Monday, October 02, 2006

Future Visions

Clayton Cramer has a very thought-provoking post up, discussing the possible solutions to the current fight against Islamofascist terrorism. Let me make one thing clear first- Cramer doesn't advocate these measures, he's merely wondering about what the future may hold if we can't get the situation in Iraq to work.

1. "Fortress America": We secure our borders against terrorists entering either legally (as the 9/11 hijackers overwhelmingly did), or illegally (as could easily happen across our unsecure borders). But how do we do that? The ACLU (the fourth branch of the U.S. government) already objects to enforcement of the existing immigration laws. The dramatic increase in security to actually make us safe from terrorists coming here would be impossible, unless the ACLU ceased to have the influence in currently enjoys.

Along with terrorists, we also have to worry about WMDs. It would not be at all difficult to ship all sorts of nasty weapons into the U.S., either with long period timers on them, or with one legal resident of the U.S. prepared to set off the weapon when it arrived. The current volume of international trade is huge. To adequately secure against the arrival of WMDs would almost certainly cause a dramatic reduction in international trade--with deleterious effects on the U.S. economy.

2. Make al-Qaeda happy. Unfortunately, contrary to the fantasies of the left, it is not enough to withdraw U.S. forces from the Middle East. Al-Qaeda believes that interfering with rape and genocide in Darfur is also a sign of "Crusaders" and it was Australian interference in the gang rape of girls in East Timor by Islamofascists that led al-Qaeda to the Bali bombing. (Yes, feminists, there is a philosophy more oppressive to women than Christianity.) We would have to not only cut off aid to Israel, but stand by while Iran carries out its mission of extermination. Al-Qaeda has also repeatedly stated that conflict is inevitable until all nations are Islamic. I used to think this was so absurd that I questioned this premise of the novel Prayers for the Assassin. With the way that Americans are beginning to take the short view of this matter, maybe this is only very unlikely--not impossible. poor.)

The next three possible strategies would require enormous will, not only from the U.S., but from our allies. This will does not currently exist. Would it exist if there were a Beslan incident every month? You betcha. Why, even liberals might start to figure out that playing nice with al-Qaeda doesn't work.

3. Treat Muslim nations the way they have treated every other nation. Invade them; occupy; convert their mosques into churches; send in troops with orders to kill anyone that gives them any lip; assess a special tax on Muslims; pass laws that give Muslims less legal rights than non-Muslims, not just in ways that matter (say, a ban on Muslims possessing anything more deadly than a butter knife), but in ways intended to degrade them, like the laws that Muslims nations had prohibiting non-Muslims from riding horses. (Christians and Jews could only ride donkeys.) If we were prepared to do this as vigorously as Islam did to what had been the Byzantine Empire, in four generations, Islam would be a minority religion everywhere our soldiers went.

4. A war not to change hearts and minds, but to humble Islam. Remember last year when Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) suggested that a terrorist nuclear attack on the U.S. might cause us to use nuclear weapons on Mecca? I was horrified that he would say such a thing. The more that I think about it, the more I find myself wondering if it may come to that.

At least part of the core problem we are having with Islamofascism is that Muslims believe that they have a specially favored status before Allah--and at the same time, recognize that they are generally poor and miserable compared to the non-Muslim world--in spite of sitting on oceans of oil. These two positions create cognitive dissonance, which can force a rational person suffering it to abandon or modify one of those postions. Now, one rational response would be to solve the poverty problem by modernizing their economies. But unfortunately, Islamofascists seem more intent on destroying the economies of the West, so that this cognitive dissonance ends, because the West is as desperately poor as most Arab countries. (This may also be the reason the left is so sympathetic to al-Qaeda--they can end world poverty by making everyone poor.)

That horrifying concept of nuking Mecca? While Mecca itself isn't "special" to Islam, as I understand it, it would be difficult for Muslims to continue to hold on to this belief that they are "special" to Allah if they can't go on pilgrimage to the holy sites anymore. (The pilgrimage to Mecca is something that every Muslim is supposed to do at least once, if they can.) Such a destructive act would have to be thoroughly explained to the Muslim world to clarify its purpose: "You think that you are something special because you are Muslims? Sorry, you aren't. You won't rein in the monsters like al-Qaeda; this is a reminder that you worship a false god. Keep it up, and we'll nuke every significant religious site in the Muslim world."

5. There's one more step, if that doesn't work, and it is far more horrifying than that. Don't stop at nuking religious sites. If you are familiar with Randy Newman's satirical song "Political Science" you may think that I am being fiercely satirical. I'm not. This is a horrifying prospect--but I can see how, if Islamofascism can't be stopped by less barbarous methods, a generation from now this may be the only alternative to living in the Islamic States of America posited by Ferrigno's Prayers for the Assassin.

Over at Infidel Bloggers Alliance there has been a growing concern that a more radical reaction to Islamic terrorism may take place as the creeping dhimmitude and terrorist violence continues. Cramer's options seem to clarify exactly what those concerns are about. It's a pretty frightening picture of what the coming years may hold.

No comments: