Posted on 11/29/2006 7:56:05 AM PST by Spiff
By Andrew C. McCarthy
November 29, 2006 12:00 AM
This is a war of will. If we lose it, the historians will marvel at how mulishly we resisted understanding the one thing we needed to understand in order to win. The enemy.
In Iraq, we’ve tried to fight the most civilized “light footprint” war of all time. We made sure everyone knew our beef was only with Saddam Hussein, as if he were a one-man militia — no Sunni Baathists supporting him, no Arab terrorists colluding, and no Shiite jihadists hating us just on principle.
No, our war was only with the regime. No need to fight the Iraqis. They, after all, were noble. They would flock to democracy if only they had the chance. And, once they hailed us as conquering heroes, their oil wealth would pay for the whole thing … just 400 billion American dollars ago.
This may be the biggest disconnect of all time between the American people and a war government.
In the wake of 9/11, the American people did not care about democratizing the Muslim world. Or, for that matter, about the Muslim world in general. They still don’t. They want Islamic terrorists and their state sponsors crushed. As for the aftermath, they want something stable that no longer threatens our interests; they care not a wit whether Baghdad’s new government looks like Teaneck’s.
To the contrary, Bush-administration officials — notwithstanding goo-gobs of evidence that terrorists have used the freedoms of Western democracies, including our own, the better to plot mass murder — have conned themselves into believing that democracy, not decisive force, is the key to conquering this enemy.
So deeply have they gulped the Kool-Aid that, to this day, they refuse to acknowledge what is plain to see: While only a small number of the world’s billion-plus Muslims (though a far larger number than we’d like to believe) is willing to commit acts of terrorism, a substantial percentage — meaning tens of millions — supports the terrorists’ anti-West, anti-democratic agenda.
Islamic countries, moreover, are not rejecting Western democracy because they haven’t experienced it. They reject it on principle. For them, the president’s euphonious rhetoric about democratic empowerment is offensive. They believe, sincerely, that authority to rule comes not from the people but from Allah; that there is no separation of religion and politics; that free people do not have authority to legislate contrary to Islamic law; that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims, and men to women; and that violent jihad is a duty whenever Muslims deem themselves under attack … no matter how speciously.
These people are not morons. They adhere to a highly developed belief system that is centuries old, wildly successful, and for which many are willing to die. They haven’t refused to democratize because the Federalist Papers are not yet out in Arabic. They decline because their leaders have freely chosen to decline. They see us as the mortal enemy of the life they believe Allah commands. Their demurral is wrong, but it is principled, not ignorant. And we insult them by suggesting otherwise.
Democratizing such cultures — in anything we would recognize as “democracy” — is the work of generations. It is a cultural phenomenon. It is not accomplished by elections and facile constitution writing … especially, constitutions that shun Madisonian democracy for the State Department’s preferred establishment of Islam and its adhesive sharia law as the state religion. Elections, in fact, play to the strengths of Islamic terrorists. Jihadists are confident, intimidating, and rigorously disciplined. They are thus certain to thrive in the chaos of nascent “democracies.” Consequently, it should be unsurprising to anyone with a shred of common sense that terrorist organizations are ascendant in the new governments of Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories.
So now comes James Baker’s Iraq Study Group, riding in on its bipartisan white horse to save the day. The democracy project having failed, this blue-ribbon panel’s solution is: Let’s talk.
Let’s talk with our enemies, Iran and Syria. Let’s talk with terror abettors as if they were good guys — just like us. As if they were just concerned neighbors trying to stop the bloodshed in Iraq … instead of the dons who’ve been commanding it all along.
Someone, please explain something to me: How does it follow that, because Islamic cultures reject democracy, we somehow need to talk to Iran and Syria?
What earthly logic that supports talking with these Islamic terrorists would not also support negotiating with al Qaeda — a demarche not even a Kennedy School grad would dare propose?
There’s none.
When I grew up in The Bronx, there were street gangs. You mostly stayed away from them, and, if you really had to, you fought with them. But I never remember anyone saying, “Gee, maybe if we just talk with them ...”
Nor do I remember, in two decades as a prosecutor, anyone saying, “Y’know, maybe if we just talk with these Mafia guys, we could achieve some kind of understanding ...”
Sitting down with evil legitimizes evil. As a practical matter, all it accomplishes is to convey weakness. This spring — after trumpeting the Bush Doctrine’s “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” slogan for five years — Secretary of State Rice pathetically sought to bribe Iran out of its nuclear program with a menu of all carrots and no sticks … and certainly no demand that the mullahs stop fomenting terror. The result? They’re still laughing at us, even as they build their bombs, harbor al Qaeda operatives, and arm the militias killing American soldiers in Iraq.
While our rhetoric blathers that we’ll never let them have a nuke, our talk begs them, pretty-please, to stop building one. And our actions all but hand them one. If all that makes you wonder who’s the superpower, what do you suppose they’re thinking?
That’s talking with an enemy that has us pretty well pegged, while we stubbornly resist even thinking about what motivates him. We wouldn’t want to question his ideology. After all, what would CAIR say?
The democracy project tells Islamists that we don’t understand them — or care to try understanding them. The “let’s talk” gambit confirms that we’re not just studiously ignorant; we’re ripe for the taking.
For our own sake, we need to respect the enemy. That means grasping that he’s implacable, that he means us only harm, and that he must be subdued, not appeased. Negotiating with such evil is always a mistake, for any accommodation with evil is, by definition, evil.
Rejecting the democracy project is about respecting the enemy. Declining to talk to the enemy is about respecting ourselves.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
IF these people actually go their instead of being spoonfed propaganda, none of them will be saying "killemall", "cutandrun" or any other stupid inanities that helps no one but the terrorists.
You know, the people we are trying to kill?
No don't go in and kill the bad guys and leave.
Exterminate every last damned one of them and leave a blackened poisoned landscape then tell the rest of those flea bitten camel jocks that if you so much as Whimper something in protest, we'll do precisely the same thing to you.
That scenario should be applied to every single solitary country we even THINK is harboring terrorists.
Nation building my ass.
Kill 'em all, let God sort them.
#21 is a good post. I would be inclined to agree with that assesment, overall.
I think McCarthy really exaggerates the "disconnent" between the U.S. population and our government leaders. For all their blather, the U.S. government really has no interest in democratic rule in the Muslim world. This "promoting democracy" sh!t -- going all the way back to the early 20th century when the U.S. adopted an imperial, globalist mindset -- has never been anything more than silly catch-phrases and buzz-words to convince people that there is some virtuous, noble underpinning to what we're doing over there.
I think it is a weak and worthless piece.
Good point. Democracy only has value insofar as it promotes individual rights.
Bush did not act boldly enough as a Neo-conservative. A true Neo-conservative would have imposed a western secular Constitution, without a whiff of Islamic shariah.
It'll be a religion of peace when I'm done with it.
Your comment added incredible value as well ... as does this one.
Less than 10% of IRaq is allied with terrorists. DO that and you would have increased the terrorist numbers by 26 MILLION more. WHen the NAzis came rolling in and slaughtered people left and right, the Polish, slavs, and others didn't knuckle under. They knuckle up. Same as we would if China came a knocking. Wanton atrocities don't make you look good or bring people to your cause.
Right. And a true neo-conservative might just as well have protected the Gulf Coast from Hurricane Katrina by instituting "hurricane-free" governments in Louisiana and Mississippi.
It's because we mean two things by "democracy". We tend to use it to "convey constitutional representative government". Sure the islamowackos like being voted in. But once in they strip away constitutional protections, that we think are implied by "democracy". This pedantic remark brought to you by Starbucks French Roast.
"THEY JUST DON'T GET IT, and never will. Western society went through a Renaissance and reformation, and had years of Enlightenment thinking to fall back on in creating democracy. Islam hasn't even gotten to the Renaissance part yet, and is unlikely to ever develop the mindset that would bring about the creation of or abiility to participate in a democracy. Our obligation is to get serious about defending ourselves and our way of life."
Exactly why Colin Powell must be having a good laugh right now. We spent 400 Billion to find this out ? My question is how do you win this war. I think you cannot. You can only try and prevent future attacks on our soil. That is why we need to protect our borders. Or wipe out the entire Muslim population which if attempted would bring on World War III. The biggest mistake this president made was going into Iraq without a clear strategy (good strategy) for what we wanted to accomplish besides of course getting S Hussein. Now we may have the dems in office for the next 6 years due to that blunder
I could really give a damn about looking good. I don't want to occupy them, I want them to surrender. Completely, totally and if you kill more of them than they kill of us, eventually they will surrender. That's why we call it WAR.
No I'm no politician and don't care to be one. War is an argument, the best way to end the argument is to kill the other Man.
End the argument.
"Jihad has been declared against America and our attempts to "democratize" Islamic, terrorist-supporting nations will not only fail, but fail badly."
Well, I certainly hope not. Without democracy, you only have tyrants running countries. Only the most bloodthirsty, crazed, and ruthless leaders will survive in a country run by tryants. And eventually, given enough time, all countries will have nuclear weapons. And when you have several countries or even dozens of countries run by jihadist and they all have multiple nuclear weapons, who do you blame when you get hit with one? I think democracy is worth a shot.
And what if they used that Western, secular Constitution to vote in Shariah rule (actually, misrule)?
"Sitting down with evil legitimizes evil."
Says it all...
"Kill 'em all, let God sort them."
I don't know If that would work. If we were to go nuclear with Iraq or Iran we could start a war that could look like this ( US, Isreal and the UK ) VS ( Everyone else ). Muslims are scattered all around the world. 2nd largest religion out there is the muslim religion. But who knows.
"Less than 10% of IRaq is allied with terrorists. DO that and you would have increased the terrorist numbers by 26 MILLION more. WHen the NAzis came rolling in and slaughtered people left and right, the Polish, slavs, and others didn't knuckle under. They knuckle up. Same as we would if China came a knocking. Wanton atrocities don't make you look good or bring people to your cause."
Excellent point.
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.