Military historian Victor Davis Hanson reminds us that the modern virus of global fascism strongly resembles its previous outbreak prior to the Second World War - and the world seems just as much in denial now is it was then:
Westerners far too rarely publicly denounce radical Islam for its sick, anti-Semitic, anti-female, anti-American, and anti-modernist rhetoric. Just imagine the liberal response if across the globe Christians had beheaded schoolgirls, taken over schoolhouses to kill students, and shot school teachers as we have witnessed radical Muslims doing these past few months.
Instead, Western parlor elites are still arguing over whether there were al Qaedists in Iraq before the removal of Saddam Hussein, whether the suspicion of WMDs was the real reason for war against the Baathists, whether Muslim minorities should be pressured to assimilate into European democratic culture, and whether constitutional governments risk becoming intolerant in their new efforts to infiltrate and disrupt radical Muslim groups in Europe and the United States. Some of this acrimony is understandable, but such in-fighting is still secondary to defeating enemies who have pledged to destroy Western liberal society. At some point this Western cannibalism becomes not so much counterproductive as serving the purposes of those who wish America to call off its struggle against radical Islam.
Most Americans think that our present conflict is not comparable with World War II, in either its nature or magnitude. Perhaps — but they should at least recall the eerie resemblance of our dilemma to the spread of global fascism in the late 1930s.
At first few saw any real connection between the ruthless annexation of Manchuria by Japanese militarists, or Mussolini’s brutal invasion of Ethiopia, or the systematic aggrandizement of Eastern-European territory by Hitler. China was a long way from Abyssinia, itself far from Poland. How could a white-supremacist Nazi have anything in common with a racially-chauvinist Japanese or an Italian fascist proclaiming himself the new imperial Roman?
In response, the League of Nations dithered and imploded (sound familiar?). Rightist American isolationists (they’re back) assured us that fascism abroad was none of our business or that there were conspiracies afoot by Jews to have us do their dirty work. Leftists were only galvanized when Hitler finally turned on Stalin (perhaps we have to wait for Osama to attack Venezuela or Cuba to get the Left involved). Abroad even members of the British royal family were openly sympathetic to German grievances (cf. Prince Charles’s silence about Iran’s promise to wipe out Israel, but his puerile Edward VIII-like lectures to Americans about a misunderstood Islam). French appeasement was such that even the most humiliating concession was deemed preferable to the horrors of World War I (no comment needed).
The lesson of World War II is that, when the tipping point comes and people finally pay attention and realize how high the stakes really are, it's almost too late. It's not too hard to extrapolate how bad things could get: cities throughout Europe held hostage by civil unrest and rioting such as we are seing in France; or outright terrorism a la the Madrid or London bombings; or religiously motivated killings of free thinkers such as Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh, who dared to make a short documentary critical of Islam's treatment of women (in collaboration with Aayan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Dutch MP whose personal suffering formed the basis of the critique and who is herself now threatened with death).
And that's just Europe. In the Middle East, Iran and Syria don't agree on much, except that the nascent democracy in Iraq must be strangled in its crib at all costs. The elimination of Israel remains a top goal for Iran, who intends to wipe it off the face of the earth with that nuclear capability that they certainly want only for peaceful civilian use. And Gaza, now free of Israeli occupation can finally pursue statehood - of course, the model so far seems to be Taliban-era Afghanistan, but surely once Hamas wins a majority in the upcoming elections it will turn away from thoughts of genocide and turn its attention to zoning ordinances and school lunch programs - that is, when it isn't otherwise busy executing young Palestinian women for holding hands in public.
In the US, as elsewhere, we at least know the true nature of the problem, and it's not a fanatical movement that wants to impose a worldwide ultraconservative religious regime. Heck no, it's that ol' debbil George W. Bush, of course, as the recent "World Can't Wait" demonstrations in San Francisco drove home. I'm sure the prospect of living under sharia law doesn't worry them in the least.
Reality check: this is a long, long war. Within three years, Bush will be out of office and the blame for fanning the flames of global fanticism will shift either to his successor (if a Republican) or his legacy (if the Democrats take over). In the meantime, we will pretend that the spread of a murderous ideology can be addressed by bringing the troops home, taking a lower profile on the world stage, and trying to address the supposed root causes of terrorism with soothing diplomacy, pressure on Israel and more concessions to governments like that of Iran. Hanson's prescription is far grimmer, but grounded in historical reality rather than wishful thinking:
Yet the antidote for radical Islam, aside from the promotion of democratization and open economies, is simple. It must be militarily defeated when it emerges to wage organized violence, as in the cases of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Zarqawi’s terrorists in Iraq, and the various killer cliques in Palestine.
Second, any who tolerate radical Islam should be ostracized. Muslims living in the West must be condemned when they assert that the Jews caused 9/11, or that suicide bombing is a legitimate response to Israel, or that Islamic immigrants’ own unique culture gives them a pass from accustomed assimilation, or that racial and religious affinity should allow tolerance for the hatred that spews forth from madrassas and mosques — before the patience of Western liberalism is exhausted and “the rules of the game” in Tony Blair’s words “change” quite radically and we begin to see mass invitations to leave.
Third, nations that intrigue with jihadists must be identified as the enemies of civilization. We often forget that there are now left only four major nation-states in the world that either by intent or indifference allow radical Islamists to find sanctuary.
If the petrolopolis of Saudi Arabia would cease its financial support of Wahhabi radicals, most terrorists could scarcely travel or organize operations.
If there were sane governments in Syria and Iran, then there would be little refuge left for al Qaeda, and the money and shelter that now protects the beleaguered and motley collection of ex-Saddamites, Hezbollah, and al Qaedists would cease.
So in large part four nations stand in the way of eradicating much of the global spread of jihadism — and it is no accident that either oil or nuclear weapons have won a global free pass for three of them. And it is no accident that we don’t have a means to wean ourselves off Middle East oil or as yet stop Iran from becoming the second Islamic nuclear nation.
Having just noted the death of 2000 soldiers in Iraq (and having resolutely ignored those who died in Afghanistan), poll after poll shows a desire to withdraw from the world and return to arguing over domestic problems like health care, or social issues like gay marriage. But confronting the global jihad on its home turf in the Middle East - and the thwarting of the goals of the four regimes singled out by Hanson - is the key to the defeat, or at least containment, of this current virulent pandemic.
(Hat tip: Little Green Footballs)
Recent Comments