It is a given, that civilized society wants to live in peace. But the disagreements begin, when discussing how to obtain it.
I am a firm believer in facts and logic. Of course, not all facts are scientifically proven, so that is where logical thinking comes in. Logical thinking must include the study of history. In my post, War is a necessary evil, I spoke of how war has been in existence, since God put man on earth.
And speaking of God, this is the definition of religion, that I prescribe to:
* Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
* A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
* Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
* A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
* Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt,
adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and
during the practice of ritual.
* Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
* A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of
the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all
purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into
it.
* A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
* A social group bound together by the above.
It describes religious systems but not non-religious systems. It encompasses the features common in belief systems generally acknowledged as religions without focusing on specific characteristics unique to just a few.
Within all religions of the world, there are "cults" or "sects". Throughout history, the label "cult" has been slapped on any religious movement that fell outside the mainstream, including nearly all of the Protestant sects that developed in the 1500s.
For many modern Americas, the word "cult" evokes images of black-clad figures gathered around an outdoor fire muttering satanic incantations or vacant-eyed teenagers with plastic smiles selling flowers on a street corner.
In most cases, experts say neither image applies. Most modern cult groups appear to be fairly normal on the surface. Indeed, only a very fine line separates cults from "socially acceptable" religious organizations.
Generally, cults or sects are simply a group of followers, with their own beliefs. And as such, do not necessarily pose a threat.
Some, including myself in the past have labeled Islam a cult. I now realize this is an error. By the true definition above, it is a religion. But, not all religions are peaceful. And despite the proclamations by many who follow Islam, it has a long history of violence. And this behavior is is still evident all over the world.
Just like Christians, Muslims have their "holy book", the Quran. The Qur’an is believed to be the direct Word of God and must be obeyed without question. The basic teaching of Islam is embodied in the Quran, believed to have been given to Muhammad by God through the angel Gabriel. After Muhammad's death, his followers sought to regulate their lives by his divinely inspired works; if the Quran did not cover a specific situation, they turned to the hadith (tradition, remembered actions, and sayings of the Prophet). Together, the Quran and the hadith form the sunna (custom or usage), a comprehensive guide to the spiritual, ethical, and social life of Muslims.
One concept within the Quran is Jihad. Muslims themselves disagree on what jihad is supposed to mean. Many modernists in the West deny that it has anything to do with violence. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, asserts that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Instead, jihad is "a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression." CAIR even denies that Islam includes any concept of a "holy war."
In the Qur'an, however, and even in later Muslim usage, the term jihad is usually followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, which means "in the path of God." The description of violence against the enemies of the Muslim community as jihad fi sabil Illah gave a sacred meaning to what was otherwise just tribal warfare.
The Hadith is a collection of reports of sayings and actions of Muhammad, and it follows the Qur'an as the most important source of Islamic law. In Hadith collections, jihad almost always refers to armed action. As an example, there are nearly 200 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, and all assume that jihad means warfare. It is not surprising, then, that the majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists understand jihad in a military sense.
Contrary to popular perception, jihad is not about forced conversions. It certainly may have filled that role very early on, when Islam was first expanding, but that hasn't been the case for a very long time. It is instead a political goal: bringing as much of the world under the control of Islam as is possible. This then allows for the fulfillment of two other goals: promoting Islam among non-Muslims and establishing a just political and social order (only possible under Islam).
Which brings us to Sharia law. Islamic sharia or religious law derives from the Quran, the hadith, and from a large body of interpretive commentary that developed in the early Islamic period. Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses; flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor. Other practices that are woven into the sharia are female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. "With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.
Sharia vs. Secularism
In a 2007 University of Maryland poll, more than 60 percent of the populations in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia responded that democracy was a good way to govern their respective countries, while at the same time, an average of 71 percent agreed with requiring "strict application of [sharia] law in every Islamic country." Whether democracy and Islam can coexist is a topic of heated debate. Some Islamists argue democracy is a purely Western concept imposed on Muslim countries. Others feel Islam necessitates a democratic system and that democracy has a basis in the Quran since "mutual consultation" among the people is commended (42:38 Quran).
Government under God. In those Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion listed in the constitution, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws. Examples include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, where the governments derive their legitimacy from Islam. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, among others, it is also forbidden to enact legislation that is antithetical to Islam. Saudi Arabia employs one of the strictest interpretations of sharia. Women are not allowed to drive, are under the guardianship of male relatives at all times, and must be completely covered in public. Elsewhere, governments are much more lenient, as in the United Arab Emirates, where alcohol is tolerated. Non-Muslims are not expected to obey sharia and in most countries, they are the jurisdiction of special committees and adjunct courts under the control of the government.
Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. Whilst the Sharia may have been inspired by the Holy Quran, it has developed and evolved through time and through the efforts of men. The Sharia should be open to analysis, research and criticism like any other system of law, practice and belief. Its divine inspiration should no more shield it from criticism than Christianity should have been spared criticism for burning heretics or massacring unbelievers. The more pernicious interpretations of the Sharia today fall far short of the minimum standards of justice widely demanded by the international community and by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.
Why did I decide to right this post?
A Dangerous Delusion
We go to war to defend our interests, not to encourage democracy.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Right after 9/11, Pres. George W. Bush made a succinct demand of the Taliban: Hand over Osama bin Laden and his cohorts or face horrific consequences. The demand, the president emphasized, was non-negotiable. The Taliban refused, insisting that the U.S. produce evidence against al-Qaeda. Because Islamists — not just terrorists but all Islamists — believe the United States is the enemy of Islam, the Taliban also floated the possibility of rendering bin Laden to a third country. No deal, Bush replied. As promised, the consequences were swift and severe. Yet, two weeks into the first bombing raids, the president offered the Taliban a “second chance.” Mullah Omar declined to take it. The invasion proceeded and the rest is history.
It’s now a long, confused history. The distance we’ve traveled from the clarity of the first days is manifest in the Right’s ongoing intramural skirmish over the eminent George Will’s latest column.
Will has called for a steep reduction of our 60,000-strong military force (out of a total of about 100,000 coalition troops) in Afghanistan. That country, he argues, is an incorrigible mess where we’re engaged more in social work than in combat. Instead, Will would have our forces retreat to offshore bases from which, “using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units,” American efforts could be concentrated on Afghanistan’s “porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.” This suggestion comes just as other conservatives are backing a Pentagon proposal to add about 40,000 troops. They seek a counterinsurgency surge for Afghanistan, similar to the one they claim worked so well in Iraq three years ago.
There’s no question that the surge in Iraq resulted in the rout of al-Qaeda. For that reason, it has to be counted as a net success. It would have been a strategic disaster to retreat while al-Qaeda was present and fortifying itself.
But then there was the rest of the surge rationale: the claim that we needed to secure the Iraqi population so a stable government, one that would be a reliable ally against terror, could emerge. The same argument now is being made about Afghanistan. Have you taken a look at Iraq lately? We went there to topple Saddam; we stayed to build an Islamic “democracy,” and the result is an Iranian satellite. The new Iraq is a sharia state that wants us gone, has denied us basing rights for future military operations, has pressured a weak American president into releasing Iran-backed terrorists, has rolled out the red carpet for Hezbollah, allows Iranian spies to operate freely (causing the recent ouster of the intelligence minister, who was an American ally), tolerates the persecution of religious minorities, and whose soon-to-take-power ruling coalition vows “not to establish relations with the Zionist entity” — a vow that would simply continue longstanding Iraqi policy, as Diana West points out. If that’s success, what does failure look like?
Democracy-project naysayers (I’ve long been one) reluctantly supported the surge in Iraq because our nation could not allow al-Qaeda a victory there. By contrast, as Rich Lowry mentions in passing at The Corner, “al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan.” Rich’s observation came in the course of chiding Will’s advocacy of “counterterrorist strikes from a distance.” But if al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, why do we still need 60,000 troops there, let alone 40,000 more? We don’t invade other hostile countries where al-Qaeda is actually present (see, e.g., Iran, Kenya, Yemen, Somalia), and the likelihood of al-Qaeda’s return is not enough to keep us in other countries where we’re not wanted (e.g., Iraq). That is, we’re already banking on our capacity to conduct counterterrorist strikes from a distance.
[...]
Notwithstanding al-Qaeda’s departure, the idea now seems to be that we should substantially escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan to replicate the experiment that supposedly worked so well in Iraq. It’s the age of Obama, so our commanders are talking not about combat but about a stimulus package to fight the “culture of poverty.” As military officials described it to the New York Times, “the overriding goal of American and NATO forces would not be so much to kill Taliban insurgents as to make ordinary Afghans feel secure, and thus isolate the insurgents. That means using force less and focusing on economic development and good governance.” This is consistent with the delusional belief that terrorism is caused by poverty, corruption, resentment, Guantanamo Bay, enhanced interrogation tactics, Israel — in short, anything other than an ideology rooted in Islamic scripture.
What Will is being faithless about is the democratic vision. Democracy enthusiasts have always conflated the war and the dream, but the two are and will always be separate. The American people overwhelmingly supported, and still support, a vigorous war — not an experiment, but a war — against the enemies who threaten us: Islamist terrorists and the regimes that abet them. Americans do not support, have no patience for, and would never go to war over the thankless enterprise of transforming the Islamic world.
Mind you, I’m no dove. I daresay I’m as much or more of a hawk than the nation-building side of the house. I’ve bit my tongue for a long time, and it kills me to write this, because I’ve never bought the nonsense about how you can support the troops but not support the mission. And if someone can convince me we need 40,000 or 400,000 or 4 million more troops in Afghanistan to destroy enemies who would otherwise attack the United States, count me in. But I think Rich, Pete, and others I admire — Bill Kristol, Fred Kagan, and Jen Rubin, for example — go too far in their condemnation of Will. Americans have a right to wonder what on earth we’re doing. The war against Islamist terror is global and, even in the region where we are fighting, has always involved more than Iraq and Afghanistan. There are hostile regimes (particularly in Iran) that we have left in place, unscathed, and growing stronger. For all the brave “you’re with us or you’re against us” talk after 9/11, we never walked that walk. Americans would have supported such a war, which was — and is — patently in the national interest. There is no political will for it now because, without first defeating the enemy, we tried to reprise the Marshall Plan in a place where it won’t work.
[..]
There has been a fascinating point of alignment since 9/11 between the anti-war Left and the democracy hawks. Both sides have failed to identify the enemy: Islamists. The hard Left resists because it doesn’t see Islamism as an enemy at all. The Islamists, like the Left, regard the United States as the problem in the world.
The fact is, and history shows, you have no choice, it's all or nothing. The two examples I can point out are Japan and Germany. Did we go into these countries and try to enclose there current ideologies with "democracy"? No. We knew that the militaristic ideology in Japan and Nazi ideology in Germany, were totally incompatible with democracy. To me, the term democracy is a blanket term for a humane government who treats it's citizens with respect and dignity. A government that does not rule it's people with an iron hand. Oppression breeds contempt. And contempt leads to extremism.
Islam by it's very nature is an oppressive religion. Not to say that there are not oppressive Christian religions, because there are. But, unlike Islam, they do not force compliance or threaten violence for leaving. They are not a system of government and most of us believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. Christianity has a dark history. But unlike Islam, it has evolved over time.
If there are Muslims in the world who do not subscribe to the rules, they are few and far between. For the most part, they are not living a pure Islamic life. We have many examples of "good muslims" in the world, who have come into the spotlight due to honor killings. Many of them in western countries. These people on the surface appeared "normal". They were and still are, in the eyes of Islam. There are many people within CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups, who appear on the surface to be westernized. But as many of us here know, this is a "western facade". A mask to hide their true feelings and missions. We also know that they have a goal in mind, to turn the United States into an Islamic government. They are using their own version of Jihad. Granted it is not violent, but it is dangerous. And in many ways, they are more dangerous than the violent extremists. They have been able to fool people into thinking they are "westernized", they are "peaceful", they are "normal". They use words that they know are lies, to soothe people's fears. And it is working. They are gradually breaking down western nations and infiltrating their governments. Hoping and wishing that they are somehow "different", doesn't make them so.
If our world is to find the peace we so crave, we have no choice. Either Islam needs to be knocked down, sent cowering into the corner and forced to change or it needs to be totally banned.
Yes, I want to see "democracy" spread. I want to see peace. But just like in Japan and Germany, it means being very violent, to get there. Islam will not go down without a fight.
History is a great teacher. Japan and Germany or only two examples of what works. This new experiment is a failure.
Multiculturalism can be a positive value in society, but not when it results in harm to vulnerable members of society. If the government has any duty to protect cultural practices, it has a prior and much higher obligation to protect the rights, life, and safety of each individual citizen — even if that means contradicting traditional cultural practices.
I am a firm believer in facts and logic. Of course, not all facts are scientifically proven, so that is where logical thinking comes in. Logical thinking must include the study of history. In my post, War is a necessary evil, I spoke of how war has been in existence, since God put man on earth.
And speaking of God, this is the definition of religion, that I prescribe to:
* Belief in something sacred (for example, gods or other supernatural beings).
* A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
* Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
* A moral code believed to have a sacred or supernatural basis.
* Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt,
adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and
during the practice of ritual.
* Prayer and other forms of communication with the supernatural.
* A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of
the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all
purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into
it.
* A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view.
* A social group bound together by the above.
It describes religious systems but not non-religious systems. It encompasses the features common in belief systems generally acknowledged as religions without focusing on specific characteristics unique to just a few.
Within all religions of the world, there are "cults" or "sects". Throughout history, the label "cult" has been slapped on any religious movement that fell outside the mainstream, including nearly all of the Protestant sects that developed in the 1500s.
For many modern Americas, the word "cult" evokes images of black-clad figures gathered around an outdoor fire muttering satanic incantations or vacant-eyed teenagers with plastic smiles selling flowers on a street corner.
In most cases, experts say neither image applies. Most modern cult groups appear to be fairly normal on the surface. Indeed, only a very fine line separates cults from "socially acceptable" religious organizations.
Generally, cults or sects are simply a group of followers, with their own beliefs. And as such, do not necessarily pose a threat.
Some, including myself in the past have labeled Islam a cult. I now realize this is an error. By the true definition above, it is a religion. But, not all religions are peaceful. And despite the proclamations by many who follow Islam, it has a long history of violence. And this behavior is is still evident all over the world.
Just like Christians, Muslims have their "holy book", the Quran. The Qur’an is believed to be the direct Word of God and must be obeyed without question. The basic teaching of Islam is embodied in the Quran, believed to have been given to Muhammad by God through the angel Gabriel. After Muhammad's death, his followers sought to regulate their lives by his divinely inspired works; if the Quran did not cover a specific situation, they turned to the hadith (tradition, remembered actions, and sayings of the Prophet). Together, the Quran and the hadith form the sunna (custom or usage), a comprehensive guide to the spiritual, ethical, and social life of Muslims.
One concept within the Quran is Jihad. Muslims themselves disagree on what jihad is supposed to mean. Many modernists in the West deny that it has anything to do with violence. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group, asserts that jihad "does not mean 'holy war.'" Instead, jihad is "a central and broad Islamic concept that includes the struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense . . . or fighting against tyranny or oppression." CAIR even denies that Islam includes any concept of a "holy war."
In the Qur'an, however, and even in later Muslim usage, the term jihad is usually followed by the expression fi sabil Illah, which means "in the path of God." The description of violence against the enemies of the Muslim community as jihad fi sabil Illah gave a sacred meaning to what was otherwise just tribal warfare.
The Hadith is a collection of reports of sayings and actions of Muhammad, and it follows the Qur'an as the most important source of Islamic law. In Hadith collections, jihad almost always refers to armed action. As an example, there are nearly 200 references to jihad in the most standard collection of hadith, Sahih al-Bukhari, and all assume that jihad means warfare. It is not surprising, then, that the majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists understand jihad in a military sense.
Contrary to popular perception, jihad is not about forced conversions. It certainly may have filled that role very early on, when Islam was first expanding, but that hasn't been the case for a very long time. It is instead a political goal: bringing as much of the world under the control of Islam as is possible. This then allows for the fulfillment of two other goals: promoting Islam among non-Muslims and establishing a just political and social order (only possible under Islam).
Which brings us to Sharia law. Islamic sharia or religious law derives from the Quran, the hadith, and from a large body of interpretive commentary that developed in the early Islamic period. Marriage and divorce are the most significant aspects of sharia, but criminal law is the most controversial. In sharia, there are categories of offenses: those that are prescribed a specific punishment in the Quran, known as hadd punishments, those that fall under a judge's discretion, and those resolved through a tit-for-tat measure (ie., blood money paid to the family of a murder victim). There are five hadd crimes: unlawful sexual intercourse (sex outside of marriage and adultery), false accusation of unlawful sexual intercourse, wine drinking (sometimes extended to include all alcohol drinking), theft, and highway robbery. Punishments for hadd offenses; flogging, stoning, amputation, exile, or execution. Honor killings, murders committed in retaliation for bringing dishonor on one's family, are a worldwide problem. While precise statistics are scarce, the UN estimates thousands of women are killed annually in the name of family honor. Other practices that are woven into the sharia are female genital mutilation, adolescent marriages, polygamy, and gender-biased inheritance rules. Those that seek to eliminate or at least modify these controversial practices cite the religious tenet of tajdid. The concept is one of renewal, where Islamic society must be reformed constantly to keep it in its purest form. "With the passage of time and changing circumstances since traditional classical jurisprudence was founded, people's problems have changed and conversely, there must be new thought to address these changes and events," says Dr. Abdul Fatah Idris, head of the comparative jurisprudence department at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Though many scholars share this line of thought, there are those who consider the purest form of Islam to be the one practiced in the seventh century.
Sharia vs. Secularism
In a 2007 University of Maryland poll, more than 60 percent of the populations in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia responded that democracy was a good way to govern their respective countries, while at the same time, an average of 71 percent agreed with requiring "strict application of [sharia] law in every Islamic country." Whether democracy and Islam can coexist is a topic of heated debate. Some Islamists argue democracy is a purely Western concept imposed on Muslim countries. Others feel Islam necessitates a democratic system and that democracy has a basis in the Quran since "mutual consultation" among the people is commended (42:38 Quran).
Government under God. In those Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion listed in the constitution, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws. Examples include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, where the governments derive their legitimacy from Islam. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, among others, it is also forbidden to enact legislation that is antithetical to Islam. Saudi Arabia employs one of the strictest interpretations of sharia. Women are not allowed to drive, are under the guardianship of male relatives at all times, and must be completely covered in public. Elsewhere, governments are much more lenient, as in the United Arab Emirates, where alcohol is tolerated. Non-Muslims are not expected to obey sharia and in most countries, they are the jurisdiction of special committees and adjunct courts under the control of the government.
Sharia law is the instrument by which Political Islam seeks to control the Muslim world. Whilst the Sharia may have been inspired by the Holy Quran, it has developed and evolved through time and through the efforts of men. The Sharia should be open to analysis, research and criticism like any other system of law, practice and belief. Its divine inspiration should no more shield it from criticism than Christianity should have been spared criticism for burning heretics or massacring unbelievers. The more pernicious interpretations of the Sharia today fall far short of the minimum standards of justice widely demanded by the international community and by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The Sharia should be opposed for its imposition of theocracy over democracy, its abuse of human rights, its institutionalized discrimination, its denial of human dignity and individual autonomy, its punishment of alternative lifestyle choices, and for the severity of its punishments.
Why did I decide to right this post?
A Dangerous Delusion
We go to war to defend our interests, not to encourage democracy.
By Andrew C. McCarthy
Right after 9/11, Pres. George W. Bush made a succinct demand of the Taliban: Hand over Osama bin Laden and his cohorts or face horrific consequences. The demand, the president emphasized, was non-negotiable. The Taliban refused, insisting that the U.S. produce evidence against al-Qaeda. Because Islamists — not just terrorists but all Islamists — believe the United States is the enemy of Islam, the Taliban also floated the possibility of rendering bin Laden to a third country. No deal, Bush replied. As promised, the consequences were swift and severe. Yet, two weeks into the first bombing raids, the president offered the Taliban a “second chance.” Mullah Omar declined to take it. The invasion proceeded and the rest is history.
It’s now a long, confused history. The distance we’ve traveled from the clarity of the first days is manifest in the Right’s ongoing intramural skirmish over the eminent George Will’s latest column.
Will has called for a steep reduction of our 60,000-strong military force (out of a total of about 100,000 coalition troops) in Afghanistan. That country, he argues, is an incorrigible mess where we’re engaged more in social work than in combat. Instead, Will would have our forces retreat to offshore bases from which, “using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent special forces units,” American efforts could be concentrated on Afghanistan’s “porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.” This suggestion comes just as other conservatives are backing a Pentagon proposal to add about 40,000 troops. They seek a counterinsurgency surge for Afghanistan, similar to the one they claim worked so well in Iraq three years ago.
There’s no question that the surge in Iraq resulted in the rout of al-Qaeda. For that reason, it has to be counted as a net success. It would have been a strategic disaster to retreat while al-Qaeda was present and fortifying itself.
But then there was the rest of the surge rationale: the claim that we needed to secure the Iraqi population so a stable government, one that would be a reliable ally against terror, could emerge. The same argument now is being made about Afghanistan. Have you taken a look at Iraq lately? We went there to topple Saddam; we stayed to build an Islamic “democracy,” and the result is an Iranian satellite. The new Iraq is a sharia state that wants us gone, has denied us basing rights for future military operations, has pressured a weak American president into releasing Iran-backed terrorists, has rolled out the red carpet for Hezbollah, allows Iranian spies to operate freely (causing the recent ouster of the intelligence minister, who was an American ally), tolerates the persecution of religious minorities, and whose soon-to-take-power ruling coalition vows “not to establish relations with the Zionist entity” — a vow that would simply continue longstanding Iraqi policy, as Diana West points out. If that’s success, what does failure look like?
Democracy-project naysayers (I’ve long been one) reluctantly supported the surge in Iraq because our nation could not allow al-Qaeda a victory there. By contrast, as Rich Lowry mentions in passing at The Corner, “al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan.” Rich’s observation came in the course of chiding Will’s advocacy of “counterterrorist strikes from a distance.” But if al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan, why do we still need 60,000 troops there, let alone 40,000 more? We don’t invade other hostile countries where al-Qaeda is actually present (see, e.g., Iran, Kenya, Yemen, Somalia), and the likelihood of al-Qaeda’s return is not enough to keep us in other countries where we’re not wanted (e.g., Iraq). That is, we’re already banking on our capacity to conduct counterterrorist strikes from a distance.
[...]
Notwithstanding al-Qaeda’s departure, the idea now seems to be that we should substantially escalate our military involvement in Afghanistan to replicate the experiment that supposedly worked so well in Iraq. It’s the age of Obama, so our commanders are talking not about combat but about a stimulus package to fight the “culture of poverty.” As military officials described it to the New York Times, “the overriding goal of American and NATO forces would not be so much to kill Taliban insurgents as to make ordinary Afghans feel secure, and thus isolate the insurgents. That means using force less and focusing on economic development and good governance.” This is consistent with the delusional belief that terrorism is caused by poverty, corruption, resentment, Guantanamo Bay, enhanced interrogation tactics, Israel — in short, anything other than an ideology rooted in Islamic scripture.
What Will is being faithless about is the democratic vision. Democracy enthusiasts have always conflated the war and the dream, but the two are and will always be separate. The American people overwhelmingly supported, and still support, a vigorous war — not an experiment, but a war — against the enemies who threaten us: Islamist terrorists and the regimes that abet them. Americans do not support, have no patience for, and would never go to war over the thankless enterprise of transforming the Islamic world.
Mind you, I’m no dove. I daresay I’m as much or more of a hawk than the nation-building side of the house. I’ve bit my tongue for a long time, and it kills me to write this, because I’ve never bought the nonsense about how you can support the troops but not support the mission. And if someone can convince me we need 40,000 or 400,000 or 4 million more troops in Afghanistan to destroy enemies who would otherwise attack the United States, count me in. But I think Rich, Pete, and others I admire — Bill Kristol, Fred Kagan, and Jen Rubin, for example — go too far in their condemnation of Will. Americans have a right to wonder what on earth we’re doing. The war against Islamist terror is global and, even in the region where we are fighting, has always involved more than Iraq and Afghanistan. There are hostile regimes (particularly in Iran) that we have left in place, unscathed, and growing stronger. For all the brave “you’re with us or you’re against us” talk after 9/11, we never walked that walk. Americans would have supported such a war, which was — and is — patently in the national interest. There is no political will for it now because, without first defeating the enemy, we tried to reprise the Marshall Plan in a place where it won’t work.
[..]
There has been a fascinating point of alignment since 9/11 between the anti-war Left and the democracy hawks. Both sides have failed to identify the enemy: Islamists. The hard Left resists because it doesn’t see Islamism as an enemy at all. The Islamists, like the Left, regard the United States as the problem in the world.
The fact is, and history shows, you have no choice, it's all or nothing. The two examples I can point out are Japan and Germany. Did we go into these countries and try to enclose there current ideologies with "democracy"? No. We knew that the militaristic ideology in Japan and Nazi ideology in Germany, were totally incompatible with democracy. To me, the term democracy is a blanket term for a humane government who treats it's citizens with respect and dignity. A government that does not rule it's people with an iron hand. Oppression breeds contempt. And contempt leads to extremism.
Islam by it's very nature is an oppressive religion. Not to say that there are not oppressive Christian religions, because there are. But, unlike Islam, they do not force compliance or threaten violence for leaving. They are not a system of government and most of us believe wholeheartedly in the separation of church and state. Christianity has a dark history. But unlike Islam, it has evolved over time.
If there are Muslims in the world who do not subscribe to the rules, they are few and far between. For the most part, they are not living a pure Islamic life. We have many examples of "good muslims" in the world, who have come into the spotlight due to honor killings. Many of them in western countries. These people on the surface appeared "normal". They were and still are, in the eyes of Islam. There are many people within CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups, who appear on the surface to be westernized. But as many of us here know, this is a "western facade". A mask to hide their true feelings and missions. We also know that they have a goal in mind, to turn the United States into an Islamic government. They are using their own version of Jihad. Granted it is not violent, but it is dangerous. And in many ways, they are more dangerous than the violent extremists. They have been able to fool people into thinking they are "westernized", they are "peaceful", they are "normal". They use words that they know are lies, to soothe people's fears. And it is working. They are gradually breaking down western nations and infiltrating their governments. Hoping and wishing that they are somehow "different", doesn't make them so.
If our world is to find the peace we so crave, we have no choice. Either Islam needs to be knocked down, sent cowering into the corner and forced to change or it needs to be totally banned.
Yes, I want to see "democracy" spread. I want to see peace. But just like in Japan and Germany, it means being very violent, to get there. Islam will not go down without a fight.
History is a great teacher. Japan and Germany or only two examples of what works. This new experiment is a failure.
Multiculturalism can be a positive value in society, but not when it results in harm to vulnerable members of society. If the government has any duty to protect cultural practices, it has a prior and much higher obligation to protect the rights, life, and safety of each individual citizen — even if that means contradicting traditional cultural practices.
3 comments:
This is a great summary of the problems with Islam, and it is a great piece of writing.
I'm very impressed.
And, of course, you know that Epa, AOW, MR, and I all agree with you that the only way to win this war is through massive violence which will cow Islamic culture into accepting a new way of life.
Whether they want to call it "Islam" is of no consequence to me.
BUT, SHARIA HAS TO GO.
And honestly, that goes for the whole world, not just the Western World.
We will not find the will to win until we are convinced of the existential threat.
9/11 should have been enough to convince us, but sadly, it was not.
My passion is human rights and freedom. I was a huge supporter of the war in Iraq. I really hoped that it would work & that our government would learn enough about Islam, to make it so. But alas, they failed. Wrapping a lion in a sheep costume, does not make it tame.
Yep.
Bush did not learn the lessons of the blueprint for American victory.
The lesson is Germany, Japan, and the American South.
We did the exact same things in all three cases.
Post a Comment