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.

The criticism from Mr. Steyn was that President Bush had not declared this as evil. He has. He is, of course, not the final arbiter of evil, nor do I think so. Your comment shows how desperate you are to attack Bush supporters.

In addition, I do not believe that my defense of the President has ever included nasty comments sucuh as you are hurling at me. I certainly never invaded a PRAYER THREAD, as you did, to push my political agenda.

Give it up. You don't like me because I support the President, whom you obviously detest. The sad thing is that the President would probably listen politely to your complaints.

Congratulations on your marriage. Perhaps you will learn something as you move forward in life. Hopefully, courtesy will be one of those items.

"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."

I understand your point, but I ask you to name three practicing, rational "muslims" who do not support terrorism. The "religion" does not allow for differences of degree. Islam is no more a religion than democracy, or dictatorship, or socialism , or communism.Islam is a governmental policy system utilised by homicidal maniacs.

I am not swayed by ignorant arguments otherwise.

In a unipolar world, it’s clear that the real enemy in this war is ourselves, and our lemming-like rush to cultural suicide.

Steyn started out reasonably enough, but then stuff such as the above crept in and he flipped out. I think Bush as been skillful in pursuing the right balance between the carrot and the stick. I don't think it is in the US's best interests to declare a cultural war against Islam, even if we think that Islam has certain dysfunctional characteristics in a modern pluralistic capitalist world. Steyn misses all this nuance. Bush is right, and Steryn is wrong. Steyn is smarter than Bush in IQ no doubt, but he is not as wise. I am glad Bush is president and not Steryn. JMO.

Bush is right, and Steryn is wrong. Steyn is smarter than Bush in IQ no doubt, but he is not as wise. I am glad Bush is president and not Steyn. JMO.

Steyn also does not have scores of intelligent advisers keeping him on track with regard to the issues. When one credits Bush for something, one should realize he is brediting the Bush Administration.

Steyn is most assuredly a deeper thinker than W., but W. is a good American, and that is enough.

FReegards...

I didn't "invade" with a political agenda. I came to the thread with a spiritual one. That being: that the president - or anyone for that matter - is due any more consideration in prayer on so routine a basis. He's not "running the country" as you like to believe. He's but one man among millions in this country and in this world. It is better to pray God's will be done among all of us as Americans, rather than wish particular grace upon one person, as if all hinges upon him.

Or, did you likewise pray for President Clinton? He was president - and legally so - for eight years, didn't you know that? Did you declare to his detractors that their opinions didn't matter because "he's president" as you do with Bush?

Well, did you?

Give it up. You don't like me because I support the President, whom you obviously detest.

I don't dislike you. Nor do I detest the president. I merely find you ridiculous because of your hyper-sycophantic postings.

Oh, please, start up as a spiritual expert again. Bah!

You do not fool me one bit. Your coments seem to me to be based on the sin of envy, and I suggest that you think about that for a while.

My question to you is why you think I am hyper-sycophantic? I support the President, make no apologies for it, much as Keyes supporters or Buchanan supporters do. I disagree occasionally with certain policies the President signs off on, but that is to be expected with anyone.

So what, exactly, is your beef with me? You made a special point of singling out my post to disagree with, although there are many others on this thread expressing the exact same sentiments. What is the deal with you?

You do not fool me one bit. Your coments seem to me to be based on the sin of envy, and I suggest that you think about that for a while.

There's nothing to envy of one who has nothing.

And I comment because of the sin of idolatry. Namely, yours.

So... did you support the President when the President was named "Clinton"? Did you pray for him with equal fervor also?

No, I did not support President Clinton, as you well know. What is the point of that comment...because I said I supported "the President" you think I support all presidents? Really Darth, you are getting quite petty.

I prayed that President Clinton would come to Christ and renounce his ways. I wanted him to change, but he did not.

I also prayed for the patience to make it through the 8 years of his presidency, and to not be consumed by hate.

I also prayed for President Bush to win the electioin, thanked God for it and continue to do so every day, for God is the final arbiter in this. As far as your accusation of idolatry...I can only say that you are far wide of the mark.

I have no more to say to you. Enjoy your life.

No, I did not support President Clinton, as you well know.

You said earlier that...

...if you don't like the President's style and strategy, you are just going to have to learn to live with it. Just because you, or Mark Steyn, or any one of a hundred other gripers isn't pleased with his mmanner of addressing this issue does not mean he is going to change.

So does this apply across the board to ALL presidents, or only to one president? Because if you're consistent in the least bit, you will agree that you should have put up and shut up while Clinton was in the Oval Office. That's pretty much the "if you're being raped, relax and enjoy it" argument.

Well, did YOU shut up when Clinton was president? Because if you didn't, then you've no rights at all telling others to oblige this president with silent dissent.

What is the point of that comment...because I said I supported "the President" you think I support all presidents?

This tells us where your heart lies, Marple. You really don't give a flying rat's butt about what's best for the country. You only want to feel empowered, and you get your jollies by reminding everyone around you that "your guy" is in the White House. You don't want to destroy overwhelming power over people... you want to be part of that power. And where you conflict with MANY of us on FR is that a lot of us refuse to settle for one party trading places with another, when we seriously want NO party over us, period.

I prayed that President Clinton would come to Christ and renounce his ways. I wanted him to change, but he did not.

And you would declare that he has no hope left at all, that God has turned His eyes from him? God is doing for Clinton what He's done for you, me and everyone else on this planet: trying to get us home. And you would judge Clinton unworthy of that?

Now who's "petty"?

I also prayed for the patience to make it through the 8 years of his presidency, and to not be consumed by hate.

You failed.

I also prayed for President Bush to win the electioin, thanked God for it and continue to do so every day, for God is the final arbiter in this.

Wrong prayer. You should have prayed for God's will to be done, and not our own.

You're not paying attention. The point is, George W.Bush isn't Ronald Reagan and expecting him to act like Reagan is ridiculous. Bush has been in office 19 months and in that time has demonstrated remarkable leadership during a very difficult time in America's history. Bushes efforts haven't been perfect and he has pissed off many conservatives, including this one. But overall, I believe Bush and Company have done a very good job and when Republicans retake the Senate this November, the President will be able to get more of his conservative agenda passed through the full Congress and not halted by liberal Democartic obstructionists, like Little Tommy Daschle, Hillary Rotten Clinton and FatTeddy Kennedy.

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.