|
Cultural Warmongers
Picking a fight with a faith 1.3 billion strong
By Patrick J. Buchanan
03/14/06 "American
Conservative" -- -- If you wish to get along with
a man, you do not insult his faith. And if you seek to persuade
devout Muslims that al-Qaeda is our enemy, not Islam, you do not
condone with silence insults to the faith of a billion people.
Understanding this, President Bush ceased to call the war on terror
a “crusade.” Visiting a mosque, he removed his shoes. He has hosted
White House gatherings for the breaking of the fast at the end of
Ramadan. He sent Karen Hughes to the State Department to improve our
dismal image in the Islamic world. He has declared more times than
many of us care to recall, “Islam is a religion of peace.”
President Bush knows we are in a struggle for the hearts and minds
of Islamic peoples, and if we are to win this struggle we must
separate the Muslim monsters from the masses. For as that great
American military mind Col. John Boyd defined it, strategy is the
appending to oneself of as many centers of power as possible and
isolating your enemy from as many centers of power as possible.
This is what makes the Mohammed cartoons so stupid and
self-destructive. They have given Islamic extremists visible proof
to show pious Muslims that the West relishes mocking what they hold
most sacred: the prophet. They have united Muslim moderates with
militants in common rage against us. They have added to the hatred
of the West in the Islamic world as friends like King Abdullah of
Jordan, Presidents Mubarak of Egypt and Karzai of Afghanistan, and
Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey warned us they would.
One wonders. Did the cynical Europeans learn nothing from the Salman
Rushdie episode? Did they learn nothing from the firestorm that
erupted in the Islamic world when Christian ministers in the United
States, post-9/11, called Mohammed a “terrorist”?
Why then did they do this? Why did the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten
publish cartoons it knew to be so blasphemous to Muslims? Why did Le
Monde, France Soir, Die Welt, El Pais, Il Stampa republish them—on
their front pages? If a European newsman was oblivious to the
probable effect among Muslims of plastering a cartoon of Mohammed
with a bomb in his turban on page one, he is too stupid to be an
editor. But if he did know the near-certain effect of such an
in-your-face provocation, why would he do it? Is this the reflexive
secularist hostility of the Europress to all religious faiths on
display here or something else?
And so we come to the heart of the matter. Why? What was the motive
here? What is the game that is afoot? The rationale of the imams who
ensured that all Muslims knew of the cartoons and their contents and
called for demonstrations and assaults on Western consulates and
embassies is evident. They hate us, and they wish to drive us out of
the Middle East. But what propelled our own ideologues to prod U.S.
editors to republish the cartoons in “solidarity” with the
Europeans? Who pushed George W. Bush and Condi Rice not to condemn
the cartoons but to “stand up” for the freedom to publish and defy
any “intimidation” by the Islamic world?
Answer: our cultural warmongers, who seek the same goal as their
cultural warmongers—to ignite a war of civilizations. Both want the
“long war” of which the Pentagon speaks, the “World War IV” against
“Islamofascism” that is the dream of neoconservatives and the
nightmare of their countrymen.
As has been evident for some time, bin Laden and the neocons both
seek the same thing: a fight to the finish, no matter how long, no
matter how many invasions it takes, no matter how many lives are
lost. For if peace were reached between the Islamic world and the
West, even a cold peace with Iran and Syria, what would they do
then?
As the provocations of Ahmadinejad are music to the ears of neocons,
for they rule out dialogue and diplomacy, the escalation of the
cartoon wars into an all-out culture war between Islam and the West
has made their day. But it has also wiped out much of the goodwill
that George W. Bush has sought to rebuild in the region.
As one explores the arguments of the provocateurs in the West for
what they are doing, on inspection all appear hollow. “We believe in
the First Amendment!” comes the blustery reply of journalists when
asked why they published the cartoons. The First Amendment protected
the right of Trent Lott to toast Strom Thurmond. But that did not
save Lott from the savagery of the neocons who demanded and got his
ouster as Senate majority leader. Yet which is the more egregious
offense? To pay a birthday tribute to a century-old man who was once
a segregationist or to insult deliberately the most revered figure
in the faith of a billion people?
Daily, U.S. editors decline to publish ethnic slurs and obscene
remarks and cartoons that might offend a race or religion. This is
not censorship. It is editorial judgment. The motto of the New York
Times, which declined to publish the offending cartoons, is “All the
News That’s Fit to Print.”
Conservatives contend that Islamic nations tolerate cartoons and TV
shows far more viciously anti-Semitic than these cartoons were
anti-Islamic. They are right. But Western newspapers never publish
such cartoons, first, because they are outrageous, second, because
publication would cost them advertisers, readers, and maybe their
jobs. Insulting Muslims and Mohammed is a less risky and less
expensive hobby than insulting Judaism or Jews. Indeed, if you
insult Islam, you can make out credentials as a moral hero.
Though State initially condemned the cartoons—“Inciting religious or
ethnic hatreds in this manner is unacceptable”—the neocons rapidly
re-seized control of the message. In hours, State was in retreat:
“While we share the offense that Muslims have taken at these images,
we at the same time vigorously defend the right of individuals to
express points of view.” Of course we do. But do we believe freedom
of the press was responsibly exercised when these idiot editors used
it to incite a religious war?
And when it comes to press freedom, Europeans are world-class
hypocrites. British historian David Irving has spent months in a
prison in Vienna awaiting trial for two speeches he made 15 years
ago. In Europe, skeptics and deniers of the Holocaust are fined and
imprisoned with the enthusiastic endorsement of the press.
Unfortunately, Bush let slip an opportunity to show respect for the
Islamic world and faith and, instead, let himself be intimidated
into silently condoning an insult to both. Standing beside the King
of Jordan, Bush denounced the violence the cartoons had ignited but
declined to condemn the cartoons. Condi Rice denounced Iran and
Syria for exploiting the rage over the cartoons but did not condemn
the cause of that rage. If there is a double standard here, Bush is
the guilty party. He rightly denounced Iran’s president for mocking
the Holocaust but would not denounce the European press for mocking
the prophet.
If Bush and Rice cannot muster the moral courage to condemn the
insulting content of the cartoons, as well as the violence being
promoted by anti-Western agitators and demagogues, our wars for
democracy in the Middle East are in vain. For we can never win the
friendship of these people if they believe our words of respect for
their religion cover up a sneering contempt.
Copyright © 2006 The American Conservative
Click below to read or post comment's on this article
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
