Andrew McCarthy, who has been on a tear lately, posted a very strong article today about the sniveling response by General David Petraeus and NATO ambassador Sedwill to the massacre of UN staff by a raging mob in Afghanistan. Read it here. And then read it again. What a nation of spineless, cringing quake-buttocks we have become.
Lawrence Auster weighs in also, here.
Update: the Auster post has been taken down, as explained here.
18 Comments
There is plenty to pick apart in McCarthy’s piece, from his refusal to acknowledge what Patreus’s boss had to say about the bombing (“to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity”), to his delusional fears about sharia law somehow supplanting American law, to his ignorance of the citizenship process (the naturalization process requires, among other things, that prospective citizens possess “good moral character and an affinity for the principles of the U.S. Constitution”) Moreover, it is not Patreus’s job to be even-handed: his job is to protect his troops and achieve his war aims. Given that our troops are operating in a country which never invited us in, fighting against enemies who are not their enemies, and conducting operations which have killed countless scores of Afghan innocents, he’s got his hands full already. The actions of Terry Jones in particular, and anti-Muslim hysteria in general, make his job exponentially harder, and his responsibilities trump any obligation to lecture Afghans about the free speech rights of Koran burners.
However, shocking though it may seem, I did not come here to start a fight. Rather, I would like to draw your attention to an article which suggests what the true causes of problems in the Middle East may be. The answer will surely surprise you.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-04/islam-blamers-ignore-mideast-s-trouble-source-commentary-by-amity-shlaes.html
Great, another dime-store theory of history.
Yes, of course, where there is reliable rain there is reliable agriculture, and the cultural transformation it brings, instead of the transient herding societies that give rise to cultures of honor.
As such I’d even go so far as to imagine that yes, perhaps arid conditions made the soil more fertile for the germination of a religion like Islam, built on the pre-existing honor-based tribal culture.
But whatever the antecedent causes, the region has been marinated in Islam’s stultifying, totalizing, polarizing ideology for 1,400 years. To dismiss the central role of Islam in Mideastern culture and politics is just ridiculous.
I agree that Petraeus is thinking only of his troops and his impossible “mission”. That an American military leader must be pressed into a situation where he must make such an oleaginous and obsequious response to mob brutality — groveling before fanatical barbarians who despise us — only serves to highlight the absurdity of our position.
As for “delusional”, much that has seemed delusional throughout history has come to pass, thanks to the unwisdom of the complacent.
And if you think that platitudes about “good moral character and an affinity for the principles of the U.S. Constitution” are sufficient to prevent the cultural threat that universally accompanies expansion of Islam into the West, you are complacent indeed.
That fails to explain the difference between Islam as practiced in desert regions with the more moderate Islam as practiced in regions which get sufficient rainfall (e.g., Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia). I don’t claim that rainfall accounts for 100% of the difference, but I think there is much truth in the author’s assertions.
However, I do agree that our position in Afghanistan is untenable. I think that we were justified in going there initially, but the Bush administration’s insouciance towards Afghanistan in order to devote our resources instead to the fiasco in Iraq eliminated any chance we could have had which would have led to a favorable outcome.
My point has nothing to do with platitudes. If McCarthy wants to exclude “from the United States aliens who would support supplanting the U.S. Constitution with a sharia system,” that is something which already is in place. He is advocating something which already exists.
I’m not in favor of the expansion of any organized religion in any part of the world. And I agree that it would be ridiculous to “dismiss the central role of Islam in Mideastern culture and politics.” But I think that “central role” is best viewed as a convenient source of faux justifications for actions and attitudes that would be present in Mideastern societies whether or not Islam was on the scene. It’s merely an instance of the much too common practice of appealing to holy writ to “justify” unholy interests and predispositions. And just to be clear, secularists tend to have their own versions of “holy writ” to cover ugly gaps in their thinking.
Moderate Islam as practiced in Malaysia and Indonesia?
Peter, Islam is Islam everywhere it goes, and everywhere its central principles — in evidence on almost every page of the Koran — are submission to Allah and the punishment of unbelievers. In so many respects: the treatment of women, freedom of religious belief, and the separation of church and state being at the top of the list — Islam is utterly incompatible with Western norms. Even Turkey’s (Islamist) president has said that “there is no such thing as “moderate Islam”, and the democracy is merely a “train” that you ride until you reach your destination, whereupon you get off.
The more we can keep Islam at arm’s length the better off we will be. To imagine that we can allow mass immigration of Muslims without facing the same problems that, for example, Britain and Europe now are is woefully naive. And to imagine that we can defend ourselves against a rising global tide of Islamism by asking a few questions at the gate is delusional and dangerous complacency.
More to the point, in what way have Western societies benefited from decades of mass Islamic immigration? Falafel? Do you think you’ll find a single honest Swede or Englishman who says his nation is a happier place for it?
Bob,
You’re right: religion generally codifies pre-existing moral and cultural traditions. But it amplifies them as well. It’s one thing to take offense; quite another to take offense in God’s name.
The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming!
I’m not going to get into this whole Islam-is-out-to-destroy-the-West business, because, frankly, it’s nonsense. From the Crusades up to the present, the West has done far more damage to Muslim countries than the other way around, and they have much more to fear from us than we from them. However, since the likelihood of reaching agreement on this particular topic is about the same as you watching the Masters Tournament on Sunday and seeing me in it, I’m disinclined to rehash this matter any further.
I can’t speak for the Swedes or the English, but I think it’s just dandy we have a million or so Muslims here. They have a median income about 10% above the national average, pay their taxes, do their jobs, and contribute to society like any other group. My landlord and dentist are both from Iran, and I have sparkling teeth and a great house. Then again, I’m a live-and-let-live kind of guy. I like to think that I’m a member of a live-and-let-live society: come from anywhere in the world, keep your nose clean, and we’re happy to have you. Perhaps I was misinformed.
I’m sure your dentist and landlord are swell guys, Peter, and nobody is suggesting that everyone from a Muslim nation is an Islamist. Lots of people are pretty casual about religion.
That does not change the intrinsic cultural and ideological incompatibility between Islam and secular Western civilization, and it is simply a fact that everywhere Islam goes, it brings its immutable doctrinal core — an inexhaustible wellspring of tension and conflict, as far as the rest of us are concerned — along with it. McCarthy’s point is simply that we do ourselves no favors by voluntarily importing more and more of it — as Europe, Britain and Australia are now realizing, far too late.
Ya think?
In any event, I thought I would answer your question. We are Devo.
Yes! Devolving as fast as we can.
Oh, and about those rainy places — it rains a lot in Bangladesh, if memory serves. But…
The answer to your question, “Are we not Men?” is “No. Some of us are women, you insensitive clod.”
Repeatedly I have noted a pervasive sexism in the language you employ to characterize those things you don’t like about contemporary American society.
Well, as the old saying goes:
So now “pervasive sexism” is added to your tally of my violations? Oh please, please, don’t report me…
Lord knows why you’d keep hanging around a dive like this; it must be just awful for you.
And yes, while we’re at it, here’s some more for you: the American nation, now fallen so far from its youthful prime of brawny virility, has become soft, weak, emasculated, effeminate, impotent…
…,violent, abusive, intolerant, and obsessive. Let me finish that for you.
Yes I do count sexism as one of your less admirable character traits. I’m sorry to break it to you.
Oh well. Can’t please everyone, I guess.
“The dog barks, the caravan passes…”