Does nuclear threat as a deterrence impact the Muslim world?
Posted on 11/08/2001 11:27:01 AM PST by ouroboros
Back in the 1930s, when white men were preparing for another round of mutual slaughter, few of them paid any attention to the Muslim world. They assumed it to be a backward region that history had long since passed by.
One man saw it differently. The great Catholic polemicist Hilaire Belloc, an Englishman of French ancestry, remembered Islam’s past and predicted, in his book The Great Heresies, that it would one day challenge the West again. As late as 1683 its armies had threatened to conquer Europe, penetrating all the way to Vienna; Belloc believed that a great Islamic revival, even in the twentieth century, was altogether possible.
Belloc saw Islam not as an alien religion, but in its origins as a Christian heresy, adopting and adapting certain Christian doctrines (monotheism, the immortality of the soul, final judgment) and rejecting others (original sin, the Incarnation and divinity of Christ, the sacraments). Its simple, rational creed had a powerful appeal to Arabs who had known only the arbitrary gods of grim pagan religions. It swept the Arab world, then made converts — and conquests — far beyond Arabia.
Islam was a militant religion from the start. Mohammed himself conquered the entire Arabian Peninsula in just a few years. The new faith was torn by violent internal divisions even as it continued to spread. But spread it did, with incredible rapidity.
Christians had good reason to fear Islam, which soon conquered Spain and held it for centuries. But because Islam has little attraction for Christians, the West has generally failed to grasp its appeal for others, its profound and permanent hold on the minds of believers. Unlike the Christian West, the Muslim world has never had crises of faith like the Reformation and the Enlightenment.
Islam is a simple religion, easily understood by ordinary people. Its commandments are rigorous but few. When it conquered, its subjugated people often felt more liberated than enslaved, because it often replaced burdensome old bureaucratic governments with relatively undemanding regimes — and low taxes. As long as its authority was respected, Islamic rule was comparatively libertarian. It offered millions relief from their traditional oppression; for example, no Muslim could be a slave.
Belloc distinguishes sharply between Islam and such barbarous conquerors as the Mongol hordes of Genghis Khan. The Mongols were purely destructive; they were known for slaughtering whole cities and making huge pyramids of severed heads.
Such savagery was alien to the Muslims. Where they conquered, daily life usually went on much as before and culture thrived. In many respects the Muslim world was far more civilized than Christian Europe for centuries. The West hated and dreaded Islam, but nobody would have thought of calling it backward.
That contemptuous image came much later, when modern Europe’s science, technology, and — above all — weaponry had eclipsed those of the Arabs. We are apt to forget how recently this development occurred; and, as Belloc warned, it is not irreversible.
Man, especially irreligious man, is apt to equate power and progress. Many of those who say America is “the greatest country on earth” really mean only that America has fantastic military might, capable of annihilating any other country — and some of them, at the moment, are in the mood to do some annihilating. To the pious Muslim this attitude seems crass and barbaric. He may conclude from it that the decadent West understands only one thing: force.
And would he be far wrong? Belloc admitted that the idea of a new Muslim challenge to the West seemed “fantastic,” but only because the West was “blinded” by “the immediate past.” Taking a longer view, he saw Islam, though inferior in material power, as having a great advantage: its religious faith was still strong, while the West was losing its religion and consequently its morale. He thought it entirely possible that Islam would catch up technologically, while he doubted that the West would undergo a spiritual revival.
Are we seeing the beginning of the fulfillment of Belloc’s prophecy? If so, the current uproar over Islamic terrorism may turn out to be a mere superficial symptom of a much larger historical drama. The West is still strong, but it is dying. Islam is still weak, but it is growing. Never mind the terrorists; check the birthrates.
Now whom do you nuke without killing ourselves? Find me ONE politician who will be reelected and has the cajones to stand up and say "All Muslims Must Be Removed From the US. This includes American citizens who are Muslims.
Does nuclear threat as a deterrence impact the Muslim world?
Oh really?
And this goofball presents himself as a knowledgeable expert?
I can hardly wait to hear his explanation for the 3 main mutually-hostile flavors of Islam and the dozen or so minor offshoots.
Kinda clouds his credibility, ya think?
When I was young and ignorant, I tended to agree with this simplistic statement.
Then I realized than in Washington's day, there were no satellites, no transatlantic cables, no OPEC, no NATO, no internet, no GAT, no NAFTA, no television, no cell phones.
How does one pull up the drawbridge 200 years after the drawbridge became an anachronism?
As the Muslim Mass Murderers showed us, we don't need to go to them, they will come to us.
Or are you suggesting we not allow air travel between the U.S. and anywhere else?
Please no Clinton spin. Those things you mentioned would be OK with George. George, on the other hand, would not be into Clinton bombing countries where we didn't like the leader, or setting up puppet governments that prevent local democracy, or making relationships that would involve us in wars of other's choosing.
Nah, GW is still right. We are on the verge of a 3-front struggle with the Arabs, Chinese and Russians all on a 1-war economic system. Build fortress America, cut our losses, and let the world fight their own wars, religious, economic, ethnic, or political. Get bin Laden, then over and out for good.
No, I am not suggesting restrictions on air travel. We need to ask ourselves WHY do they want to "come to us."
Many liberals use your argument about "changing times" since our founding. Do "arms" in the 2nd amdendment only refer to muskets? The founders never envisioned our modern weaponry. Does freedom of the "press" only refer to the hand operated printers of Franklin's time? Ol' Ben would be amazed at our electronic media, but I'm sure he would still hold his "isolationist" (not a bad word) views.
What you need to realize is that technology changes, but human nature does not. Non-intervention is not a bad thing - it's a much better alternative to the mess we're in now - and I have been saying that long before 9-11.
Read my first post - #10.
Someone here's got the link. (Where did I hide it, Romulus?)
Yeah, Iraq, with it's high birthrate, really kicked our butts in the Gulf War. Sobran needs to venture out of the 19th Century when he performs military analysis...
Read the article.
European women are having 0.8 children, and the European population will fall by 50% in 100 years. White American women are having less than replacement #s of children, and the third world US population is rising while the Euro-American population is falling.
Moslem women in the US and Europe are having 5 children/woman.
It isn't about the nukes, silly-it's about the babies.
The Northern Alliance is supported by Iran.
IMHO.. Iran is THE country to watch in the Middle East.
Iraq laid down.
Saddam and the rest do as their told.
Oh, c'mon, Chris, you can do better than that. A million men with obsolete weaponry simply cannot hold a candle to Western offensive power - and countries with high birthrates also have lower-tech economies. That's the key point Sobran overlooks here. Our military in Desert Storm suffered about as many casualties as if they had been back home getting in car wrecks or falling off ladders.
True, but I have this suspicion that the Moslem hordes might not be satisfied until they force us to kill several tens of millions.
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.