That aside, what Hanson has illuminated here is the dependence of radical Islam on the existence of a system that is a gigantic intellectual and moral scam. This system has evolved from a set of precepts that seemed noble enough in the post-WWII chaos and have manifested themselves not only in their poster child of nobility slain by cynicism, the UN, but in the halls of Western academia and popular culture since then. That all countries, however powerless, remain sovereign within their borders is reflected in the broader notion that all cultures deserve an equal validity, a cultural sovereignty, that absolves them from judgment by any universal standard. Hence multiculturalism.
The difficulty with this is that under this system a scoundrel's vote counts just the same as that of an honest person, with the additional advantage that his intimidation upon or collusion with others may also not be judged by a larger standard and may operate unopposed by the decent, who have surrendered as invalid the very concept of their own decency.
That's a very nutritious sea in which the unscrupulous may swim, and it accounts for the odd environment that uncritical internationalism has given us. That environment equates an Arafat with a Reagan for no apparent reason other than each has assumed the position of figurehead. That there may be more to it is tactfully left unexamined.
But it does matter. What this willing suspension of moral judgment has produced is an international structure of putative law behind which the lawless can operate unopposed. The Taliban would not have dared their outrages were it not for an international system that respected the sovereignty of their borders. What Bush did that is considered so unforgivable by the proponents of this system is to ignore that protection and to strike down the evil regardless of the nicety of the rules they had come to depend upon. Those rules in a nicer fantasy world would have constrained the U.S.'s power for our own good. In application they proved simply an excuse and a lever for the truly wicked.
That's over now, unless a still-blinded internationalist such as Gore or Clinton assumes power. And I think that the world is better for it, however ugly the opprobrium that Bush has taken on his shoulders to effect it. There are still those who prefer the advantages of this internationalist system in control of U.S. policy to the downside of its exploitation by the Islamists (or the Communists before them). These insist upon the old advantage - of a system obeyed and upheld by people they flatter themselves to curse and to overthrow for having done so. That game's over.
Once again you confirmed why I'm looking forward reading your posts. That was rrrreally good. Thanks.
I liked this part the best.
Can an Airbus or Compaq be constructed according to the principles of Sharia? How can you demand amoxicillin as your birthright, but hate the system of free thinking and rationalism that created it? Does the Islamist despise equally Chinese internet pornography; does he issue fatwas against South Korean video games; does he ostracize Latin American evangelical Protestants, or burn down Bollywood?