Posted on 06/12/2004 7:09:22 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
Wanted: A Reagan to fight global jihad
By Robert Spencer
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Mark Steyn reminds us that "only Reagan could have stood there and declared without embarrassment: Tear down this wall!" In the warm glow of this week's encomia it's easy to miss the reason why anyone might have felt embarrassed at all. With the dreaded wall long made into paperweights, it's easy to forget that before (and during, largely) the age of Reagan, the idea that communism was evil, and the Soviet Union an "evil empire," was, among the intelligentsia in America and Western Europe, in the worst possible taste.
It should be remembered today that the vicious caricature of the amiable dunce that dogged Reagan throughout his political career originated in great part not from any bumbling or forgetfulness on his part, but from what the media and political establishment regarded as the sheer outrageousness of his political views. In the eyes of the elite, Reagan was primitive and limited primarily because he lacked the sophistication and intelligence necessary to see that the United States and the Soviet Union were essentially the same; talk of good and evil, or of the rights of man, was only rhetorical fodder for the lumpenproletariat, nothing more. No one, the pundits huffed, with even a rudimentary grasp of the subtleties and necessities of realpolitik would dare use such moral language to describe the Cold War. How dare he depart from the gospel of moral equivalence that the media establishment had dinned into the ears of the reluctant faithful for decades? You just couldn't say the things that Ronald Reagan said, and his success so stunned and enraged his opponents that all they could do was try to smear him as a puppet and a fool.
The same scenario is playing out today. America is once again locked in a death struggle with a relentless totalitarian foe about which most people are reluctant to tell the truth. Substitute "Islamophobe" for "Red-baiter," and you can adapt learned political analyses from the 1970s by the ton for use today, except for a few small details.
It is a great failing of our age that there is no Ronald Reagan on the scene. Today's stifling orthodoxy remains largely unchallenged. Not just liberal publications and spokesmen, but conservatives who claim to wear Reagan's mantle temporize and dissimulate about our current despotic antagonist in a way that the man himself would have found contemptible. Leaders and pundits must cling to fond fictions about Islam being a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. They thus pass up the opportunity to call for a worldwide reform of Islam that starts by identifying the elements of Islam that give rise to violence and extremism and finishes by repudiating those elements – so that Muslims and non-Muslims can live in peace as equals.
"How do you tell a Communist?" Reagan asked in 1987. "Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin." How do you tell a jihadist? Well, a contemporary Reagan might say, it's someone who reads the Quran and Sunnah. How do you tell an anti-jihadist? It's someone who understands how these Islamic texts are used to recruit and motivate terrorists – and who is willing to call upon self-proclaimed moderate Muslims to face this fact and initiate an honest, definitive and thoroughgoing reform. And if they will not? Then at least they should know that the lines have been drawn and that the lovers of freedom are not going to stand for more mayhem wrought by those who would enclose non-Muslims and women behind a wall of oppression.
If Islam is no part of the problem, such reform cannot be part of the solution. By vilifying and attempting to marginalize those who dare tell the truth about Islamic radicalism as Reagan did about communism, today's intelligentsia provides ample cover to radical Islamic terrorists, allowing them to operate under the radar screen of media scrutiny and even law enforcement.
Freedom is under attack by the warriors of jihad; the battle lines do indeed resemble those of the Cold War.
"There are very useful analogies to be drawn between communism and Islam," says Ibn Warraq. "Communism has been defeated, at least for the moment; Islamism has not, and unless a reformed, tolerant, liberal kind of Islam emerges soon, perhaps the final battle will be between Islam and Western democracy."
This is the war we're in now. If only we had a Reagan to fight it.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West" (Regnery Publishing), and "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith (Encounter Books).
I noted you failed to be specific, and I haven't a clue what your talking about.
Weren't you the one that wrote this?
So they present a different threat, one that is militarily weak, but one which presents a more immediate and real threat of millions of dead Americans than the Soviets ever did.
These terrorist, cave dwellers other assorted cab drivers present more of a threat than the former Soviet Union did? Hehehe.
How is this presented? By bombing night clubs or flying borrowed airplanes into business offices?
You need to go check your history friend. Every single major city in this country was targeted by the Soviet Union with ICBMs. Those are intercontinental ballistic missiles with *major* payloads. And you sit here and tell me these towelheads are more of a threat to this country than the former Soviet Union?
I disagree with just about everything you've said, and statements like "the terrorist pose a larger threat than the former Soviet Union did", clearly makes you the crank here, not I.
Best regards....
We get it Travis, (and so does Bush). It makes little sense to bring the whole of Islam to the battle ready state. It is sufficient to kill them as they pick up weapons, (and support those with weapons). The vast majority of islam will slink away for hundreds of years if enough of their leaders are slain. They don't have the will to fight, or organize but for those we label terrorists.
I am for killing them as they come over the barricade, and sooner or later there will be a sea change in the religion and it will dawn on them that the angel gaberael really meant for the children of Ishmael to get along with the children of David.
Now as to Sadar, I would not trust one word he says. Here I think Bush may be making a mistake, but time will tell.
GWB is no Reagan. Reagan was no George W. Bush. They're individuals, each in the right place at the right time.
Hehe, good point.
Bump!
Reagan put a cruise missile through Kadaffy's picture window. This guy thinks he would have done less than what W has done ? I don't think so.
Yep.....
Or do they need to smell burnt whatever to get the message.
Their proxy dens of death in Lebanon and Syria should be dealt a crushing blow.
Lebanon free'd from Hizbullah and Syrias grip.
Mainstream Lebanese have surely had enough of Yasser Arafat's crap.
Syria...that French looking Pencil neck leader needs the scare of his life..his gangster state needs to end.
Should have a face to face with the Turks...tell them ya..the region is gonna go to $... for a short while,
Trust us....we will not leave you to the chaos.
You will rise to zenith regional economic player,
Afterwards....Europe will not matter so much anymore : )
Bring the whole of Islam to a battle ready state?
What's that? A crowd of thousands slapping themselves? Giant fleets of Taxis? All hands on rug?
:o
Ummm .. where's he been the last 3 years??
Bush may not be Reagan .. But I'm sure Reagan would be proud of what Bush is doing to fight terrorists
What a shame that no one will give W the credit for doing this very thing. He called them evil, evil doers, etc. and is doing all within his power, and at great risk politically to destroy the enemy.
I agree that the Soviet Threat was greater. I remember growing up in the 70's and fearing an attack since we lived in an urban area which was full of factories making jet fighters and other weapons.
But there is one difference. Our country has changed since the WW2 and Cold War days. My Parents and Uncles generation seemed to be more unified in meeting the challenges that they faced. Today, the demographics are different and we have more leftist, rinos, and the MTV generation that we have to deal with. Don't get me wrong, we have some fine people today. A friend of mine has a cousin in the marines fighting in Iraq and has just been awarded the Bronze Star (I have to say that he's 42 years old).
What it come down to is that the Soviets were a greater threat but as a country, we were up to the task of defeating the. The question is, does President Bush have the needed citizens to beat back them extremist Muslims. I think so but the country is certainly much more divided now than it was under President Reagan.
I don't mean to take anything away from President Reagan. He did defeat the Soviet Union but did he defeat Communism? It seems to me that the left has taken on a new form and maybe more dangerous in the likes of George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and the people at the Ford Foundation.
Wishful thinking, not supported by history.
I'm a little out of practice in my posting.
Art Torres, Cruz Bustamonte etc, Boxer, etc, etc etc. Sometimes I think when Reagan smoked the former Soviet Union, all the commies immigrated here.
Good post, no problem with the spelling/typos, I make them all the time.......
That post deserves a bump.
Please show me anywhere in history since its conception, where any part or offshoot as you call, where Islam has been peaceful.The large majorities of the current populations of Turkey, Indonesia, Egypt, Morocco, and Jordan, at the very least. A good portion of the population of Iraq, according to everyone I've talked to that has been there.
Saying that all Muslims are Islamist fanatics is much like saying that all Russians were Stalinists, or all Germans Nazis.
-Eric
Ever talk to any Christians or non-Muslims in the countries you just mentioned? Or anyone who was a muslim in any of those countries who converted to Christianity? ....Countries who by the way are controlled Islamists.
BUMP to what you just said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.