What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Two puzzles and a conjecture.

In Iraq, the basic principle has been demonstrated (again) that the Jihad is no match for the force of American arms. Man for man we will crush it. Two difficult puzzles follow from this observation:

Puzzle 1: How do we overcome the fact that our military might, combined with our theoretical feebleness, has produced a strange condition of paralysis? The quintessential incongruity of Capitalism shackles us: material mastery alongside philosophic confusion.

Stating the confusion is simple enough: we do not know who the enemy is; and, on the evidence, do not care to know. The possibility that the enemy is an authentic institution, founded upon a native doctrine, of the Islamic religion, is just too much for the Liberal mind to bear. Liberalism’s bluster about “all questions are open questions,” is a manifest falsehood on this subject. A great force of insinuation and outrage bears down upon the man who dares to open the question of whether Islam as such, being the incubator of the Jihad, is an intolerable threat.

Thus our paralysis.

Puzzle 2: While we have shown our military proficiency, what has not yet been demonstrated is whether Islamic democracy and the Jihad are incompatible — which is what I take to be the main point at issue in Iraq. The war has been prosecuted on the proposition that the two are indeed incompatible: that building democracy will weaken the Jihad. The successes of the Surge, even the tentative steps toward political progress, do not demonstrate this. And there is still a huge mass of evidence pointing the other way; pointing, that is, toward a convergence of democracy and the Jihad.

We are aided now right by the fact that the Jihad is by and large manned by criminals and brigands, if not outright madmen. The cruelty and fanaticism of these men is hardly tempered by shrewdness, flexibility or foresight. They resemble not the disciplined energy of the Turkish Jihad but the anarchic terror of corsairs, which the Turks used with such skill to disrupt European powers on the Mediterranean.

If the Jihad ever begins to develop or attract real statesmen, political innovators with vision, we will have more serious problems — one of them being the ease with which an independent Iraq could fall under the sway of a new Saladin or Osman or Suleiman.

By way of conclusion, I offer this provocative conjecture: if we are looking to the Middle East for such a statesman, we’re looking in the wrong place. The next great captain of the Jihad will be European, and will wield European resources, both human and natural, against us. He will make the lunatics of the Arab street a mere instrument of disruption and distress; his real power will lie elsewhere, sheltered from American military might.

Comments (13)

I'll do you one better and suggest that such a captain of the jihad could very well be sheltered by American might.

For that, we already have the dire precedents of Bosnia and Kosovo, conduits of the jihad (along with drugs, weapons, and human flesh) running between the netherworld and the soft underbelly of Europe.

Yes, it will take another body blow (hopefully not the "decapitation strike") to wake us from this Enlightenment/PostModern stupor. I'd like to hear more about the European Sulieman.

"While we have shown our military proficiency..."

I think we have learned the limits to military might as it pertains to prosecuting asymmetrical warfare. It is our enemies who have gained much from our blundering into this engagement.

"If the Jihad ever begins to develop or attract real statesmen..."

Conversely, if we don't develop genuine statesman of our own, all our technological advantages will be for naught. In a clash like this one, victory will go to the culture that is animated by a vibrant cultus.

"...and will wield European resources, both human and natural, against us."
A rearguard action in Western Europe coupled with an aggressive Russian bear will delay an Eurabian settlement long enough for the Christian forces of the Southern Hemisphere to checkmate the Islamic states. A long uneasy peace will follow.



In Iraq, the basic principle has been demonstrated (again) that the Jihad is no match for the force of American arms.

I'm not so sure this is an accurate statement. Southern afghanistan is unraveling. Our UN friends there are too afraid to even go to southern Afghanistan. Also, if one carefully looks at Iraq, things may at any time go awry. We've taken to bombing them five times more than in previous years and have increased innocent civilian causality accordingly. Just a week ago we killed nine, including babies!

Just a week ago we killed nine, including babies!

It's A-okay to kill baby jihadists, once they're born.

[And that, ladies and gentlemen, will do it for our friend Rodak.

For the sake of clarity: no matter what your level of disagreement or frustration, there can be no defense of accusing, by caustic insinuation, that your opponents in some debate favor the death of innocent babies.

-- Ed.]

I just now got the chance to read the main post. When you say, Paul, that the next great leader of the jihad will be European, do you mean of European ancestry, European in the ordinary sense of being just plain Swiss, German, British, or whatever? Or do you mean only that he will come from Europe, perhaps born there of Islamic immigrant parents and educated in the European school system?

The slightly depressing thought that occurred to me as I read this post was this: If we ever came across a real jihadist statesman in the Middle East, he would almost certainly be suave, keep his country in order, not make inflammatory speeches a la Amadinejad, and so forth. Hence, he would look like one of those rulers America tends to _want_ in the Middle East, and he would probably be welcomed by American leaders of any party. And in fact it would be a good question how we could tell the difference between a Muslim leader of a country who was at least going to mind his own business and one who was going to prosecute jihad against us, so long as he kept relatively quiet about it ahead of time. Then when it was too late we'd know. But I doubt we'd admit it.

Hence, he would look like one of those rulers America tends to _want_ in the Middle East, and he would probably be welcomed by American leaders of any party. And in fact it would be a good question how we could tell the difference between a Muslim leader of a country who was at least going to mind his own business and one who was going to prosecute jihad against us, so long as he kept relatively quiet about it ahead of time. Then when it was too late we'd know. But I doubt we'd admit it.

Isn't the above scenario captured under the first poster's comments: "I'll do you one better and suggest that such a captain of the jihad could very well be sheltered by American might", which made it all the more dreadful?

Yeah, I guess so. Depressing thought, that. After all, if we can't recognize a Muslim threat when it comes from ranting, undisguised lunatics, if we pressure other countries to make huge concessions to people who refer to them as "bacteria" and vow their destruction, how in the world would we recognize a threat from a real statesman with a certain amount of stature and discretion?

Lydia,

The Bin Laden types want a strict radical interpretation of government, and try to kill all leaders, Muslim included, who don't follow their outlook. Therefore, the possibility of a secretly radical but outwardly looking secular ruler of a ME country would not happen. Even Saudi rulers are the enemies of these nuts. The real fear we should have is backing a ruthless dictator, like the Shah or Saddam, only to have it come back to haunt us.

The Saudi rulers are their enemies. Well...There's a huge amount of wahabi propaganda coming out of Saudi Arabia. Funding radical madrassas all over the place. All I can say is, if that's enmity, it's pretty ineffectual.

Lydia,

True, they have done a lot of harm with their Madrases. I've been following events there though, and the Saudis are trying pretty hard to rectify many of those wrongs. The blog http://xrdarabia.org/ has been very helpful to me coming to such conclusions.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.