A bombing pause -- for 12 months? (by Mark Steyn)

Maybe it's just me, but Ramadan seems to come round earlier every year. Around the world, the holy month is being observed in the time-honoured fashion we've come to know so well. There has been the traditional annual call for a "bombing pause" during Ramadan -- this year not from the humanitarian nancy boys at Oxfam and Co. but from Saddam himself, who apparently feels it would be "culturally insensitive" toward Muslims to depose him during the holiest of Islamic festivals. In calling for a bombing pause when we are not, alas, bombing him, the wannabe Saladin has usefully reminded us of the strange state of play this Ramadan. It has been a year since the fall of the Taliban, and in that year ... nothing has happened.

Oh, to be sure, there've been some useful bits of intelligence co-operation, and London and Washington have frozen the bank accounts of the dodgier Canadian charities. Two weeks ago, President Bush scored remarkable double victories over Tom Daschle's Senate Democrats and the French Security Council veto. But Senator Daschle and the French are not the enemy; they're just speed bumps on the way to the enemy, and both ought to have been receding into the distance in the rear-view mirror a long time ago. Instead, it's the war that keeps getting deferred, to the point where it's beginning to look like the Bush version of the Soviets' endlessly rolled-over Five Year Plans.

So we have had a bombing pause for 12 months. Some of us would like a pause in the bombing pause. But, if that's not possible, perhaps we could at least have a burbling pause for Ramadan, a temporary respite from the multicultural hooey. Instead, in his month-long Ramadan-a-ding-dong, George W. Bush is relentlessly on message: as he told Islamic bigwigs at the White House the other day, "Our nation is waging a war on a radical network of terrorists, not on a religion and not on a civilization."

Not true. The world is at war not with a Blofeldian "network" of crack evildoers, but with an ideology. Indeed, the evidence from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bali and North London suggests that it's now the ideology of choice for the world's troublemakers, as Communism once was. In 1989, with the Soviet Union crumbling into irrelevance, poor old Mikhail Gorbachev even received a helpful bit of advice from the cocky young upstart on the block, the Ayatollah Khomeini: "I strongly urge that in breaking down the walls of Marxist fantasies you do not fall into the prison of the West and the Great Satan," wrote the prototype Islamist nutcake. "I openly announce that the Islamic Republic of Iran, as the greatest and most powerful base of the Islamic world, can easily help fill up the ideological vacuum of your system." Yes, indeed, folks. We're the one-stop shop for all your ideological needs: Call today for a free quotation ("Death to the Great Satan!"). The Ayatollah found no takers in the Kremlin, but there's been no shortage of customers elsewhere in the world.

Daniel Pipes and others have argued that this is the Islamists' great innovation -- an essentially political project piggybacking on an ancient religion. In the last year, we've seen the advantages of such a strategy: You can't even identify your enemy without being accused of bigotry and intolerance. What we still can only guess at is the overlap between the ideology and the religion. It seems unlikely that many Muslims in, say, Newark or Calgary or Singapore would wish to be suicide bombers themselves, but what seems clear is that in these and other places there is -- to put it at its most delicate -- a widespread lack of revulsion at the things done in Islam's name. On the one hand, Muslims deny it's anything to do with them: A year ago, in The Ottawa Citizen's coast-to-coast survey of Canadian imams, all but two refused to accept Muslims had been involved in the September 11th attacks. On the other hand, even though it's nothing to do with them, they party: In Copenhagen as in Ramallah, Muslims cheered 9/11; in Keighley, Yorkshire, you couldn't get a taxi that night because the drivers were whooping it up.

This is the real war aim -- or it should be, if we're to have any chance of winning this thing: We have to change the hearts and minds of millions of Muslims, too many of whom are at best indifferent to great evil. "Changing" isn't the same as "winning the hearts and minds," which is multiculti codespeak for pre-emptively surrendering and agreeing not to disagree with them. For over a year now, nothing has been asked of Muslims, at home or abroad: you can be equivocal about bin Laden and an apologist for suicide bombers, and still get a photo-op with Dubya; you can be a member of a regime whose state TV stations and government-owned newspapers call for Muslims to kill all Jews and Christians, and you'll still get to kick your shoes off with George and Laura at the Crawford ranch.

This is not just wrong but self-defeating. As long as Dubya and Colin Powell and the rest are willing to prance around doing a month-long Islamic minstrel-show routine for the amusement of the A-list Arabs, Muslims will rightly see it for what it is: a sign of profound cultural weakness. Healthy relationships require at least some token reciprocity -- I said as much during the Monica business, and it never occurred to me the same problem would rear its ugly head during this Administration. But, hosting an iftaar (the end-of-day break-of-fast) for hundreds of head honchos from Muslim lobby groups, Colin Powell felt obliged to announce yet another burst of Islamic outreach. According to the Associated Press, he told his audience that "he is trying to expand programs to bring educators, journalists and political and religious leaders from Islamic countries to the United States."

Why? The problem isn't that Colin Powell's admissions program is too restrictive, but quite the opposite. It was his Saudi "visa express" conveyor belt that admitted the September 11th terrorists to the U.S. on forms filled in with a perfunctoriness no eighth-generation WASP Canadian snowbird would try getting away with. When asked why 15 of the 19 killers that day were Saudi, the Kingdom's Ambassador to London, my old friend Ghazi Algosaibi, replied with admirable candour that that was simply because it was easier for Saudis to get into America. In other words, the State Department's Islamic outreach facilitated the murder of thousands.

Meanwhile, the whining twerp on that I Can't Believe It's Not Osama audio cassette has expanded the Islamists' list of grievances to include not only the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258 -- I forget where Canada stood on that: it was OK as long as the Mongols were part of a multilateral pillage force? -- but also the West's support for East Timor's independence. East Timor! The left's pet cause of the late Nineties! And yet it turns out to be just another "root cause" like Yankee imperialism and Zionist occupation. Will it cause any of the West's self-loathers to question their support for the Islamists? Don't hold your breath. The Canadian position on this war is sadly typical: Some reports indicate that the Indonesian group which killed hundreds in Bali used bombs delivered by Hezbollah operatives. Two Canadians were among their victims. But Messrs Chrétien and Graham refuse to act against Hezbollah because, aside from killing Canadians, these chaps run some useful community activities. Canada's more "moderate" approach is that as long as they kill just a few Canadians -- say, hold it under three figures annually -- we can, so to speak, live with them. And, given that several Hezbollah execs seem to be running around Gaza with Canadian passports, in terms of how many Canucks are murdered and how many are murderers, it's probably a wash. This is cultural sensitivity taken to its logical conclusion.

As things stand, there are only three countries that are serious about the "war on terror": America, Britain and Australia. And, even within that shrunken rump of the West, there are fierce divisions: Australia's sissy press makes The Toronto Star look like, well, the National Post; it's doubtful whether Tony Blair speaks for more than 30% of his parliamentary party; and President Bush's resoluteness doesn't extend to his Secretary of State or even, during Ramadan, to himself. The longer this already too long period of phony war continues, the more likely it is that even these stalwarts will decay and Canadianize. I worry about the thin line on which our civilization depends. This last year has been too quiet. Next Ramadan, when the traditional calls for a bombing pause are issued, let's hope there's some bombing to pause.

"Peace" during Ramadan is only supposed to extend to the themselves except when they feel like it.

I don't recall any World Muslim call for "peace" during Christmas or Easter this past year, and those were only two days, not an entire month!

The sooner we stop fighting this "war" in a PC fashion, the sooner we will start winning it and not just using it as an excuse for yet another feckless and deadly Diversity Campaign!

If they want to abstain from violence on all religious holidays not just Muslim but also Christian, Jewish and Hindu. Including not firing at our planes in the no-fly zone, I'm sure that we would be more than happy to do the same. And since they have the bigger history of attacking others on religious holidays they should abstain first.

But if they want to continue in their ways, then I hope they get a blast out of Ramadan.

Yet another Steyn slash straight across the jugular. The man literally never misses his mark.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

The longer this already too long period of phony war continues, the more likely it is that even these stalwarts will decay and Canadianize.

I live in New Jersey. We canadianized about twenty years ago.

We have to change the hearts and minds of millions of Muslims, too many of whom are at best indifferent to great evil.

Hey, we have a system for that - worked in 'Nam. "Give me your hearts and minds or we'll burn your %#$@ing huts down!"

Great column. Somehow i don't think the WH gets to read these.

But, a nit, this is the statement that i disagree with -

>>As things stand, there are only three countries that are serious about the "war on terror": America, Britain and Australia.

I think he needs to add Israel, Russia and India even the Phillipines, and hopefully, Turkey.

and President Bush's resoluteness doesn't extend to his Secretary of State or even, during Ramadan, to himself.

Uh oh, some folks on your ping list won't like that one. Steyn has just become a Bush basher! lol

Canada's more "moderate" approach is that as long
as they kill just a few Canadians -- say, hold it under
three figures annually -- we can, so to speak, live with them.

Fair enough, but it's not just Canada. How many people
does OJ Simpson have to kill before it is murder?
More than two. Or how many Branch Davidians
does the Justice Department have to kill before it
is mass murder?

Sometimes Steyn can't help himself.

He predicted that we would have already liberated Iraq by Labor day; which was crazy if only because of the heat. But when LDay rolled around and no Saddam scalp, he was pissed.

He didn't like the way Bush was running the elections, and he said so. But a week of so ago, he did a mea culpa.

There was the Sorry, Mr President, you've lost a fan column about the steel tariffs. Hey, I disagree about the tariffs, but I don't go off the deep end about it like Steyn did.

Steyn is the best at what he does, IMO. But after reading every column he has written in the past 3 or so years, I've come to this comclusion: Mark Steyn is very short tempered. He wants everything done now.

As we all know, W is very patient. He will let things play out in their natural course. And Steyn has a hard problem comprehending that.

>>As things stand, there are only three countries that are serious about the "war on terror": America, Britain and Australia.

I think he needs to add Israel, Russia and India even the Phillipines, and hopefully, Turkey.

How many of the countries you listed are truly serious about a global war on terror? It seems that they're really (justifiably) interested in the bad guys in their own back yards. They talk the rhetoric of global war, but IMO that's for American consumption (so we won't get in the way of them dealing with their 'local' problems).

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.