Wednesday, April 25, 2007

The fundamental and permanent difference

Tony Blankley has a great column today on the basic clash of paradigms underlying much of the debate over what Democrats and Europeans no longer want to call the War on Terror:
It would appear that the great divide in both public opinion and between politicians is not Republican-Democrat, liberal-conservative, pro or anti-Bush, or even pro or anti-war (or, in Europe: pro-or anti-American). Rather, the great divide is between those, such as me, who believe that the rise of radical Islam poses an existential threat to Western Civilization; and those who believe it is a nuisance, if, episodically, a very dangerous nuisance.

For those in the latter category, the great thrust of modern history exemplified in Francis Fukuyama's concept of "The End of History" continues onward. The great secular triumph of (more or less) free markets, a world economy, democracy, individual rights, socialized economic security, and their management by merit-based technocrats will be an inevitable continuity in human affairs. The episodic terrorist violence, so far killing far less people than die in car crashes or from lung cancer each year, does not justify re-ordering our social priorities. It does not justify any significant intrusions into civil liberties. It does not justify a major shift of tax revenues from social spending to war and homeland security programs. It certainly does not justify fighting wars on the other side of the world that kill and grievously wound painful numbers of American and European soldiers -- and even greater numbers of local residents in the war zones.

For the people holding that view, George Bush and Tony Blair (and their supporters) are not only seen as wrong, nor merely incompetently wrong -- but are seen as cynically exploiting an obvious lie to crassly enhance their political power and enrich their corrupt friends. Conceptual opposition has evolved into personal contempt for the antagonist (as it often does in fights over big issues -- e.g. the fight between capital and labor of the late Nineteenth and first half of the Twentieth Centuries).

For those of us who support the great struggle against radical Islam, the world reality could not be plainer. The threat of radical Islam is not merely a few thousand terrorists using small explosives to kill a few dozen people at a time -- usually in the faraway Middle East. Rather, it is an historic recrudescence of a violent, conquering old tradition of Islam that almost overwhelmed the world from the Seventh Century until as recently as the 17th century. It is radicalizing the minds of increasing numbers of the world's 1.4 billion Muslims to be very aggressive culturally, as well as violent -- from Africa to Indonesia, to Cairo to Ankara, to Paris, to Rotterdam to London to Falls Church, Va.

Funded by Saudi petro-dollars, it is capable of acting on a worldwide scale and will eventually get its hands on biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. While it probably will not be able to find sufficient unity to form a caliphate, it clearly has the capacity and intent to create violent chaos, to wreak digital havoc on our computer-based world economy and to intimidate western governments to give up the very values and methods that have made our civilization so vibrant and free. Free speech in Europe is already being curtailed to protect radical Islam from even verbal criticism. The flying Imams' lawsuit attempts to intimidate American citizens from even reporting possible terrorist activity to the authorities. Iran's nuclear ambitions are being appeased. How dare the media call it "Bush's War on Terror"? It's our war -- and it was started by the radical Islamists -- not by us. Where will it all stop?

To us, no fair and objective assessment of the state of radical Islam can deny these implications. One must not see the denouement of the Iraq War outside that context. To those who disagree with our view of reality, we are quite ready to impute anything from ignorance, to willful ignorance, to moral cowardice to treason. Those who disagree with us find our alarmism as noxious as we find their willful blindness to reality.

Blankley believes that there is no way for either side to convince the other in the near future, and that it will be up to history to settle the debate when it sorts the bodies.

I'm not even that optimistic. The fact of the matter is that it is the very success of those who believe radical Islam is a threat that fuels the justifications of those who do not. The better George W. Bush et al do their jobs, the less reason those already disinclined to take Islamofascism seriously have to give their position on the matter a second thought--and historians, as a rule, are already disinclined to take seriously any threat that was thwarted short of open warfare.

Our leaders may or may not succeed in saving western civilization, but there is probably nothing that can save them from being portrayed in the history books as modern-day Chicken Littles.

Given that the likely alternative would for them to be portrayed as modern-day Cassandras--in history books written in Arabic--I suspect that's something we'll have to live with.


1 comment:

Dad29 said...

Trenchant, you are:

The better George W. Bush et al do their jobs, the less reason those already disinclined to take Islamofascism seriously have to give their position on the matter a second thought

The overwhelming challenge here is to distinguish the "good guys" from the "bad guys."

Rhetoric is not helpful--Spencer, e.g., would have us believe that EVERY Muslim is a mad killer (but doesn't say so, exactly.)