Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not

Times Online ^ | September 09, 2006 | David Selbourne

[Iris7]

LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.

If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.

1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

[Fishrrman]

This is a troubling, but highly relevant, essay.

I don't post a lot, but I have posted similar warnings (though far less eloquently written) here in related threads.

The West is in great danger. And as things stand today, I seriously doubt that it can win this struggle. We can hold out for decades, perhaps a century or even longer. But eventually, the "growing pressure" of Islam and its dictates will overwhelm and sweep into the moral and spritual vacuum that envelops The West.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong. But the forces of Islam operate on an entirely different [and more base] level than do the forces of The West. Islam is prepared to to do things to win that we [at least currently] refuse to. While we wring our hands and agonize our consciences about using too much force against our enemy, it steels itself and prepares for its next attack.

We have technological weapons that, at this time, are millions of times more powerful than they posses. However, such weapons will never be used, precisely because they _are_ so powerful. Conversely, the other side may develop weapons on a far cruder level, but sufficiently powerful to obliterate cities, and they will have no qualms about using such weapons once they are in hand. For this reason, Iran armed with a dozen Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs becomes more threatening than the thousands of H-bombs we have, again, becuase they will _use_ the weapons they have, and we will not.

Ultimately, however, the struggle will not be won by bombs, but by soldiers on the ground. And they have millions upon millions more young males who will be willing to put on boots and fight us, than we have to match them. This is the most vexing problem that Western Europe confronts in its looming battle with Islam. Faced with collapsing Euro-Christian/white populations, and burgeoning Islamic populations on their own soil, they will [in but a few generations] be opposed by a virtual army of Islamic males with no way to quell them. Witness the French suburban riots of only a few months' back. Faced with a unified Islamic army that recognizes no borders in Europe (and only Islam), how will the pitiful armies of European nations respond?

Hard times ahead, indeed. Again, I wish I could be more optimistic, but The West seems to have lost its will to win, or even the sense of why it _should_ win.

I sense that it will take "a new Churchill" to awaken The West and re-awaken its will to defend itself. Where this individual will come from, and when, is too early to tell. He may not even be born yet. But The West awaits him....

- John

[Iris7]

Selbourne is pointing out that the "Islamofascism" problem is difficult only because of powerful Western political factions who intend that "Islamofascism" win this thing.

Think of Kerry and Kennedy and Howard Dean and all those people.

Think of those people who have made the ceaseless drumbeat of television propaganda these last few years and of all those weak minded fools they have convinced that Bush is the enemy and not "Islamofascism".

[little jeremiah]

Must Read Later.

[Iris7]

I don't think I have said anything like that at all.

The situation from Jakarta to Bosnia is going well in most places. Iran will have to have it's nuclear weapon installations destroyed. This is the next step.

The problem lies with internal enemies. Think John Kerry and Howard Dean. The Islamists figure to defeat us in the same way we were defeated in Viet Nam, that is, by having the Democrats declare defeat and leave our allies overseas defenseless against our mutual enemy after American blood had won the war. What I say is true.

[Iris7]

Born in Greeley myself. The whole Eastern Slope is about 100% Liberal compared to when I was born. The old days were way different. Even in Denver folks didn't need to lock their doors. You got two good scoops of ice cream in your cone for five cents in 1955.

[MHGinTN]

But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system. Its own belief system? You mean the one that teaches adherents that lying to any non-muslim is fine so long as it serves Islam's general purpose? You mean the belief system that protects and assists mass murderers in the name of their bloodlusting god, allah? Be specific. Stop playing intelligensia games with words.

[Iris7]

Interesting, and thanks. Certainly on a good day Sir Winston had very few equals.

You may enjoy Sir Richard Francis Burton's Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al Madinah and Mecca (Volume 1) Nothing else like it, and a wealth of info on moslem culture.

[FlyVet]

There doesn't need to be ten different points. Only one: The West has become complacent and pussified due to a half-century of wealth, relative peace, and Socialism. It has been threatened (Cold War) but really hasn't been blood-and-guts challenged. That time of blood-and-guts challenge is approaching, or "Imminent", you might say. It is good vs. evil. We wrestle not against flesh and blood. Testing, one...two...three....

[MississippiMan]

I found the article itself rambling and poorly written, although its underlying sentiment is largely on target. The problem is much simpler and doesn't require ten steps to explain. The largest and most serious problem we have in winning the war is the refusal of our leaders to even acknowledge who and what the enemy is. Show me the last war won by someone who was too timid to even identify the enemy.

MM

[Iris7]

"One more 9/11 and the incentive will be there too."

A sufficient incident would do the trick. I can just see the Left saying that the nuclear bombs that have destroyed New York City, Boston and suburbs, Atlanta and 'burbs, and Washington D.C. ditto were all actually dropped by the United States Air Force by order of the diabolical Karl Rove and the insane cowboy. Mass media would be pretty quiet with New York City gone, maybe.

I suppose I had better stockpile some gear so I can go help out afterwards.

[Iris7]

Most exactly.

[aquila48]

"I suggest that the true cancer of western civilization is the immoral, unGodly, unChristian leftists in our midst..."

They're more like the AIDS virus that weaken the body politics to defend itself against attacks from foreign organisms.

[Iris7]

"I agree with you except for the one more 9/11 part. A year after a second 9/11 we'll be back to arguing with the libs whether we should keep fighting the muslims or not."

Some sort of heavy nuking followed by a demand for total surrender instantly or a much heavier nuking tomorrow might do it.

Instead I would expect a lot of media BS and wasted time until the deadline arrives and so a dozen cities die. Again the demand we surrender immediately or you wish you had.

That might do it. Might.

Anything less and we would just be back arguing with the Left over the whole thing.

[backtothestreets]

Starting with the Oil Embargo of 1973, our nation has shown oil dependence to be a weakness. The Arab states used that dependence to coerced the USA into forcing Israel to accept a ceasefire in every conflict Arabs initiate with Israel from 1973 to the present. The result is the USA is shielding the Arab states from Israeli victory and peace.

The ceasefires never last long, only long enough for the Arab states to rearm themselves with more powerful weapons then launch the conflict anew across the border of an Arab League nation where they sense weakness in Israeli defenses. And the USA is always on the ready to act like a pressure relief valve for the Arabs when their plans go awry.

The most recent conflict was a good example. Israel wasn't running to the UN seeking a ceasefire, and Israel wasn't the nation complaining the US wasn't pressuring Israel to accept a ceasefire.

[Iris7]

All is not lost, for sure, and most certainly. Personally I prefer small wars fought on time to huge wars fought because nobody wanted to fight the small war. Look at Hitler in the Rhineland.

The wages of sin are still death.

[Iris7]

Your comment on the "consumerism and the entertainment industry" is well put. "Modernity" is the weapon that will destroy Islam. And boy, do those moslems know it.

People act so horrified by nukes. Trivial things, merely maim and kill. The real horror weapon is "Modernity". You hear that the imam police in Iran are destroying satellite dishes systematically in Tehran? That the Iranian birthrate is way below replacement levels? I think those Ahmadinejad types are toast and know it. They just want to take us with them.

[Iris7]

Indeed. There is an answer to the problem you describe, and the program is in place and executing nicely. See my #116.

[backtothestreets]

I sure agree with you. World War II brought us face to face with an fanatical enemy driven by false religion. Japanese Emperor Hirohito was considered a god by his people, and a limited war wouldn't have brought a lasting peace. The limited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will not bring lasting peace.

[Iris7]

Always had a soft spot for the Marcus Atilius Regulus story. Some say it is but mere Ciceronian invention. I wasn't there and don't know. To hell with cavilling pedants.

After his defeat at Tunis, Marcus Atilius Regulus was taken prisoner and sent back to Rome to argue in favour of peace on the condition that if he failed he would return to Carthage. Regulus persuaded the Senate to fight on, but true to his word, he returned to Carthage, where he was tortured to death.

"I know, to be sure, that manifest destruction awaits me, for it is impossible to keep the Punii from learning the advice I have given... but I have sworn to them to return and I will not transgress my oaths." Speech by Regulus, quoted by Zonaras

[backtothestreets]

can be cut with the sword of ruthless Western determination

Yep, we need a good dose of that. The sooner, the better too.