And they know this because?
It is no longer sufficient to defend this proposition by assertion. Where is the evidence?
I know the people who defend this proposition are mostly concerned with defending President Bush and the choices he has made (and not made) since 9-11.
And I certainly agree that Kerry (or, more likely, Hillary) would be catastrophic and I plan to vote for President Bush.
However, the premise of our military effort is that stated above, that we must engage and destroy an unrepresentative minority and that there is, in Arabia and SW Asia, a "silent majority" of people "just like us" who can reform their societies when "liberated" from their oppressors.
This has always been a long shot, and if it is not true, then we are going to fail if we persist in the present deployment of forces.
I have consistently posted since 9-11 that what is needed is not liberation (because it is impossible), but rather heavy occupation and pacification, and that it will require an Army of 150 divisions and a maximum civilian war effort.
So I say again, what is the evidence that I am wrong, and that "neither Osama bin Laden nor those in Fallujah nor even those who rejoiced after Sept. 11 are representative of the Arab world" is true?
To some extent this is true, but to an overwhelming degree it is false.
America is not, contrary to the beliefs of the less-informed among us, the cultural and moral center of the world. We're a small, imperialistic, aristocratic minority with a great deal of money and power, and most people in the world wish we would just shut up and leave them alone.
In the Arab world, any challenge to Arab supremacy is a mortal insult that must be met with violent resistance. Arabs do not respect power alone, it must be backed by courage and unshakable resolve, even in the face of certain death.
To an Arab, it is far better to die with honor than to live in shame. This principle is enshrined in their culture, politics and religion, which are so interwoven as to be inextricable from one another.
In the Arab value system, the death of any invader is a cause for celebration, a blessing from Allah, and a reassertion of their righteousness and the truth of Islam.
Any non-Arab intruding in Arab affairs on Arab land is an invader. All invaders must die. Fail to understand this, and you fail to understand the Arab world.
For those who simply cannot fathom what I'm saying, transpose American patriotism and nationalism with Arab/Islamic patriotism and nationalism.
How do you think Americans would react if Iraq invaded our country to impose the enlightenment of Baathist socialism upon us?
Do you think Americans would line the streets to cheer on the Iraqi forces as they paraded through our towns? Would Americans flock in droves to register as Baathists and vote in a new Iraq-backed puppet government?
Yes, Americans and Arabs do have similarities. We are both fiercely loyal to our beliefs. Like Americans, Arabs are not inherently bloodthirsty. But insult Arab pride, Islam or desecrate Arab lands with occupation, and you will have jihad to contend with.
Thus, although there are similarities, there are also major differences between us. And to imply that Arabs and Americans share the same values is to take a position founded in arrogance and ignorance.
So I must join with Jim Noble and challenge those who make unsubstantiated claims that Arabs rejoicing at the deaths of invaders are not representative of the Arab world. Sure, they may not all ululate and dance in the streets, but all Arabs know that to submit to foreigners means to fail their people, their faith, and their god.
I have already explained where the fallacy of "cultural equivalence" comes from. I challenge the Boston Herald editorial staff and others who indulge in this fallacy to prove me wrong.
But more importantly, I challenge them and the like-minded to look outside themselves and accept the world for what it really is, instead of portraying every last human being as an American-in-waiting.