Hugh Hewitt on the The Tancredo Blunder

HughHewitt.com ^ | 07/18/2005 Posted at 5:40 PM, Pacific | Hugh Hewitt

[Checkers]

The Tancredo Blunder

Donald Sensing has all the links that really matter on the Tancredo blunder. (HT: StonesCryOut.) Pastor Sensing notes that I corrected the first post to specifically note that Congressman Tancredo talked of "bombing" Mecca, not "nuking" Mecca. The actual audio is available to anyone now at the website for WFLA 540 in Orlando. Note two things. First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that "extremist fundamentalist Muslims" attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if "extremist fundamentalist" Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response. Second, the Congressman also said "the most draconian measures" should be on the table." He didn't say "nuke," but it is a fair inference.

Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with "Stand tall Tom!" calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers. This creates a problem for Tancredo: He will offend this very loud portion of his support by regretting and retracting his remarks which he surely must do, and the sooner the better.

The remarks he made are a positive disservice to the United States, for all the reasons Durbin's were. He has to retract them. And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith.

I have been hearing from people who urge that Tancredo is just voicing the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived.

Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective.

Take down the Syrian regime? You bet. Replace the House of Saud? Fine. Bomb every nuclear facility in Tehran? Absolutely. The US would respond to a savage attack with fury --but purposeful fury. Bombing Mecca would be the opposite of purposeful fury.

Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none.

UPDATE: More at CaptainsQuarters, RovingTheologian OneClearCall, OpaqueLucidity Brainster's Bogus Gold and Mark Daniels.

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT. Yoni Tidi is a frequent and popular guest on my program, a deeply religious Jew and a retired major from the Israeli security services. On the program tonight he condemned the idea of attacking Mecca or any other target that is "Muslim" as opposed to "terrorist-supporting." We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue. And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.

[CitizenUSA]

Sorry, but there's no strategic value to nuking Mecca. The author is correct.

However, he's wrong about Islam. Islam is opposed to everything the libs stand for--diversity, feminism, abortion, etc. If the US became an Islamic nation, the libs would be the first ones forced to submit or die.

Make no doubt, this is a culture war, and we could lose it if we don't care about our culture more than they care about theirs. No matter what else you think about the terrorists, they are obviously willing to lay down their lives for the cause.

Fortunately, we still have good people who believe in the freedoms Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian morality have brought to this great nation. All is not lost as long as patriots still outnumber traitors.

[Sir Gawain]

I agree with you that it doesn't help the cause, but I also fail to see any negative repurcussions from it. You seem to think that by not saying something like that, maybe one less terrorist will be recruited because of one less snipit of propaganda. I just don't believe that.

[Mo1]

.. Oh Good Grief .. stop putting words in my mouth .. it's so annoying

[Sir Gawain]

Blah blah blah blah

[Checkers]

"I don't like when this BS comes from Biden or Kennedy ... I'm not going to like it when it comes from Tancredo"

Sounds like your Moral Compass is functioning properly.

[A.J.Armitage]

Next the Satanic Right will salivate at the idea of suspending the Constitution so that they can round up the infidels and force their conversions, and torture those they suspect of backsliding.

Next? You've been at it for years!

[VietVet]

While I am not sure that it is something that we should do, even in the last resort, I think it is valuable to remind certain persons that it is something that we COULD do, and something that we MIGHT do, if we got irritated enough.

A week and a day ago, I became painfully aware that there was a nest of yellow jackets in my front yard. A week ago, there was no longer a nest of yellow jackets. Had they not stung me, I would have left them alone. Insects may not benefit by foreknowledge, but humans might.

VietVet

[Sir Gawain]

Fair enough, but what do you think the reaction of all those 'fake' believers of Islam would be to the nuking of Mecca? 'Oh well, I didn't really believe in it anyway' ? Of course not.

And you think that your next door neighbor businessman that is a Muslim will all of a sudden strap on a suicide belt if Mecca is bombed? You also seem to hold "moderate" Muslims in low regard if you think they are that easily incited.

[Mo1]

You seem to think that by not saying something like that, maybe one less terrorist will be recruited because of one less snipit of propaganda

What I am saying is the politicians up in Congress some times need to shut their big fat mouths and just let the military, the President and those who actually know what they are doing .. do their job

[Checkers]

yep

[dk/coro]

Well posed question. IMO, very few Freepers posting in here tonight have a clue as to the genesis and totality of the Islamic threat; but fire off simplistic, off the wall solutions to a challenge that will be us for decades!

[Cultural Jihad]

We are at war with the true believers of Islam.

Needless to say, we'll never see you in the evening news holding up your bloodied hands and ululating after burning down a mosque and slaughtering our supposed enemies. No, the Salon Bolsheviki are so sure of the righteousness of their cause, but are themselves never willing to prove how sure they are by actually fighting what they claim to believe in, even unto self-sacrificing themselves, as that task always belongs to others to prove.

It all points to your being a five-star phony.

[Sir Gawain]

Putting words in your mouth? Hardly. This is indeed your argument. You specifically clarified it for me in an earlier post:

"So your argument is that terrorists will use Tancredo's statement to recruit more terrorists."

[Sir Gawain]

You must just type out replies to read your own words, because no one else is paying attention.

[agincourt1415]

Hewitt is ignorant.

Nuclear response for certain attacks is a NATO doctrine, even the winie Germans and French, understand the principals.

A massive attack deserves a massive response, to the dearest targets of the enemy.

And the other thing is make certain, our exact response is understood by the enemy ahead of their actions.

[Mo1]

"So your argument is that terrorists will use Tancredo's statement to recruit more terrorists."

Do I know for a fact they will??

No I don't

And I only hope they don't .. because our military and intelligence agencies already have enough to deal with

[Sir Gawain]

Sorry, but there's no strategic value to nuking Mecca. The author is correct.

You're missing the point. There was no strategic value or net positive of wiping out the entire country of Russia with a nuclear warhead during the Cold War, but they knew the threat was there. If hardcore Muslims thought that we had our finger on the trigger waiting to wipe out their holiest site and the promise of stuffing their corpses with pig entrails so they wouldn't reach paradise, they might still hate us but they might also think twice about attacking us.

[jayhorn]

What I am saying is the politicians up in Congress some times need to shut their big fat mouths and just let the military, the President and those who actually know what they are doing .. do their job

Among the lessons not learned from Vietnam is that politicians make bad generals, even if they happen to have an "R" next to their names.

There's no need to "nuke" or bomb Mecca. I'd think if we lost a little more cultural sensitivity in places like Iraq we'd get a helluva lot farther in the WoT than bombing Mecca would get us.

Bombing Mecca would be about the same as someone bombing the Statue of Liberty: very, very little strategic value. Don't get me wrong; I'd laugh my worthless a** off if it actually happened, but I don't see it advancing the cause very far.

[Sir Gawain]

I'm just not convinced that a politician's words about Islam will increase a military threat. It's a negative politically, yes, but that's about it.

[Mo1]

I'm just not convinced that a politician's words about Islam will increase a military threat. It's a negative politically, yes, but that's about it.

I suppose you missed it when Al Sadr was quoting Ted Kennedy huh?