Primarily, of course, it contravenes Western principles of justice which, if discarded willy-nilly, would remove a key reason why we fight at all:
An extraordinary response to the nuclear destruction of an American city by Islamic terrorists isn't the "discarding of Western values, willy nilly." This is a completely rabid mischaracterization.
But even aside from moral questions, which are increasingly thorny in this post-Hiroshima, post-Dresden world,
Any sensible person must reject--out-of hand--any writer who implies, however indirectly, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima or the conventional attack on Dresden was unjustified. The Nazis and their allies began the practice of attacks on civilians and other violations of the laws of war to which they were signatories. And since the writer claims to be concerned with practical outcomes, perhaps he should learn some history: the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima saved many lives--American and Japanese.
Will men who love death, who glorify suicide bombing and praise God for beheadings and massacres, fear the destruction of holy sites? It seems unlikely in the extreme...
This isn't an argument against nuking Mecca under ultimate extremity--it's an argument against any violent action or threat of violent action; as such it is on its face preposterous.
The abolition of the caliphate, then, accomplished precisely the opposite of what Ataturk hoped it would: it gave the adherents of political Islam a cause around which to rally, recruit, and mobilize.
Again, the supposedly reasoned response has nothing to do with the actual facts. The abolition of the caliphate in fact accomplished exactly what Ataturk desired: it established Turkey as a secular state. Ataturk couldn't possibly have cared less what a bunch of nut-cases in Egypt used as a justification for their murderous ideology. Learn some history, Mr. Spencer. And once again the author is making an argument against any attempt whatsoever to bring Islam into the 21st century--any attempt to separate religion from governance, in this author's opinion--can only strengthen the radicals. Given this view, Islamists are genuinely invincible, since no action against them can do anything but strengthen them. So the "reasoned argument" against Tancredo is nothing more than a craven appeal to hoist the white flag everywhere on earth that radical Islam has taken hold. Ridiculous.
Finally, Mr. Spencer isn't even correct in his assessment of the origins of the rise of radical Islam. The abolition of the caliphate had far less to do with the actions of Ataturk than the rise of Wahhabism, which was simply a manufactured justification for the House of Saud to overthrow the Hashemite rulers of the Arabian Peninsula and the historical protectors of Islamic holy sites.
In sum, there are arguments against Tancredo's proposal, but Spencer doesn't make any of them: He attacks a position Tancredo has not taken, the logic of his position leads inevitably to helplessness and surrender, and his historical assertions are simply laughable.
Problem is, it's not a mischaracterization. There is a group of folks on this thread whose preferred response basically boils down to genocide. If you want "completely rabid," that's a good place to start.
Any sensible person must reject--out-of hand--any writer who implies, however indirectly, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima or the conventional attack on Dresden was unjustified.
You've mischaracterized the author's statement. When his point is understood properly, your argument evaporates.
This isn't an argument against nuking Mecca under ultimate extremity--it's an argument against any violent action or threat of violent action; as such it is on its face preposterous.
The "ultimate extremity" would be a decision that ALL Muslims would be to blame for a nuclear attack on us, and that ALL Muslims are thus fair game for retaliatory nuclear attacks. It is certainly true that those responsible must be hunted down and destroyed. However, if it is not the case that "ALL Muslims" are to blame for a nuclear attack, then there is no justification for an "ultimate extremity" that calls for large scale attacks on "ALL Muslims."
Again, the supposedly reasoned response has nothing to do with the actual facts. The abolition of the caliphate in fact accomplished exactly what Ataturk desired: it established Turkey as a secular state. Ataturk couldn't possibly have cared less what a bunch of nut-cases in Egypt used as a justification for their murderous ideology.
You've once again missed the author's point, which is that Ataturk's actions had unintended consequences, as spelled out (accurately) by the author. Nevertheless, if we instead grant your alternative hypothesis about the rise of Radical Islam, all you've really done is acknowledged the author's underlying point, which is that Radical Islam is in fact a response to some external event.
the logic of his position leads inevitably to helplessness and surrender, and his historical assertions are simply laughable.
No, and no. The author's actual position has little in common with your characterization of it. He is not suggesting helplessness and surrender; very far from it.
"Again, the supposedly reasoned response has nothing to do with the actual facts. The abolition of the caliphate in fact accomplished exactly what Ataturk desired: it established Turkey as a secular state. Ataturk couldn't possibly have cared less what a bunch of nut-cases in Egypt used as a justification for their murderous ideology. Learn some history, Mr. Spencer."
Spencer is wrong. Ataturk was very sucessful. The problem is the West with its soft multiculturalism has not kept up what Ataturk accomplished for 80 years.
Also because of the worship of death Jihad represents, the Islamists have upped the ante on MAD. Clearly they are willing to sacrifice vast numbers of innocent civilians in their war, even fellow Muslims (Sharm el-Sheik being the latest example). The US is left with no choice but to warn that they too will be extreme in response. Nothing less will affect the Death Cult that is Islam. It is akin to calling us murderers of children because they use them as human shields in a gun fight.