The View From 1776
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Perspective On A 1,389 Years War
Steve Kellmeyer has penned an arresting assessment of the War on Terror, a struggle that should be recognized forthrightly as our defensive efforts against Islam’s aggressive war to subjugate and destroy civilization.
President Obama is dangerously misguided. The inherent superficiality of liberal-progressivism, its instinctive expectation that everyone sees the world as liberal-progressives see it, leads the president to a foreign policy that is the equivalent of attempting to deflect a great white shark’s attack by singing a soft lullaby.
For a thousand years after Mohammed’s 622 hegira, there was never a decade when Muslim marauders were not overrunning Christian cities around the Mediterranean and throughout the Middle East, slaughtering the men, and enslaving the women and children. It is this history that Islamic Jihad strives to revive.
Make no mistake about it: Islam is dedicated to death. Islam commands its followers to beguile non-Muslims with appearances of friendship, awaiting an opportunity to attack and destroy. Make no mistake about it: there is no milk of human kindness in Islamic Jihad. Muslim warriors and suicide bombers long for death, yours and theirs.
Pat Buchanan’s Error
By Steve Kellmeyer
Over at Human Events, Pat Buchanan writes an essay that looks good on the surface, but doesn’t really hold up to a deeper analysis:
Buchanan begins by asking a salient question:
Why would people, who must believe themselves righteous and moral, keen and wail at the death of a monster who did what bin Laden had done?...
In one man’s judgment, Osama was admired because he alone in the Arab world had the astonishing audacity to stand up and smash a fist into the face of the world’s last superpower, which had become one of the most resented powers in the Middle East.
Buchanan then goes on to make a series of comparisons to other genocidal maniacs, men like Mao tse Tung, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro. He argues that each of these men is held in honor within their own countries because they were seen as men who fought against imperialist powers like the British, the French, the Japanese and the Americans.
Like Mao, Ho and Castro, Osama tapped into the most powerful current of the age: ethnic nationalism, the desire of peoples to be rid of foreign rule and any oppressive foreign presence, and to put up against a wall all indigenous traitors who do the foreigners’ will.
This thesis plays well into the meme that Buchanan promotes - the idea that America should remove itself from most of the internal affairs of other nations.
Of course, that very idea is a contradiction in terms.
He wants America to be the last superpower, but he doesn’t want America meddling in the affairs of other nations.
But America is the last superpower precisely because she is the last nation capable of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations without provoking declarations of war from the nations whose affairs she re-arranges. Indeed, that is pretty much the definition and measure of a superpower.
The old Roman empire became the superpower in the Mediterranean because she could dictate terms to anyone who bordered that Roman lake, including her major rival, Carthage itself.
Britain was a superpower because her armies enforced British law and British whims throughout the world. The Hindus had to stop burning widows on the pyre, the Chinese had to permit opium dens in their capital, the Muslims had to cease their jihad, for no one could stand up to the might of British arms.
America is now a superpower in no small part because we can inflict unacceptable levels of military mayhem on any nation foolish enough to oppose us in a course of action we have decided to take.
It is impossible to be a superpower and not meddle with others.
Superpowers remake the world in their own image, or try to.
And they get close enough to succeeding to worry their opponents.
That’s what makes them superpowers - they can overwhelm any other opponent, militarily, culturally, or in any other way you care to name.
Which takes us to our second point.
It is true that the men named by Buchanan have been honored by their respective governments. But do the great mass of citizens they ruled really have any love for these men? That is a much more difficult question.
It is true that a tyrant stays in power only because enough of the people in the tyrant’s country agree with his policies to keep him in power. This is, after all, how we got, and still keep, Barack Obama. But how many Chinese really honor Mao tse Tung? How many Vietnamese hold fond memories of Ho Chi Minh? How many Cubans really love Fidel Castro. How many Americans love the Oreo?
If these were the only errors in Buchanan’s essay, I wouldn’t bother to write this one. These are common errors and relatively harmless.
It is his final sentence, the summation of his essay, which must be contested.
Osama is dead and gone. But the ideas he tapped into—the desire of Arab peoples to break free, to reclaim their sovereignty, to restore their past greatness, to be rid of the foreigner and his lackeys—are also the motivating ideas of the Arab Spring.
And there is the fatal flaw.
This is not a fight to be rid of the foreigner and his lackeys.
There is no Arab Spring.
The Egyptians are not Arabs.
The Libyans are not Arabs.
The Tunisians are not Arabs.
The Syrians are not Arabs.
The Iraqis are not Arabs.
The Iranians are not Arabs.
All of these countries, all of these peoples, have long and glorious histories of their own.
Histories that are not Arab.
Histories that are not Muslim.
These nations may have a largely Muslim population today, but before their countries were raped by Arab Muslims centuries ago, these people were each their own people.
The Arabs know this.
The Muslims know this.
The Arab Muslims have worked hard to destroy these many, varied and rich histories.
It is no accident that the Egyptian museums were ransacked by Muslim crowds, artifacts destroyed by Muslim savages. The Coptic Christians are attacked not just because they are Christians and not Muslims, but also because they are Egyptians, and not Arabs.
If the British, French and Americans were foreign intruders in the nations Buchanan recalls, the Arab Muslims are no less foreign intruders in the lands Buchanan mis-characterizes. As far as the Persians, the Egyptians or the Tunisians are concerned, Mohammed and his Arabs are just another set of foreign rulers complete with sword-wielding lackeys.
Thus, we are not witnessing the rise of ethnic nationalism.
Quite the contrary.
We are witnessing the defeat of ethnic nationalism.
The ethnic nationals who led these countries are being deposed and replaced by a foreign power.
Buchanan has not only failed to answer his question, he failed to ask the real question: why do so many non-Arab nations laud and honor a foreigner who imposed a foreign way of life upon their nations?