The Cornell American
If You Bomb It, They Won't Come
Editorial by: Eric Shive on March 5th, 2006 at 11:03 PM
"If only the world's oil reserves were located somewhere friendly, like Utah, we could simply bomb the Middle East back to the Stone Age and call the War on Terror a day."
The much-desired yet ever-elusive creature known as the Moderate Muslim appeared at Cornell February 23 to give a speech entitled, “Islam in America: An Enemy in Our Midst.” For anyone curious, apparently the answer was supposed to be “no.”
Ahmed Younis, member of the US-Muslim World Advisory Committee, argued that the current War on Terror was being manipulated by “Islamophobes” to portray it as a war against Islam, a clash of civilizations. Younis repeatedly stated that how Islam is portrayed in the Western media is, in fact, a perversion of the real Islam. Ah yes, the so-called religion of peace. He believed that the American Muslim community was “being gravely misunderstood,” and the only way to ease tension between Muslims and the West would be through, surprise surprise, more dialogue. Yes, if only everyone could sit down together, smoke some hookah, and eat a shish kabob, then the world would be a better place.
To his credit, Younis thoroughly denounced all acts of terrorism and violence committed in the name of Islam. His speech was well-delivered, but he refused to believe there was any reason why Islam necessarily had to conflict with Western values; instead, he resorted to the “Both sides! Both sides!” argument and placed the blame for the current conflict on extremists in the West and the Islamic world.
It was interesting that he chose to condemn all extremists for creating tension between Islam and the West. Let’s see: Extremist Muslims detonate car bombs, kill civilians, torch buildings, etc. Extremists in the West....hmmm, I’m drawing a blank here. When was the last time you heard of a raving band of Lutherans suicide bombing a local café? The answer is “never.” Radical Lutherans (and other Christians) don’t kill people or wreak havoc on their communities—they raise their 2.5 children in peace and vote Republican. How dangerous!
Younis’s speech was only one of the many events marking Islam Awareness Week at Cornell. This week of programs seems to have been unnecessary. Most Americans have been quite aware of Islam for the past four and a half years. Flying planes into buildings and killing 3,000 people is a good way to get everyone’s attention.
Since then, followers of the religion of peace keep appearing in the news, generally after bombing something, threatening the Jews with genocide, or instigating the requisite mayhem that always occurs when someone draws a cartoon you don’t like. (Remember how Christians rioted in the streets and blew up George Carlin’s home because of the “Buddy Christ” in Dogma? Oh wait, that never happened.)
The reactions of radical Muslims abroad to the Mohammed cartoon controversy should be the nail in the coffin for these people—literally. Syrian Muslims burnt the Danish embassy to the ground, and, according the White House spokesman Scott McClellan, “We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support.” Does this mean we finally get to start killing these people instead of holding their hands and skipping along towards democracy? Will our daisy cutters at last be put to some good use?
In fighting a war against radical Islam, the primary concern must be the national security of the United States. Whimsical Wilsonian ideas like spreading democracy should be considered second, if at all.
Nobody in the federal government is willing to remind George W. Bush of this except for those approaching retirement. Take, for example, Henry Hyde (R-IL), the 81-year-old outgoing Chairman of the House International Relations Committee. During a recent committee appearance by Condoleezza Rice, Hyde cautioned her to return to a more traditional foreign policy. He acknowledged that America has a duty to support freedom throughout the world, “But we also have a duty to ourselves and to our own interests, which may sometimes necessitate actions focused on more tangible returns than those of altruism.”
Hyde called for a return to “clear-eyed and sober-minded understanding of this world” and said that our global crusade for democracy “may, in fact, constitute an uncontrollable experiment with an outcome akin to that faced by the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.” Count me in Henry Hyde’s camp.
Seeing the election of Hamas in Palestine and the Shia-dominated government of Iraq should remind Americans that democracy is morally-neutral; it does not always lead to outcomes we like. Democracy can lead to Winston Churchill, but it can also lead to Adolf Hitler.
This is why U.S. foreign policy should be based around our national interests instead of giving people named Abdul the right to vote. Democracy may work fine for liberty loving Westerners, but not everyone in the world desires freedom. Once again, the reaction to the Mohammed cartoons proves the point. The riots that ensued showed that these radicals have no respect for the rule of law, property rights, or civilized behavior, let alone freedom of the press. Even Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan of the secular state of Turkey believed “The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are an attack on our spiritual values. There should be a limit to press freedom.”
To anyone with a mildly negative opinion of human nature, these observations are obvious. Of course, not everyone desires to live like Americans, and if they prefer to live in squalid hellholes, so be it, as long as they don’t threaten us. Yes, surely there are people around the world who would love to have the rights and privileges we have in America, but short of opening our borders to the Third World masses or invading every wretched nation on the planet (both of which are terrible ideas) there is little we can do other than wish these people well, keep them in our prayers, donate to charities, and secretly fund pro-U.S. forces in their countries. (Remember Iran-Contra? Now those were the days…)
This is not to say that the U.S. must turn towards isolationism. In a world marked by intercontinental missiles, easily-concealed weapons of mass destruction, and the free flow of peoples, retreating into Fortress America doesn’t appear to be a viable option. Putting America first in foreign policy does not mean ignoring the rest of the world.
On the other hand, this does not mean that the U.S. must stick its nose into every other country’s business. If a nation is at peace with us and is of no conceivable threat to our safety, let it be. If a country that is less-than perfect is our ally, it is unnecessary to quibble over its faults. This was the view that guided American foreign policy throughout the Cold War. In order to defeat worldwide Communism, America had to align itself with imperfect leaders, such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile. He may have been a dictator, but he was a pro-American dictator and halted the spread of communism in South America. Why should we think that we won’t have to side ourselves with such men in our fight against worldwide radical Islam?
Instead of falling into the traps of isolationism and interventionism, America should announce to the countries of the world that we have no intentions of meddling with their affairs, but if we are endangered or attacked again by terrorists our response will be swift and brutal. War is hell, not a tea party. Nations can either help us hunt down terrorists within their borders or wake up to the smell of napalm in the morning.
Terrorists don’t respect the rule of law and couldn’t care less about the right to vote. Their only desire is for death, and our military should do its best to speedily bring them to their final destination. Unfortunately for us, the terrorists reside in a part of the world that is of actual importance because of the presence of oil. If only the world’s oil reserves were located somewhere friendly, like Utah, we could simply bomb the Middle East back to the Stone Age and call the War on Terror a day. But no, this is not an option either. Nobody wants to pay $10 a gallon to fill up his Escalade, and the unprovoked mass killing of civilians is generally frowned upon, at least outside the Islamic world.
So the situation we’re left in is one in which there are no easy answers, no clear paths, and no sure outcomes. America’s best bet is to pursue a prudent foreign policy backed up with immense firepower. Leave a nation alone unless it threatens our security, in which case it’s time to bring out the big guns. Even if we can’t turn a country into a democracy, we can always turn it into a parking lot.