Bush: ‘If it’s About Christianity vs. Islam, We’ll Lose’

Outside the Beltway ^ | 9/18/06 | James Joyner

[LibWhacker]

President Bush told a group of radio talk show hosts that the war on terror must be framed in terms of values, not religion.

Coulter found herself in the uncharacteristic position of being upstaged by her introducer, Mike Gallagher. He told the audience he was fresh back from an hour-and-45-minute session which President Bush held in the Oval Office Friday afternoon with him and four other conservative talk show hosts: Atlanta’s Neal Boortz, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. Rush Limbaugh couldn’t make it, he said.

Though he said this session was supposed to be off the record, Gallagher described it at some length, including Bush’s observation to the right-wing radio jocks that the War on Terror has to be about right versus wrong, “because if it’s about Christianity versus Islam, we’ll lose.”

“Remind me never to invite you to an off-the-record session,” Coulter said after his introduction.

Indeed.

Still, if Bush said what Gallagher said he did, he’s right. Islam is, of course, a big piece of the puzzle. But the battle over ideas has to be fought by finding common moral ground, not bashing Islam in general.

It’s no small irony that this was revealed while introducing, Ann “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” Coulter.

[steve-b]

On the contrary. Winston Churchill correctly identified the West's actual advantage:

...were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome

[jpsb]

"But the battle over ideas has to be fought by finding common moral ground, not bashing Islam in general."

The thinking above represented above is why we haven't really won a war since ww2. You win wars by bashing the enemy his combat arms, his industries, his cities, his peoples to hell. You cause him so much pain that he surrenders and never again even thinks of waging war against you ever again. That is how you win wars, not some kind of fluffy "why can't we all get along, group think".

Re Islam, how do you find common ground with them? They will happily die if they can take you with them. Our leaders are fools.

[steve-b]

Those areas with Blue laws do not routinely rape torture and kill people in the name of their "god".

Yes, because secularism has stripped them of the power to do so.

[spatso]

"What The West requires is someone of "Churchillian stature" to stand up and speak plainly regarding the struggle before us. The truth may be hard and it may hurt, but it is the truth."

I think the President has spoken plainly for five years.

[sauropod]

To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself.

This needs to be said over and over and over again.

Witness Centanni and Wiig.

[ZULU]

"Perhaps the "Kill all the Muslims" crowd might want to try and explain why the bulk of the forces fighting on OUR side in the war now are Muslims?"

As in Afghanistan, they are not fighting on "OUR" side. They are fighting on THEIR side. We are merely allies of opportunity to them and they will turn on and discard us as soon as possible.

"Did any of usual hysteric Muslim haters with their "No Muslims are helping us" .........for the Know Nothings."

This has nothing to do with xenophobia or no-nothings. People who resent Islam have very valid reasons for doing so, just as people resented NAZIsm and Communism and other totalitarian ideologies. The Kurds are content with things as they are as they are no longer oppressed by Sunnis. That doesn't transform them into western democrats
(with a small "c"). As a matter of fact, the Kurds were the very people who helped the Ottomans exterminate the Christian Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century.
As sson as it becomes convenient to do so, when they no longer feel the threat of Sunni oppression, our "friends" the Kurds will turn on us like an angry rattlesnake.

"The President is right ............ Any successful Counter Insurgency effort needs local support for intelligence gathering, combat forces and longer term stability."

True. So what?

"WE cannot stay there forever. "

I hope not.

"Some day the locals are going to be running their own country."

So?

"This is about making sure those locals running their country are more in line with our values then our foes values."

You are a dreamer. The leader of Iraq just visited his friends the Ayatollahs in Iran and was conferring with them on improving relationships with Iraq. That doesn't sound good. For the Christian minority in Iraq - the Assyrian anChaldeans Christians, oppression is still the order of the day and perhaps even worse now than before.

If anybody thinks they can take a part of the world where totalitarianism, religious fanaticism, superstate's ignorance, intertribal hatred, and anti-western thought processes have been the norm for over 3,000 years and change it in a few years of occupation, they have a reality problem.

"Turn this into a Us Vrs Them and we lose all our local allies."

Islam is ALL ABOUT Us versus THEM - read the Koran and Haddiths.

"When 50% of us question why we are fighting at all, if we lose our local allies via this sort of heavy handed ignorance and bigotry then we will lose the war."

I thought we were fighting there to protect America and prevent the lunatics from the Middle East coming here and doing the same things in our streets. At any rate, that is what we should be doing there. That involves a lot of what you said about using the locals, trying to gain some of their "trust" to get our enemies. AND finishing up the business by destroying the Ayatollahs in Iran and the Baathists in Syrtia and their familiars like Hezbollah.
But that shouldn't blind us to certain realities:

1) They will never love us for the present or function as reliable long term allies

2) As long as Islam is practiced there in its current and historical form, their culture and ours are incompatible.

3) Islam is likely to remain a serious threat to us and our descendants for generations

4) we can't make them love us, but we can and should and better make them fear us.

"The people of the US have neither the will, nor the need, to wage a war of conquest in the Middle East."

There is no reason to fight a war of conquest in the Middle East and you are correct in your assessment of American character. Which makes me wonder why we are wasting so much time "nation-building" and hawking democracy to people who haven't the faintest idea what we are talking about. We should have gone on to destroy the Ayatollahs and Syria after we finished up with Iraq, then pulled out and left them to stew in their own juices with a promise to come back again and do a more thorough job if they got out of line again.

"We win this war by backing various groups of Muslims to slaughter the other group of Muslims."

It would definitely help - no arguments there. But we should never delude selves into thinking they are our friends or their is any chance of compatibility between Islam and western civilization in Islam's current and historical flavors.

"The Know Nothings with their wacko fantasies that this some how can be turned into a "Holy War" against all Islam need to come to grips with the political, and practical, limitation we operate under."

We are engaged in a "Holy War" with Islam whether you choose to recognize it or not. THEY do and understand fully the objectives of their struggle - to infiltrate, intimidate, cajole and otherwise maneuver to make Islam the dominant socio-theological system in the world. In this respect they differ not a bit from Communists. OUR objective should be to confine Islam to its historical boundaries, prevent them from infiltrating and threatening the west, and allow them to wither on the vine or perhaps in the distant, future, develop a more progressive and humane version of their "faith" - but that's up to them.

[Rummenigge]

>>I think the entire threat of Islamicization can't be emitonally over-involved enough.

If I had to lead man to a battle I'd like to be in a sober state of mind. A little passion helps a little hate helps perhaps to change things but - no - I'd not like an overly emotional commander or soldier if it's on my side of the battle.

I know muslims on my side. Don't know if they'd like to be on yours though.

[joesbucks]

Out of 20+ posts prior to yours, you are the only one who got the subtlety of the reason for the meeting. Whether on or off the record, going forward, their thoughts will be influenced by that meeting. Whether they ever publically state it on not. Even off the record, the comments were made for a reason.

[backtothestreets]

That is India that is limited to bomber or artillery deliverable nuclear warheads. Pakistan has a variety of missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, and easily within proximity of our troops in Afghanistan or our fleet in the Arabian Sea if Pakistan turned against us.

Not to worry just yet. NATO has shelved the idea of issuing an ultimatum to Pakistan demanding it cease supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and await results of a meeting between Presidents Bush, Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan scheduled for later this month.

[spatso]

"I don't see Pakistan as being a long term ally. The problem is Pakistan has a strong military alliance with China,"

The problem is may go beyond Pakistan. What happens if the majority of the Islamic world becomes aligned with China? China's economic and energy influence would become prohibitively threatening. We need allies in a moderate Islamic world?

[William Terrell]

It's the holy book of Islam which itself condemns Islam. If the fight is good vs evil, then the Koran puts the entire nation of Islam in the evil corner.

What as it with Bush, anyway? How, specifically, will Christianity lose in against Islam? And, if that is so, then we are doomed anyway, and redefining the fight "good against evil" is no help at all. It's Islam that attacks.

[steve-b]

Whether or not your "billion adherents" are our enemies or not is a question of fact. What we say, or what we even do, is not determinative of their emnity

Nonsense. If that were correct, the truth value of the statement "Japan and the United States" are enemies would have been fixed and unchanging, the same in 1922, 1942, and 1962 (or 1922 BCE, 1942 BCE, and 1962 BCE, for that matter).

[ClancyJ]

Agree. Values judgements leave the religion aspect out. Therefore, passions are not so inflamed and reason can be discussed.

Possibly he meant we would lose because we would not fight as the radical muslims fight over religion. We would not be willing to slaughter innocents and commit war over the religion as we are all so diverse in our views and religions. And, the Christian religion is a religion of peace and love, rather than a religion that glorifies slaughter, cruelty, beheadings.

So, war is the realm of the muslim god and draws members based on their need to justify their love of violence and cruelty. For them, the muslim religion justifies their love of cruelty. And you then obtain groups of murderers, torturers and others that just love killing things operating under the guize of religion serving a god pleased with such activities. No where do you see love reflected in their actions - love is not a part of their belief.

[pepperdog]

Let me see: this guy agreed to an off the record meeting? Then he goes out and supposedly repeats what he heard? A real man of his word isn't he? And we're supposed to believe him?

I don't know if it happened and I am not going to practice bleed over something that may or may not have been said, or if said may have been taken completely out of context.
And why would anyone, anywhere ever have an "off the record" meeting with a reporter/journalist/doofus?

[tiki]

I will agree with the president there because this Jihad really has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with deep and abiding hatred and they are using religion as some sort of protective screen, the same way they use women and children as human shields.

[steve-b]

They can go on for hours about how the West is corrupt, slothful, lazy, lustful, and any other evil you can name.

Aggrivating the problem is the presence of traitors within the gates:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
--Jerry al-Falwell

Well, I totally concur.
--Pat ibn-Robertson

[ClancyJ]

I feel sure the only reason he would feel the meeting worth the time of the President of the United States would be that it would be helpful if those on the conservative side understood fully his thinking and beliefs. They are out there daily and stand up for him against the left. It would be nice if they were all on the same page as to "what" and "why" he feels as he does.

[joesbucks]

I tend to agree with most of your assumptions. While they deny it, if you put a polygraph on the average religious activist and ask them:

Do you believe government officials should rule and make laws based on a religious law?

Should government officials pray that they are context?

Should religious law trump civil law?

Should our government leaders seek to be devinely guided?

All would answer yes to the questions. And all would be answering that they would want a theocracy because the above is the classic definition of a theocracy.

[MNJohnnie]

How utterly perdictiable Know Nothing responses.

Thankfully the President and his team have a vastly better grasp of military strategy and political realities then the usual collection of Freeper Fringers.

[RightWhale]

Laura mentioned the meeting and that it was off the record. It's really too bad somebody had to blab since the full context of a remark such as this would put a meaning to it that is clearly lacking in the soundblabbite