nuclear attack against us: 1) stop supporting Israel; 2) bring our troops home; 3) nuclear deterrence as we did with the USSR; 4) economic sanctions for those who insist on trying to acquire nukes; 5) secure warheads and materials in countries that do produce nuclear weapons; 6) aggressive intelligence and counter intelligence operations (e.g. have our spies sell them defective nuclear parts; 7) interdict nuclear smuggling; 8) stabilize employment for nuclear personnel; 9) monitor stockpiles and reductions; 10) end further production of key materials; 11) reduce excessive stockpiles; 12) if all else fails and our intelligence shows that a danger of nuclear attack is truly imminent then by all means make a surgical strike but no long-term presence in the region – blow it up and get out. Here’s a Harvard paper entitled “Securing the Bomb”: http://www.nti.org/e_research/analysis_cnwmupdate_052404.pdf
What do YOU want us to do, be perpetually at war in Iraq? Should we also go to war with Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, and/or India? I am concerned as anyone about nuclear proliferation but, as a practical matter, we are simply not always going to be able to control the whole world. By trying to do so we only increase the amount of hatred and resentment.
Comment by Liberius | May 16, 2007
“We being ‘infidels’ would not, in itself, be enough to motivate major terrorist attacks against us like 9/11. Virtually every Muslim terrorist attack was motivated primarily because of our financial and military support for Israel and because of the presence or activity of our military forces in their part of the world.”
I take it this is your opinion, even though it is stated as a fact. I made a case for my position at length in “What kind of Car would Jesus Drive to take his girlfriend to an Abortion Clinic?” (the moral relativism essay I referenced in my response to Dan), as well as in my Looney Liberal Chronicles. The fact that radical Muslims kill other Muslims of different sects is more proof that a demented notion of religion underlies their actions rather than a hatred of our policies toward Israel, etc. These Muslim-Muslim killings are not due to any support for Israel or any other mundane economic or political factor.
There is just so much wrong (not t