Mark Steyn: The war Bush is losing

The other day, the National Education Association — i.e., the teachers’ union —announced their plans for the anniversary of 11 September: an attractive series of lessons and projects augmented by public TV documentaries and sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. From the company’s point of view, the sponsorship makes perfect sense: many of us have already gone out and bought a couple of extra crates of Johnson’s Baby Lotion, Extra-Strength Tylenol, etc., to deal with the blinding headaches and intense rectal irritation brought on merely by reading the NEA’s advance literature. And, funnily enough, once you’ve chugged down a few dozen pills and the soothing Johnson & Johnson unguents are caressing one’s pores, the peculiar emphases of the union’s 9/11 curriculum seem to pass through painlessly.

The NEA warms up with a little light non-judgmentalism by advising teachers not to ‘suggest any group is responsible’ for the, ah, ‘tragic events’. Just because Osama bin Laden and al-Qa’eda boasted that they did it is no reason to jump to conclusions. ‘Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise’ — which presumably means we should wait till the trial and, given that what’s left of Osama is currently doing a good impression of a few specks of Johnson’s Baby Powder, that’s likely to be a long time coming.

Instead, the NEA thinks children should ‘explore the problems inherent in assigning blame to populations or nations of people by looking at contemporary examples of ethnic conflict, discrimination, and stereotyping at home and abroad’.

And by that you mean…?

‘Internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor and the backlash against Arab Americans during the Gulf war are obvious examples.’

Not that obvious: for one thing, the ‘backlash against Arab Americans during the Gulf war’ is entirely mythical. But you get the gist. Don’t blame anyone. But, if you have to, blame America.

This is more or less where we came in. Last 11 September, my neighbour Rachel went to school and was told by her teacher that, terrible as the unfolding events were, the Allies had killed far more people in Dresden. The interim pastor at my local Baptist church warned us not to attack Muslims, even though finding any Muslims to attack would have involved a good three-hour drive.

And so this 11 September, across the continent, millions of pupils, from kindergarten to high school, will be studying such central questions as whether the stereotyped images on 1942 War Bonds posters made German-Americans feel uncomfortable. Evidently, they made German-American Dwight D. Eisenhower so uncomfortable that he went off and liberated Europe. But I don’t suppose that’s what the NEA had in mind.

I don’t think the teachers’ union are ‘Hate America’ types. Very few Americans are. But, rather, they’re in thrall to something far craftier than straightforward anti-Americanism — a kind of enervating cult of tolerance in which you demonstrate your sensitivity to other cultures by being almost totally insensitive to your own. The NEA study suggestions have a bit of everything in them: your teacher might pluck out Roosevelt’s ‘Four Freedoms’; on the other hand, she might wind up at the discussion topic about whether it was irresponsible for the media to show video footage of Palestinians celebrating 11 September as this allegedly led to increased hostility toward Arabs. Real live Arab intolerance is not a problem except insofar as it risks inflaming yet more mythical American intolerance.

This stuff went away for a while last October, and some of us were foolish enough to think it might go away for good. That it didn’t has a lot to do with George W. Bush and the strategy that brought him to power. You’ll recall that he campaigned in 2000 as a ‘compassionate conservative’. On his first trip to New Hampshire, he declared, ‘I’m proud to be a compassionate conservative. And on this ground I will make my stand!’ Those of us who ventured on to the ground to stand alongside him found it pretty mushy and squelchy, but figured the bog of clichés was merely a wily tactic, a means of co-opting all the Democrats’ touchy-feely words and thereby neutralising their linguistic advantage. My distinguished colleague Barbara Amiel felt differently. As she put it two years ago, ‘Those of us who give a tinker’s farthing about ideas knew we were in merde up to the waist. Conservatism is by definition “compassionate”. It has a full understanding and tender spot for the human condition and the ways of our world. A need to qualify conservatism by rebranding it as a product now found in a sweet-smelling pink “compassionate” version is hideous and a concession to your enemies right at the beginning.’

I was wrong and Barbara was right. It didn’t seem important at the time, but it is now. I thought the clumsy multicultural pandering of the Bush campaign was a superb joke, but with hindsight it foreshadowed the rhetorical faintheartedness of the last year. Bush, we were told in 2000, would do the right thing, even if he talked a lot of guff. Many of us stuck to this line after 11 September: okay, the Muslim photo-ops where he’d drone ‘Islam is peace’ while surrounded by shifty representatives of groups that believe Jews are apes got a bit tedious, and so did the non-stop White House Ramadan-a-ding-dong, and the injunction to American schoolgirls to get Muslim pen-pals, but for all the Islamic outreach you could at least rely on the guy to take out the Taleban, and, when the moment comes, Saddam as well.

But words matter, too. You win wars not just by bombing but by argument. Churchill understood this; he characterised the enemy as evil, not only because they were but also because the British people needed to be convinced of the fact if they were to muster the will to see the war through. In Vietnam, the US lost the rhetorical ground to Jane Fonda and co., and wound up losing the war, too. This time round, the very name of the conflict was the first evasion. It’s not a ‘war on terror’, it’s a war on radical Islamism, a worldwide scourge operating on five continents. But you can’t say so. You can’t say whom we’re at war with, even though, for their part, the other side is admirably straightforward.

Just tune in to any Arab TV station for Friday prayers: ‘O God, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O God, destroy the Christians and their supporters and followers, shake the ground under them, instil fear in their hearts, and freeze the blood in their veins.’

That’s Sheikh Akram Abd-al-Razzaq al-Ruqayhi, some hotshot imam live from the Grand Mosque in Sanaa on 9 August on Yemeni state TV. It’s the local equivalent of ‘Thought for the Day’, and even more predictable. Here’s the same dude a week earlier: ‘O God, deal with Jews and their supporters and Christians and their supporters and lackeys,’ he prayed. ‘O God, count them one by one, kill them all, and don’t leave anyone.’

This isn’t some fringe crank sentiment, but what appears to be a standard formulation from the Middle Eastern equivalent of the Book of Common Prayer. Another state TV channel, another mosque, another imam, same script: ‘O God, deal with the occupier Jews for they are within your power,’ said Sheikh Anwar al-Badawi on 2 August live from the Umar Bin-Al-Khattab Mosque in Doha on Qatar Television. ‘O God, count them one by one, kill them, and don’t leave any one of them.’

Same sheikh a week later: ‘O God, destroy the usurper Jews and the vile Christians.’

Hmm. Perhaps we need to call in Bletchley Park. Must be some sort of code. As a matter of fact, you don’t even need to go to the Middle East to catch the death-to-Jews-and-Christians routine. I stayed in the heart of Paris a couple of months back, at the Plaza Athénée, and the eight Arab TV channels available in my room had more than enough foaming imams to go round.

The old-time commies at least used to go to a bit of effort to tell the Western leftie intellectuals what they wanted to hear. The Islamists, by contrast, cheerfully piss all over every cherished Western progressive shibboleth. Women? The Taleban didn’t just ‘marginalise’ women, they buried them under sackcloth. But Gloria Steinem still wouldn’t support the Afghan war, and Cornell professor Joan Jacobs Brumberg argues that the ‘beauty dictates’ of American consumer culture exert a far more severe toll on women. Gays? As The New Republic reported this week, the Palestinian Authority tortures homosexuals, makes them stand in sewage up to their necks with faeces-filled sacks on their heads. Yet Canadian MP Svend Robinson, Yasser’s favourite gay infidel, still makes his pilgrimages to Ramallah to pledge solidarity with the people’s ‘struggle’. Animals? CNN is showing videos all this week of al-Qa’eda members testing various hideous poison gases on dogs.

Radical Islamists aren’t tolerant of anybody: they kill Jews, Hindus, Christians, babies, schoolgirls, airline stewardesses, bond traders, journalists. They use snuff videos for recruitment: go on the Internet and a couple of clicks will get you to the decapitation of Daniel Pearl. You can’t negotiate with them because they have no demands — or at least no rational ones. By ‘Islam is peace’, they mean that once the whole world’s converted to Islam there will be peace, but not before. Other than that, they’ve got nothing they want to talk about. It takes up valuable time they’d rather spend killing us.

President Bush has won the first battle (Afghanistan) but he’s in danger of losing the war. The war isn’t with al-Qa’eda, or Saddam, or the House of Saud. They’re all a bunch of losers. True, insignificant loser states have caused their share of trouble. But that was because, from Vietnam to Grenada, they were used for proxy wars between the great opposing forces of communism and the free world. In a unipolar world, it’s clear that the real enemy in this war is ourselves, and our lemming-like rush to cultural suicide. By ‘our’, I don’t mean me or my neighbours or the American people. I don’t even mean the Democrats: American politics is more responsive and populist than Europe’s, and when war with Iraq starts Hillary will be cheerleading along with the rest of them. But against that are all the people who shape our culture, who teach our children, who run our colleges and churches, who make the TV shows we watch — and they haven’t got a clue. Bruce Springsteen’s inert, equivalist wallow of a 9/11 album, The Rising, is a classic example of how even a supposed ‘blue-collar’ icon can’t bring himself to want America to win. Oprah’s post-9/11 message is that it’s all about ‘who you love and how you love’. On my car radio, John McCain pops up on behalf of the Office of Civil Rights every ten minutes sternly reminding me not to beat up Muslims.

And, of course, let us not forget Britain’s great comic figure, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, QC, who thinks that it’s too easy to go on about ‘Islamic fundamentalists’. ‘What I think happens very readily,’ she said, ‘is that we as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves. We don’t look at our own fundamentalisms.’ And what exactly does Lady Kennedy mean by Western liberal fundamentalism? ‘One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I’m not sure that’s true.’

If I follow correctly, Lady Kennedy is suggesting that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance. To complain about Islamic fundamentalism is to ignore how offensive others must find our own Western fundamentalisms — votes, drivers’ licences for women, no incentives to mass murder from the pulpit of Westminster Cathedral.

George W. Bush had a rare opportunity after 11 September. He could have attempted to reverse the most toxic tide in the Western world: the sappy multiculturalism that insists all cultures are equally valid, even as they’re trying to kill us. He could have argued that Western self-loathing is a psychosis we can no longer afford. He could have told the teachers’ unions that there was more to the second world war than the internment of Japanese-Americans, and it’s time they started teaching it to our children. A couple of days after 11 September, I wrote in these pages, ‘Those Western nations who spent last week in Durban finessing and nuancing evil should understand now that what is at stake is whether the world’s future will belong to liberal democracy and the rule of law, or to darker forces.’ But a year later, after a brief hiccup, the Western elites have resumed finessing and nuancing evil all the more enthusiastically, and the ‘compassionate conservative’ shows no stomach for a fight at least as important as any on the battlefield. The Islamists are militarily weak but culturally secure. A year on, the West is just the opposite. There’s more than one way to lose a war.

Just tune in to any Arab TV station for Friday prayers: ‘O God, destroy the Jews and their supporters. O God, destroy the Christians and their supporters and followers, shake the ground under them, instil fear in their hearts, and freeze the blood in their veins.’
That’s Sheikh Akram Abd-al-Razzaq al-Ruqayhi, some hotshot imam live from the Grand Mosque in Sanaa on 9 August on Yemeni state TV. It’s the local equivalent of ‘Thought for the Day’, and even more predictable. Here’s the same dude a week earlier: ‘O God, deal with Jews and their supporters and Christians and their supporters and lackeys,’ he prayed. ‘O God, count them one by one, kill them all, and don’t leave anyone.’
Another state TV channel, another mosque, another imam, same script: ‘O God, deal with the occupier Jews for they are within your power,’ said Sheikh Anwar al-Badawi on 2 August live from the Umar Bin-Al-Khattab Mosque in Doha on Qatar Television. ‘O God, count them one by one, kill them, and don’t leave any one of them.’

Same sheikh a week later: ‘O God, destroy the usurper Jews and the vile Christians.’

What a rube that Steyn is. Doesn't he recognize Muslim hyperbole when he sees it?

It is not necessary to point out the defects of the other side, merely to promote ours as the best, which is what he has done. Those who want to hear the President ranting about the defects of Islam (evident to anyone with an IQ above turnip stage) are going to be waiting a long time.

There are salient reasons why the President shouldn't rant about Islam, and I've never suggested he should. There's no point in him inflaming and uniting the entire Islamic world against us. We want to take out the terror states one at a time.
I have stated that I believe this is ultimately a Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West, and I'm rather certain the President doesn't share that view. However, my disagreement here is moot for the foreseeable future, because I'd largely pursue the same strategy as the President in the near-term, and what I percieve to be the mid-term (I'd handle "palestine" a little differently, still recognizing the need to keep a lid on that powder-keg). My endgame would be different, but we're quite a ways away from that... and much could change in the interim that would affect either my views or the President's.
OTH, can we not agree that having President Bush pose for photo ops with known terrorist sympathizers, saying "Islam means peace," was perhaps, imprudent?

OTH, can we not agree that having President Bush pose for photo ops with known terrorist sympathizers, saying "Islam means peace," was perhaps, imprudent?

I'm wouldn't call it "imprudent." I'd call it "wishful thinking."

The fact is that Islam can co-exist peacefully with other religions. So, ideally, that's what Bush and everyone else should want. But the reality is that in most places on this planet, Islam is anything but peaceful, and it is completely intolerant of other religions. Hell, even within Islam we can see where Sunnis kill Shi'ites, and the Taliban killed everyone who didn't adopt their particular brand of Islam.

I understand what Bush was trying to do. He was trying to characterize the struggle as America versus people who engage in bad behavior. And certainly not every moslem is a terrorist.

Islam could be a peaceful religion theoretically, but it wasn't a theoretical plane that flew into the World Trade Center.

It is not necessary to point out the defects of the other side, merely to promote ours as the best, which is what he has done.

With all due respect, this simply isn't true when you're at war, especially if you're planning something like a large-scale invasion of another country which will result in a signifcant number of casualties.

Steyn is correct, wars are almost always won or lost before the first shot is even fired. Most sane people simply will not voluntarily go out of their way to kill another human unless they are convinced that their intended victim is the face of evil. This requires intensive training, and yes, even propaganda, for the civilians as well as the soldiers. Mothers and fathers don't like sacrificing their sons unless they're damn well sure that it's for a worthy cause.

American's are thirsting for a leader of RR's stature. It's precisely his stand against the Soviet Union that rallied the country. He was eloquent in defining our civilizations enemy. Bush, has the same opportunity. However, he spends his time cajoling the Arabs. The Arabs and Islamists have been on a rampage for 1000+ years. Their "spots" will not change. They are who they are. We on the other hand are continuously surprised when they behave like they always have.

If Bush would come out and say that Militant Islam is our enemy, and we will defeat it. The Public will rally around our president, and so will the non-islamofascist world.

Well, you are going to have to live with it, because I do not think that you are going to transform the President into Reagan, or Churchill. He sometimes has elements of each, but is, after all, a unique person, just as they were.

I think that the President will make the case when the time is right. No one except political junkies like us is paying attention to anything now. Even the press is off chasing their tails ignoring the gradual build-up that we have been undtertaking for months in the Persian Gulf.

Meanwhile, last night one of the Indianapolis stations did a "man on the street" interview with average folks, and not the intelligentsia, may I say. Not one person was confused about why we need to go to war with Iraq, and many favored the use of nuclear weapons if necessary.

Why some people think that the enemy has not been portrayed as evil I do not know. I can only conclude that they are not listening to what the President says.

From this President you are not going to get daily speeches. On the other hand, when he does give a speech, it is payed attention to by everyone, including the non-political citizens.

So Mr. Steyn needs patience and to pay a little more attention to things, and also to realize there is more than one way to skin a cat.

And those who pine for Reagan need to quit living in the past. A Ronald Reagan comes along once in a generation, if we are lucky. He was a unique person born of the times in which he matured. Appreciate what we have now, while being grateful that we had President Reagan when we did.

***George W. Bush had a rare opportunity after 11 September. He could have attempted to reverse the most toxic tide in the Western world: the sappy multiculturalism that insists all cultures are equally valid, even as they're trying to kill us. He could have argued that Western self-loathing is a psychosis we can no longer afford.***

The Perils of Designer Tribalism***The universalization-which is to say the utter trivialization-of compassion is one side of Third Worldism. Another side is the inversion of traditional moral and intellectual values. Europe once sought to bring enlightenment-literacy, civil society, modern technology-to benighted parts of the world. It did so in the name of progress and civilization. The ethic of Third Worldism dictates that yesterday's enlightenment be rebaptized as today's imperialistic oppression. For the committed Third Worldist, Bruckner points out,

salvation consists not only in a futile exchange of influences, but in the recognition of the superiority of foreign thought, in the study of their doctrines, and in conversion to their dogma. We must take on our former slaves as our models. . . . It is the duty and in the interest of the West to be made prisoner by its own barbarians.

Whatever the current object of adulation- the wisdom of the East, tribal Africa, Aboriginal Australia, pre-Columbian America -the message is the same: the absolute superiority of Otherness. The Third Worldist looks to the orient, to the tribal, to the primitive not for what they really are but for their evocative distance from the reality of modern European society and values.***

Mark Steyn: Multiculturalists are the real racists***Once upon a time we knew what to do. A British district officer, coming upon a scene of suttee, was told by the locals that in Hindu culture it was the custom to cremate a widow on her husband's funeral pyre. He replied that in British culture it was the custom to hang chaps who did that sort of thing. There are many great things about India -- curry, pyjamas, sitars, software engineers -- but suttee was not one of them. What a pity we're no longer capable of being "judgmental" and "discriminating." We're told the old-school imperialists were racists, that they thought of the wogs as inferior. But, if so, they at least considered them capable of improvement. The multiculturalists are just as racist. The only difference is that they think the wogs can never reform: Good heavens, you can't expect a Muslim in Norway not to go about raping the womenfolk! Much better just to get used to it.

As one is always obliged to explain when tiptoeing around this territory, I'm not a racist, only a culturist. I believe Western culture -- rule of law, universal suffrage, etc. -- is preferable to Arab culture: that's why there are millions of Muslims in Scandinavia, and four Scandinavians in Syria. Follow the traffic. I support immigration, but with assimilation. Without it, like a Hindu widow, we're slowly climbing on the funeral pyre of our lost empires. You see it in European foreign policy already: they're scared of their mysterious, swelling, unstoppable Muslim populations.***

Islam, the religion teaches hostility to non-Moslem is no different from any other religion teaching of superiority of their way of thinking or believing. The difference are 1) most other religions started to deemphasize the hate to others, and Islam failed to do so, and 2)most religions do not have the luxury of state support with billions of dollars budgeted to teach hate as well as networking of militants to force that religion down the throat of others. Now these two fundamental reasons are why the Islamists became a world-wide terror to be contended with.

If the US fails to recognize that, and starts to waste time and effort on changing dictatorship in Iraq, then we have people in charge who fail to understand the big picture.

First, we must recognize that all the Moslem fanatic nations are authoritarian dictatorship of one sort or another. For Example Mr. Mubarak of Egypt can sear all day that he has democracy, but he has been in office for more than 20 years, and keep getting 99% of the votes during the charade game they call election. Therefore, all these dictators who are able to govern with an iron fist, and forbid criticism of their government should also be able to FORBID CRITISM OF THE US, AND ISRAEL! Second, We should disregard the concept of “interfering in internal affairs of other nations”, if the internal affairs of these nations is to incite hate against us.

To conclude, the US was given a tremendous sympathy, and sense of support from most of the world after 9/11. We needed that to help close the flow of funds that support the terrorist Islamic cells. Less than a year later, with the cells still operating in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Philippine, as well as the marathon fundraising in Saudi Arabia, we are disregarding our main mission, and focusing on “changing the government of Iraq”. The world that was 100% behind us in combating the terrorists is now 100% against us! How inept can you get in wasting worldwide goodwill into a worldwide hate?

Again, the US should focus on Islamic terrorist groups and the venomous hate from the Moslem clerics. We must dictate to these dictators: “You employ these clerics, you are responsible for their hate preaching”--- if that continue, we will make you pay! JUST AS SIMPLE AS THAT!!

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.