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.
Sadly, I think that the non-Islamic world is probably doomed to endless on-again, off-again warfare with the Islamic world, as has been the case for the last 1300 years or so.
"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"
You don't blame anyone. It's just something that will eventually happen. We can only try to delay the event. That is why I try to make sure that I am okay with God. The Middle East will probably never be stable or have the stability we would like. From the Sumerians vs the Elamites. Then the Sumerian vs the Akkadians. The Babylonians vs the Kassites, Mitanni vs Assyrians and you could go on and on. The only thing I ask of this administration from this point is to protect our borders.
"Sadly, I think that the non-Islamic world is probably doomed to endless on-again, off-again warfare with the Islamic world, as has been the case for the last 1300 years or so."
My sentiments exactly and if this world survives another 200 years ( which right now due to nuclear proliferation seems unlikely ) it will not end.
I don't know that it would work either. That's the problem with war.
But what's happening right now isn't working either, for whatever reason, too many troops, not enough troops, too much force, not enough force. I'm just fed up seeing us trying to fight against these people with one hand tied behind our backs because our "Leaders" (and I use that term loosely), are too freakin worried about offending the sensibilities of those maggots in the world who want to kill us.
No Nation will survive that does not deal with it's enemies quickly and decisively.
Not even ours.
Grin.
But seriously, what other way to control terrorism, than spreading liberal democracy?
I guess we could just go around breaking things and killing people, but that might not work for long.
Good article. I supported Dubya's plan to bring sense to the ME, but now I don't think those illogical crazy Arabs there can handle it. I'm not so sure about Persians, though -- we'll see, if and when they get the chance.
Maybe the "average" American is waiting to see the mushroom cloud on the horizon before taking the Muslim lunatic fringe seriously?
The premise is patently NOT TRUE.. Democracy is MOB Rule..
Islam is Tribal Rule which is a version of Mob Rule..
Islam is perfect for democracy.. A consortium of Mobs with mobsters jockeying for terrrority is what Islam "IS"..
Islam is Not a religion it is a GANG.. Always was always will be.. Europe could see that if Europe was not ruled by democracy also.. All of Europe is ruled by Mob Rule that is to say Tribal Rule.. The only difference between Europe and the Mid East is the kind and species of the GANGS in charge.. Democracy IS Mob Rule..
Thats exactly WHY America is NOT a democracy.. but a Free Republic..
Exactly why.. Islam is just as compatible with Mob Rule as Europe is.. maybe moreso.. Sharia Law IS Democratic..
islam should have been immediately outlawed in all western countries, All the mosques should have been bull dozed. islam cannot exist with anything but islam.
As far as Iraq we should never have gone in to Iraq unless we did what I suggest above first. The fact that Bush has done little to protect the border makes the WOT something he does not really appear to be serious about. which means that he should have just said the reason we are in Iraq was to keep the oil flow stabilized.
In war you kill the enemy. The moslems understand this so I ask, "who is smarter?"
"But what's happening right now isn't working either, for whatever reason, too many troops, not enough troops, too much force, not enough force. I'm just fed up seeing us trying to fight against these people with one hand tied behind our backs because our "Leaders" (and I use that term loosely), are too freakin worried about offending the sensibilities of those maggots in the world who want to kill us"
I am equally fed up. I know I don't have any idea on how to resolve the situation. But I would have hoped our elected leaders whom are paid to lead us would have come up with a better plan. Half of me is starting to wonder if Bush going to Iraq was simply a strategy to make sure he was elected again to finish the job he started. What happened to his other initiatives like SS reform. Who can we look forward to in 08 ?
Unless it's Gingrich or Tancredo, I don't see anything out there on the Republican side of the house worth the effort it would take to poke the hole.
I hope there are more, but if all I have to choose from is either Mclaim or Guiliani, that option stays blank that day. Or I'll do a write in for Thomas Jefferson.
Hey.. if dead people can vote, why can't we vote for Dead Presidents? :P
Boy, McCarthy's come a long way since Weekend at Bernies'.
There have been plenty of terrorists even in liberal democracies (e.g., IRA in Ireland, ETA in Spain, FALN right here in the U.S., etc.). At some point you have to "break things and kill people" in order to put an end to it.
The fact that al-Sadr is still alive and his strongholds still exist tells me all I need to know about Bush's new Iraq strategy as well as his overall strategy in fighting against the jihad declared against us. The talks this week reinforce this.
Don't think so? Look at all the islamic people calling for sharia law and wanting to live under islam. No one is forcing islam on them. There are a bunch of imams on their side that are the counterparts to those on our side that study the bible, the Constitution, the American State Papers, to keep our heritage alive. This is our heritage, and islam is theirs. The most insignificant humble muslim freely wants rule under islam. That is democracy at its best. To say we want to bring them democracy is surreal in its error.
Muslims wanting islam is not unlike our ancestors wanting to set up democratic societies based on the bible, reference Plymouth and the Pilgrims. They went ahead and did it. And they converted some indians (tried to anyway) to Christianity, but note the indians didn't convert us. Our ancestors considered them savages and ourselves superior: we converted them, it was a one-way street. There was no tolerance.
For us it worked, and we were happy as Christians having the Rights of Englishmen under the Magna Carta until George became an abusive king to the colonies. We got independence, had the Articles, the Constitution and here we are. Democracy implemented as a Constitutional Republic with Federalism.
The problem is not that muslims need democracy. They democratically want islam. The problem is they view us the way we viewed the American Indians in the colonial days: as savages and heathens to be converted. They consider themselves the superiors.
The basis of all our traditions, customs, and law, is the old testament, the old prophets, Noah, Moses, Jesus, and others, with modern ideas of John Locke and Enlightenment thinkers that do not contradict the foundations of the Old and New Testaments but are supported therefrom. Does that make us a theocracy? Sure, to some degree. Separation of church and state is an illusion that appears after the religious causes behind our laws are hidden behind a curtain. At the root, our state is based in Jewish and Christian religious principles and traditions no matter how much we pretend it isn't. And the fact that the would-be islamic state would be based on koranic sources makes it no more of a theocracy than ours is, or not much. It seems they are much more theocratic about it because they don't bother to hide it like we do.
It is really these old and new testament traditions that we want the East and muslims to accept as their basis. But this we tend to offer and then wonder why our offer is not accepted.
The basis of the Arabic traditions, customs, and law, is Islam which started as an effort to assimilate Arab pagans into monotheism, and unify some tribes. Christians and Jews not being part of islam are separate from it and muslims dealt with them as we dealt with the indians, move them aside if they can't blend in. What muslims want is for us to adopt Arab culture, customs, law, and the general feel of islam. Muslims pay lip service to the prophethood of Noah, Moses, Jesus, but basically dismiss them in favor of their greatest prophet, mohammed. This the muslims offer and don't wonder why we don't accept, they don't care, they are happy to dispose of us the way we disposed of the indians. If we are not careful, one day, we will have a modern equivalant of what we know as the "trail of tears," where Jews and Christians are marched off to "reservations," while muslims dominate the land.
Forget the foolish talk about bringing democracy to them. All we want is to keep our Noah, Moses, Jesus, Locke, Common Law, Magna Carta, Constituitonal Republic tradition secure, and not have it supplanted by mohammed the arab.
Can we resist their aggressive expansion? Hope so! Better get started! Can we get them to accept our tradition and let all their mohammedian culture go? Fat chance.
In the final analysis we have a clash of two democratic cultures, one rooted in the old and new testament to the exclusion of the koran, and the other rooted in the koran to the exclusion of the old and new testaments. The democratic aspect of ours is what made ours so dangerous to the way of the indian inhabitants. And it is what will make the islamic way a formidable adversary to our way.
The sooner we stop trying to democratize them or sell them the old and new testaments to the exclusion of the koran, the sooner we can begin building the walls, and arming to protect ourselves from the expansionist competing democratic muslim ideology---the way the indians would have if they had had the means. We have the means. Do we have the will?
Bush said something once about not making expedient alliances with dictators anymore, which sounded very idealistic. Very Wilsonian and Neo-conservative.
But he didn't follow through.
So we just wreak destruction? Was the post-WWII "nation building" in Japan a mistake?
We'd have a transition period til they "get it". Like MacArthur in Japan.
Probably take longer though.
But do we really have the means to build a wall? ICBMs and nukes smuggled in, etc.
At some point do we just have to exterminate Islam?
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.