Drooling on the Pillow

Friday, July 08, 2005


The notion that we have brought events like the London bombings upon ourselves with the war on terror is bizarre. But it is widespread and has become the fallback position for countless otherwise moderate sectors. After the elections in Iraq, the elimination of Libya as a factor in terrorism, the steady democratization of Lebanon, the announcement of elections in Egypt, the increasing marginalization of Syria, the relative calm in Palestine and other evident benefits of President Bush's policies, a dark lining has to be found within these silver clouds.

There are two fundamentally opposed places to start when deciding where responsibility lies.

One: we are at war and have been for decades. It was only after 9/11, however, that our leaders realized it.

Two: Western imperialism and hegemony has victimized Arabs, Muslims and third-worlders in general for centuries. Attacks against us are predictable, preventable and essentially rational.

Everybody can agree we're in a struggle. It is the question of the nature of our opponent that requires clarity on a broader basis.

Listen to Christopher Hitchens (Via Bad Hair Blog) in the Mirror today:

We know very well what the "grievances" of the
jihadists are.

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance
of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the
Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy,
which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance
of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London.
The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim
farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The
grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance
of music, and of most representational art. The grievance
of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East
Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have
been proclaimed as a license to kill infidels or apostates,
or anyone who just gets in the way.

Mick Hartley links to two letters to the London Time's this morning that starkly illustrate the two points of view.

Events like the London bombing often shock the two sides into a momentary coalition. As TPB, Esq. of Unbillable Hours, points out today, "Red Ken" Livingstone spoke yesterday with a roar reminiscent of Winston Churchill.

But in general, as the war against those who want nothing from us but our deaths continues and succeeds, the stakes for those who oppose it steepen. Galloway, Kos and thousands of smaller voices jump quickly forward with the notion that, as our cause is not just, our suffering is deserved and the only expiation is surrender.

This war began in an attempt to force every idea, individual, and influence of the West out of Saudi Arabia in preparation for a Islamo-chiliastic curtain being drawn over the entire Muslim world. Once that's accomplished the final conversion of the rest of the world can begin. I'm not saying that's going to happen or even that it could happen with our surrender. I'm just characterizing the motives behind this mad scheme. Dirty little men, in dirty little rooms, making dirty little plans. With lots and lots of money.

If we withdraw now, we doom countless lives behind that curtain to a misery from which they might not emerge for centuries. And we doom ourselves to a security situation with no options other than holding losses to a minimum.

It will be long and hard. It will be longer and harder without a broader-based consensus that we're in the right. But we have to fight. First, the despicable notion that there is any justification whatsoever for jihadist attacks. Second, that disengaging at this point will improve our position in the short or long run. And third, the Islamo-fascists themselves. We have no option other than capturing and killing the deluded vermin behind this attack and all the others.

All three fights we have to fight to win.
Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Listed on BlogShares