Replies

The Koran plainly states that the entire world is to be brought under Islam and ruled by Islamic law. We find ourselves to be in much the same situation as the British, French and American people found themselves as Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler for revisions and replacements of nation states and governments in his efforts to appease the little Austrian when Hitler had already put to pen in Mein Kampf his entire plan for the conquest of Europe. At that time a few voices raised above the din of "peace at any price" to warn of that which they had read in Hitler's magnum opus, but they were ignored. Now, once again, an enemy has emerged whose plan of world domination is plainly written for the entire world to read. But once again, in the name of peace, or tolerance, or overreaction, or whatever justification we hear, those of us that have read the words of the Koran are ignored when we raise the call to full arms and preparedness for full war. While we make temporary coalitions with Islamic states, while we defend Muslims in Bosnia, while we defend Saudi Arabia against Iraq, the very schools of these Muslims teach their children that it is an honor to die killing us.

But put to logic, what future can there be between the West and Islam? When the US attacks Iraq, will not Iraq attack Israel? And when Iraq attacks Israel, will not the Palestinians join the fray? Israel will surly respond, drawing in Jordan, Syria and Iran. When Iran supports a war against Israel, the US attack on Iraq will widen to include Iran, and it is hard to imagine that at that point any Islamic country will support the United States with the possible exception of Turkey. Meanwhile, the United States will compel its NATO allies to join in the fun, if only to help grab up enough undamaged oil fields to keep the tanks and planes running, and the home economies working.

Now, the question must be asked, what has changed in the world that a centuries old document should suddenly cause the world to be threatened with WWIII? The answer is that the believers in that document, which requires world domination, have possession of weapons of mass destruction. But this is not the first time we have faced an enemy whose ideology called for world domination and who possessed more than a mere few WMD, but a vast array of same. For over forty years during the cold war we faced the Soviet Union which country possessed enough nuclear missiles to destroy the United States many times over. Yet, even though world domination was their aim, we confined our struggles to small parts of the world and conventional weapons. We did this with a doctrine known sardonically enough as MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. The essence of that doctrine was that America always kept herself in a position that if she were attacked with a WMD, she could assuredly respond and destroy utterly her attacker.

The only differences between now and then are two: (1) first, our government expects us to absorb such an attack and has told us so, even to the extent that it is inevitable, whereas formerly our government did not expect its' citizens to absorb an attack of any kind with a WMD from the Soviet Union, and (2) second, the enemy does not come from a single country but from a religion, which prima fascia makes retaliation seemingly impossible.

As to the first problem, it is up to us to wake up and start screaming to our representatives that we will not absorb an attack with a WMD when such an attack can clearly be averted by closing our borders, checking every shipment of every package that enters our harbors, deporting all non-resident aliens of Islamic origin, and announcing a new form of the MAD doctrine. As to the second problem, even though the enemy is a religion, it is a unique religion because it is a religion with a country and a city as its' capital. In fact, it is a religion that cannot be worshipped as required by its' own mandates without a pilgrimage to the city of Mecca. Therefore, a version of the MAD doctrine can be developed stating that if the United States is attacked with a WMD, then upon thirty days notice, the holy city of Medina will be destroyed with a small nuclear warhead such that no one will be able to inhabit Medina for hundreds of years. Should the United States be attacked a second time with a WMD, the city of Mecca will be destroyed on the same terms. There will be no lose of life due to the notice period, but the religion itself will not be able to be practiced in the manner it heretofore has been practiced for a thousand years.

Many will say that this is a radical idea, but it is no more radical than the idea that the Soviet Union and the United States were going to destroy the entire world over whether Cuba had a few nuclear warheads. It is all a matter of historical perspective. The MAD doctrine as I propose it is far less severe than the MAD doctrine as it was actually practiced in the cold war. Additionally, it would have the added benefit of motivating moderate Muslims to seek out any radicals that might actually try in any event to attack the US with a WMD, and would probably have a calming effect on the radical anti-Western teachings so prevalent in the Islamic schools. In all events, it is certainly preferable to the Bush plan of waiting for the inevitable shoe to drop, walking around with a target on our backs, as if we were some third rate country rather than the United States of America, the most powerful country that ever existed, and one that can destroy an entire city without killing a single person unless that person seeks to die.