War dividends

I know it is going to sound cynical, because there is a lot of human tragedy underneath all this, but the war in Iraq and the mess in the Middle East have produced a number of benefits for the United States (and for the rest of the world, to some extent). To name just the big ones:

1. Re-igniting the ancient feud between the Shia and the Sunni. As long as they keep duking it out amongst themselves, they will have less energy and resources left to dish it out to the Great Satan. Similarly with the other various factions: Hamas vs. Fatah in Palestine, Hizbollah in Lebabon. The rest of the world is much better off when the murderous attention of muslims is focused inward.


2. With Iran now scaring its Sunni neighbors shiiteless (or should it be "shiiteful"?), they are looking to the US as the only stabilizing force capable of keeping the deranged Iranian leadership in check. The Europeans have proved (yet again) completely helpless, and Bush is sending signal after signal that he's not going to lift a finger against Iran - one can only imagine the sense of vulnerability of countries like Saudi Arabia.


3. The fairly dramatic rise in oil prices apparently had negligible effect on the US economy, which is remarkably strong. While the higher prices were a huge windfall to the oil-producing countries, they also - and more importantly - demonstrated that the global economy is not as vulnerable to disruption coming from the Middle East as it appeared to be in the seventies. If the interest in alternative energy sources is sustained and leads to technological innovation and consumer adoption, this vulnerability will be reduced even further, to the point when (as Spengler points out in his piece), sudden disappearance of the entire Middle East may well go unnoticed.


4. If Abu Ghraib was such a public relations nightmare for the United States, imagine what the relentless carnage unleashed on innocent civilians by assorted islamic fanatics must be doing to their image in the world, including the so-called "Arab street". One would have to be completely brain dead not to feel a profound cognitive and emotional distress upon being relentlessly bombarded by news of muslims slaughtering other muslims by busload, while the "infidels" are emerging relatively unscathed from the bloodbath.


5. The power that the United States now solely wields on the global stage only increased, with many countries - including the enemies of the US - now realizing what mayhem would be unleashed if the only superpower were to disengage from the world. If we withdrew from Iraq next week, the brutal slaughter that would engulf that country would be on par with the Rwandan genocide.

A new low

Just when you thought that Western cowardice vis-a-vis islam couldn't get any worse, along comes YouTube and shows that it is possible to set a new low:

An atheist commentator, Nick Gisburne, has been posting videos presenting his logical arguments against Christianity, but when he tried the same with islam, YouTube removed his video and... canceled his account. His "offense" wasn't even on par with the famous Dutch cartoons - he wasn't openly ridiculing islam or its holy cows, he was merely quoting from quran to make a point. Of course, as a private company, YouTube has the right to say what can or can not be posted on its servers - but isn't their selectiveness at least a little suspicious? Would they be showing the same amount of "sensitivity" toward Christianity, if Christians went on a rampage every time somebody in the West said something "disparaging" about their religion? (Moslems slaughtering other moslems and blowing up their mosques apparently isn't offensive enough to cause mass demonstrations, but that's another story.) Is it just a coincidence that YouTube is now owned by Google, the same spineless company that meekly agreed to carry water for Chinese censors??

Winning by losing and vice versa

I admit: I'm one of those people, who lost faith in the "Freedom and Democracy in Iraq" project. Not that I had a lot of faith in it to begin with. Initially I was convinced that the war in Iraq was a mistake, primarily because I did not consider Saddam Hussein - even with the weapons of mass destruction - to be a threat to the United States, at least not as grave as Iran or North Korea. Later, I allowed myself to be swayed by the argument that having a prosperous democracy in the Arab world would change the dynamics in the Middle East, and perhaps have a domino effect in the surrounding medieval satrapies. Yes, it would have been a brilliant stroke - had it had any chance of succeeding. And so I'm back to what I have always believed, which is that democracy and individual freedom are incompatible with the Arab mindset, or even Islam for that matter - the quasi-democratic, deeply corrupt regimes in Muslim countries like Indonesia notwithstanding.

It does not mean, by the way, that I do not believe we can "win" in Iraq, if by "winning" one means suppressing the insurgency and stabilizing the country to the point where we could get out without losing face. The problem is that, unless we stay in Iraq for decades and impose - by any means necessary - our own secularized political and cultural system, Iraq will eventually slide back into bloody chaos soon after our departure. There is just no way around that. Japan and Germany after World War II are often evoked by the proponents of this project as examples of countries that the United States successfully transformed from murderous, aggressive, nationalistic dictatorships into prosperous, docile democracies. However, aside from cultural differences that made Germany and Japan more susceptible to such transformation than Iraq, neither of these two countries was surrounded by neighbors who very much remained in the pre-transformation mold, and who feared the changes taking place accross the border. In order to change Iraq we would have to change the entire Middle East at the same time - an idea as crazy and impossible as it sounds.

The only way a country like Iraq can be "stabilized" is by one of the factions being strong and cruel enough to finish off the others. That's why we can't do it - we are not capable (institutionally more that psychologically, perhaps) of being sufficiently cruel; and by "cruelty" I do not mean faking electrocutions or photographing oneself next to a pile of naked prisoners (none of them dead or being killed). I mean wiping out entire families or clans in reprisal for terrorist acts committed by one of their members; I mean throwing live people into wood choppers; leveling, Hama-like, entire villages and tows, with their inhabitants still inside; mutilating bound prisoners before cutting off their heads and videotaping all this to be shown on TV. I have no doubt that many, if not all, of the insurgent groups currently fighting in Iraq are itching to be the one committing these and other atrocities on a scale sufficient to destroy or scare the others. Mass murder in Iraq is inevitable - the only question is: how quickly will it burn itself out and who will emerge on top after blood stops flowing in the streets?

To be brutally honest, if we play our cards right, the answer to this question should be of no consequence to us. Aside from oil and helping Israel stay alive, we have no interest in this region. The two are huge ones, of course, but the issue of oil could, and should, be resolved by the combination of energy efficiency, alternative fuels, and increased domestic production of oil; this, by the way, would also help diminish the risk of a second Jewish holocaust. How? Without revenues from oil, the countries in the Middle East have no economies to speak of, so they would be forced to go back to nomadic tribalism from before the oil boom, which seems to be their dream anyway.

Whether we get out of Iraq next week or next year, the country will deteriorate into a bloody mess, so we may as well do it sooner rather than later. Yes, the jihadists will declare a victory, but so what? More such victories, and the Arab world will stop being a problem. It's kind of like the "victory" of the Vietnamese, isn't it? However, suicidal idiots that they are, they are not as stupid as to not recognize that while we may not be able to help a defeated country stand back on its feet, we can easily destroy any Muslim country, if it pushes the right buttons. (How long did it take the US military to defeat the Taliban and the Iraqi army, with negligible casualties on its side?) Having a prosperous, strong Middle East at peace with itself might actually be more dangerous to us than having a bloody mess there. Unless they change their culture and abandon their religion, a substantial percentage of Muslims will always want to conquer the world and convert everybody to Islam, so a democratic state would at some point either have to revert to authoritarian rule (like Algeria), or succumb to an Islamic takeover and theocracy. Imagine a country like Japan, with its industrial and technological power, and vast financial resources, becoming hostile and aggressive again?

End of appeasement?

There is a significant positive side to the ongoing brouhaha over the remarks made by the Pope, and it is the fact that the West is finally starting to wake up and see the nature of the enemy we're facing. It was easy to ingore when something President Bush said or did, caused muslim hysteria. ("What do you expect from that semi-literate cowboy in the White House?") Even the Danish cartoonists could be left to fend for themselves, dissed by the Left as a bunch of reactionaries, whose gross cultural insensitivity got them what they deserved. But with this recent incident it is becoming awfully hard to keep on blaming  the victim. (Cowboy in the Vatican? An insensitive reactionary? Doesn't quite fit...) Yes, there are still those who try: Scott Adams, the creator of the occasionally funny Dilbert cartoons, has this imbecilic reaction to the news of firebombing of churches in the West Bank: "WHAT THE HELL ARE CHURCHES DOING IN THE WEST BANK?????????" (Hmm, yes, what are churches doing in the land of Jesus? And what the hell are mosques doing in Europe and America?). However, their numbers are rapidly shrinking. Case in point: blogger Matoko Kusanagi posted her criticism of the Pope for "poking the snake". One only needs to scroll down and read the dozens of comments posted on her blog to see that appeasement no longer has the same appeal it did only a few months ago. Pope: 1, moslems: less than 0.

Tiny points of light

Writing in today's LA Times with clarity and force, Sam Harris chastises fellow liberals for ignoring the grave threat posed to our civilization by islamic fanaticism. He has put into precise sentences something I've been thinking about for a long time but never wrote down: having ranted for so long about the ills and evils of the Western civilization, the liberals internalized their loathing to the point, where they will not defend this civilization against annihilation. How can a reasonable person respond to this death wish, except by saying, "Fuck you! And may you die a prolonged and horrible death, having your head sawed off with a dull knife by a masked islamic fanatic. On video. You can go to hell, if you so wish, but you're not taking me along."

For the biggest part of my life I considered myself a liberal, albeit in the "classical sense", that is a person who would like to see more freedoms given to individuals to make their own decisions, and fewer restrictions placed by government bureaucrats on the lives of private citizens. I abhorred religious fanatics of any kind and didn't like religions to begin with. But if Christian conservatists are the only people capable of recognizing the threat and willing to fight it, then sign me up. I will become a born-again Jesus freak, if that's necessary to defeat islamic fascism, because I know that our civilization will have a chance to emerge from the temporary darkness imposed on it by Christian fundamentalism - it has done so in the past, it will do it again. But if we lose this battle, if murderous islam turns up victorius, there is no chance for us. Christianity did go through very dark, cruel episodes, but it eventually reformed, adjusted, "civilized" itself. Islam never changed. If anything, it seems to be going backwards, toward barbarism, intolerance, fanaticism, madness.
It is so extremely rare these days to hear a liberal speak up againt the gravest threat our civilization has faced since Nazism, that it is impossible not run toward these tiny points of light, like a child chasing fireflies in a swamp.

Humiliation as a weapon

Are we still fighting "for the hearts and minds of the moslems?" Because if we are, than the pope's contrition for telling the truth means that we're having our assess whipped in this fight. Islamic is a patriarchal world, where the issue of honor is a very important one. The islamofascists know that they can't challenge the West on  science, technology, or culture, so they hit us where they can reach and where their victory will reverberate among their fellow moslems. They challenged us to a boxing match they know they can't win playing by the rules, so they are biting and kicking us in the balls. It doesn't matter that this is dirty fighting, what matters is that they have us squirming and covering our balls. They can say to the muslim audience who at some time might have been attracted to Western ideas and way of life, "This is what you covet? Look at them: a moslem will frown and the head of their church wil bow and ask for forgiveness. Do you want to be like them, or would you rather stick with us and have them tremble in fear of you?"

It's not hard to guess the answer coming from the islamic audience.Â

Message to the pope: convert to islam

Pope Benedict expressed regrets that his recent remarks offended muslim sensibilities. His offense? He dared to remind the world that early islam was spread largely by force. (The pope now says that his intention was to point out that it is wrong to use any religion as justification for violence.) Now he'll have to apologize, perhaps go to the muslim equivalent of Canossa (Would it be Peshawar? Tehran? Sadr City?), stand there barefoot, clad only in a potato sack, with ashes on his head, and wait for forgiveness. The followers of the "religion of peace" are already protesting on the streets and threatening violence. It could get out of hand, like with the Danish cartoons. Of course, it is nothing more than another test of Western cowardice, to see how quickly it will promise to censor its speech and apologize profusely.

My advise to the twit in papal robes: accept islam. You know it is going to happen eventually. Once eurabia is under sharia you won't be able to hold off for long, so why prolong the agony and suffer more humiliations? Chances are, the rest of europe will follow your example, and this way the US could finally disengage from the continent that has long ago ceased to be an ally, let alone a friend. Then it will just be a matter of waiting until they attack us, and respond with full force, perhaps liberating europe once again from the grip of yet another totalitarianism that grew on its decaying body.

Muslim chutzpah

The Morning Edition interview with Sayed Badreya and Hesham Issawi reminded me why, after five years, I still can't stand NPR. (I used to be a great fan and member...) The interview went well enough and I listened to it with some interest, until, at the very end, Renee Montagne asked, "What about America's image problem in the Muslim world?". To which Mr. Badreya immediately, almost automatically responded, "Oh, it is terrible! It's horrible! It's just horrible". After that interview I turned the radio off - I was so upset I could not listen to it anymore.
So it always comes down to this, doesn't it: America is the greater evil. At the bottom of every depravity there is America to blame. Muslims are just victims. If Americans were to say that the image of Muslims in this country is terrible, because... - well, do you really want me to count the reasons? - this would be just another evidence of our ignorance and prejudice. Never mind the beheadings, the suicide bombers, the cult of death, the daily carnage perpetrated on Muslims by Muslims in Iraq and elsewhere... Muslims are just victims, we have no right or reason to dislike them, let alone hate them. They, on the other hand, have plenty of reasons to hate us. But if that's the case, at least we have plenty of company: the bombings and thwarted bombing plots suggest that they hate India, too. And Spain. And Canada. And Germany. And the UK. They hate other Muslims, as well. They have so much hate to dish out that there isn't any left for us.
The meek acknowledgment of Mr. Issawi, that there is "still bright side to America", because he was able to make a film here that he would not be able to make in Egypt, only added insult to injury. So this country had welcomed these guys, allowed them to realize their dreams, and yet they feel that the hatred of America in the Muslim world is fully justified.
Thank you NPR, for reminding me why I should continue to be very mistrustful of Muslims and you.

They hate us? Great!

A couple of days ago I caught the last few minutes of a radio interview with Francis Fukuyama bemoaning the fact that, “the United States have never been so unpopular and even hated around the world.” (Quoting from memory.) Of course, I’ve heard it before, many times – after all, it is one of the favorite mantras of the American Left, almost as popular as “Bush lied!” – but it never fails to bring a nasty expletive to my lips. It is such a meaningless statement and yet most of the time accepted at face value, as if it were, indeed, an undeniable and very unfortunate fact.

Even assuming that this is true, that the unpopularity of the United States has never been greater, why is this necessarily a bad thing? It might be a bad thing if everybody in the whole world liked the US less (or disliked it more) than before. I’m certain that this is not the case – that there are plenty of people whose admiration and respect for this country increased in recent years. Of course, I’m also certain that there are plenty of those, who hate us more than before. But before we start wringing our hands and pondering how to make ourselves more lovable, let’s consider for a moment who is hating us and why. I’ll take a stab:

The radical Left worldwide is not about to forget and forgive the fact that the wrong side won the Cold War. There is no way we can placate these people unless the US adopts socialism. I hope this will never happen, even if these people end up stewing in their hatred till the day they expire.

The Islamists want us all to die slow and painful deaths, but even if we were to do that in order to please them, I really doubt that this would diminish their hatred of us – only add contempt to the mix. Even scoundrels like Michael More, whose disdain for his own country receives such applause from the enemies of America, would probably have his head sawed off, too.

There are those, who are envious of our success and prosperity. Especially in countries that used to play the first fiddle on the international scene but now are finding out that their voice matters as much (or as little) as that of any other country. Russia and France immediately come to mind. These countries’ elites – and a significant portion of their citizenry – feel that the United States somehow “stole” their power and influence, basking in the spotlight that belongs to them. As Sylvain Galineau so eloquently put it:

“In a way, the U.S. position today is that of a geopolitical Microsoft : hugely successful, rich, powerful, sucking up the best talent, fast and nimble despite its massive size, ruthlessly efficient in crushing its opponents. Hated, insulted and derided more for it successes than its failures, the favorite subject of conspiracy theories, urban legends and other lunacies. Surrounded by lesser powers and interest groups all vying for its attention and a piece of the action. Harrassed, stalked and sued by a constellation of once great dwarflings who will never admit their diminished position has at least as much to do with their own stupidity and mistakes as it has with the giant's deft cunning. Feeling entitled to greatness and influence on the sole basis of their past, they claim what should be theirs has been stolen from them. The U.N. is their Department Of Justice. Chirac fancies himself as their David Boies. With more expensive suits. And he loves the attention.”

The Palestinians. Ah, but then they hate almost everybody. Apparently they hate the Europeans, who for many years have been pouring money and support for their cause, even more than us. Go figure.

Authoritarian regimes, especially those in the Middle East, have good reasons to fear and hate us. They used to be courted by both of the great adversaries in the Cold War, but now, with only one of those adversaries still standing, their usefulness has diminished to zero. In fact, their continued existence is against the interests of the United States. Their resentment is hardly surprising.

Now, let’s ask ourselves: would we really want these people to like us? Would Francis Fukuyama feel better about America, if newspapers abroad carried news items like these:

“Representatives of Hamas expressed their gratitude to the United States for providing them with much needed cash and weapons.”

“French president Jacques Chirac acknowledged today that since the US had started seeking France’s approval for all its international initiatives, the relationship between the two allies has never been better.”

“Mullah Omar and his Taliban supporters praised their former enemy for restoring them to power in Afghanistan and for providing tens of thousands of burkhas for the Afghan women.”

“Socialist parties around the world applauded the United States for abolishing private land ownership and promoting farm collectives in all 50 states.”

We ought to be proud and happy that people like that hate us – the alternative would be unbearable.