THOUGHT WAR AMERICA'S WEAKEST FRONT

Frederick Meekins
Nov. 6, 2001

On the sci-fi drama "Babylon 5", initiates to the elite interstellar Rangers established by the Mimbari Federation spend much of their training learning the language of that particular alien culture regardless of the recruit's planet of origin, the idea being to these warriors that combat is as much about proper thought as superior firepower. If some of the intellectual approaches applied to the war on terrorism are any indication, the United States could be headed for serious trouble down the road.

The strategic ideology hampering America's struggle against global terrorism for the most part stems from the faulty multicultural assumptions plaguing other social institutions as well. Foremost among these fallacies ranks the notion that all societies are equal with no one culture superior to any other.

This nonsense bubbled-over onto the front page news in response to comments made by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Berlusconi, according to the Washington Post, dared to enunciate, "...we should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries." He went on to assure that the West would ultimately triumph over radicalized Islam in much the same as Communism was neutralized (at least for the time being anyway).

For reciting what essentially amounted to established historical fact, Berlusconi was called a "second Mussolini". In its editorial response, the Washington Post noted such comments were "unacceptable" and best relegated to "previous centuries". At no time were their basic factuality refuted. It must be noted that to most postmodern multiculturalists truth does not exist to begin with and has scant impact upon their style of argumentation.

Perhaps it would be best to examine exactly what was said by this European statesman. Berlusconi said our way of life was superior --- not that Musilms as individual human beings were inferior. To classify an individual as such would be contrary to the values and principles held high by the Italian Prime Minister for the world to rally around in this hour of great need. However, ways of life are a conscious moral decision and as such are subject to the standards of right and wrong or better and worse.

The last time I checked, the immigration lines were congested in only one direction. If Western nations are so terrible as argued by a number of newspapers from the Islamic world following the remarks of the Italian Prime Minister, why do scores of those motivated for a better life from the Middle East and Central Asia continue to flock here to take advantage of educational or occupational opportunities and assorted freedoms they could never dream of enjoying in their native lands?

Can any naive relativist honestly tell me women are no better off here than in Afghanistan under the Taliban where women are forbidden from getting an education, holding jobs or even wearing white socks, or made to feel like herded livestock every time they need to leave their houses with the painted-over windows?

This sociological egalitarianism is not without strategic consequences. To some, it is inappropriate to root and hope for the ultimate triumph of the United States and our allies in this tumultuous conflict. It seems this error knows no geographic boundaries.

According to the Times of London, the National Union of Teachers there opposes the traditional lyrics to an anthem called "Land of Hope and Glory" for being "too jingoistic" in a time of international conflict for entreating the Lord with the following words: "God who made thee mighty, Make thee mightier yet." Instead, they want this sanitized as: "Music and our voices Unite us all as one... Bring our world together, Make us closer yet."

For the sake of Great Britain and the remainder of the civilized world, these misbegotten pedagogues had better pray that the Almighty makes both their kingdom and their wayward colonies mightier yet or there might not be enough of either left to sing about.

Those preferring the sappy "We are the World" reworking of such edifying lyrics fail to realize that, should the world unite and draw together as these polemicists of pluralism propose, it will be the likes of Bin Ladin who will end up on top making the rules for such malcontents will continue throwing their homicidal terror tantrums until they are the ones running the show.

The problem with such academic posturing is that sooner or later it weaves its way into concrete expressions of policy. A number of university administrators have spoken out against proposals to keep tabs on individuals entering the United States on student visas who either don't show up for a single day of class using this program as a pretext for infiltrating our borders or who come here to master our technology in the hopes of one day using it against us.

The University of Maryland student newspaper, the Diamondback, opposes restrictions curbing student visas, noting, "Diversity is never a bad thing." Such unquestioning acceptance of diversity gets you airliners flown into prominent landmarks and apocalyptic pestilences delivered with the daily mail.

Unfortunately, cognitive missteps do not confine themselves to the mental crackpots who usually administer colleges and universities and who could not land a job outside the educational establishment if their lives depended on it. Such fallacies could be winning the ears of those charged with sailing the ship of state through tricky strategic seas.

Since moral relativism teaches that no culture is better than any other, adherents by default are required to lavish the same degree of honor and praise upon them all. This for a time led to considerable speculation in the press as to whether the U.S. would halt operations in honor of Ramadan.

Ramadan should have as much bearing on military exercises as a debate as to whether Tuesday will follow Monday, in other words none whatsoever. The matter should not even come up for consideration.

Granted, as a general rule of courtesy it's nice to respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to practice their religion. However, these terrorists cannot be classified as "law-abiding" unless Islamic nations want to admit they don't give a hoot about American lives.

Any legitimate religion must recognize a fundamental hierarchy of values beginning with the adoration of God, respect for human beings as His highest creation, and lastly any rituals established to honor the faith in question. Honorable nations and individuals cannot violate principles higher up the chain and then hide behind the trivialities of ceremony in a vain attempt to authenticate one's piety.

It would be the epitome of hypocrisy for some lunatic to commit some ghastly atrocity in the name of Christ and then whine how law enforcement's ensuing pursuit prevented them from enjoying a merry little Christmas.

Muslims around the world must decide if the quest to address this terrorist mess outweighs a matter God might be willing to overlook should circumstances warrant. After all, Mark 2:27 reads, "...The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath..." Why not the same regarding Ramadan as well?

A fundamental dogma of sound tactical theory warns, "Know your enemy." It seems this is where the United States stands on the thinnest ice. For while President Bush is correct in noting that the United States is not at war with all Muslims, his comments that these terrorists represent only a small percentage distorting that peaceful religion for their own purposes does not quite measure up to the theological reality.

American politicians urge docile rhetoric in approaching this matter, extolling most Islamic regimes around the world as moderate nations not that much different than the United States. Yet closer examination reveals it is exceedingly difficult to differentiate between the so-called "moderates" and "extremists".

This was particularly brought to light by an article posted on the October 16, 2001 edition of WorldNetDaily.com. According to the article, in Egypt --- that Middle Eastern model of democracy and individual human rights whose President Hosni Mubarak castigated the Israeli leadership as a dictatorship --- Christian girls are kidnapped and raped until they convert to Islam under threat of duress. Government officials there are of little help as police intimidate and coerce Christian families under their jurisdictions into abandoning the search for their abducted loved ones.

For daring to publicize these facts in conjunction with Whistleblower magazine, death threats have been issued against WorldNetDaily. So much for ecumenical goodwill and brotherhood in this hour of international crisis on the part of the Muslims claiming to stand for truth and justice.

While the prudence of political realism cautions that we cannot pound into submission every regime defying our standards and values when these transgressions do not bear directly upon matters of national security, this geopolitical perspective seeking to view the world as it actually exists rather than as we would like it to be must readily admit that both Christianity and Islam are locked in an ongoing conflict whose outcome will determine the very layout of the global social order.

John Leo writes in the September 24, 2001 issue of U.S. News and World Report, "...this is a global cultural war, pitting a pan-Islamic movement of fundamentalist extremists and its primary cultural engine, America."

On September 6th, five days before the attack, Arnold Beichman of the Hoover Institution foretold in a Washington Times op-ed that the current tensions between Christianity and Islam represented nothing short of the clash of civilizations thesis put forth by Samuel Huntington in the book of that same name. Beichman wrote, "Arabdom ... cannot tolerate Judeo-Christian civilization which espouses universal human rights, equality, separation of church and state, a secular rule of law, democracy, and free markets."

While President Bush is correct that not all Muslims are responsible for the acts of anti-Western/anti-Christian violence transpiring around the world, there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that the current examples of extremism manifesting themselves in terms of both rhetoric and action represent more than a minor theological aberration. It has been suggested that nearly one-fifth of all Muslims sympathize with the beliefs of the September 11th perpetrators even if the sympathizers are themselves personally innocent of committing this historic atrocity. Cal Thomas noted that at an Islamic School in suburban Washington, DC, students enjoying the benefits of living in the United States were themselves cheering on the Taliban. Bin Ladin's own ex-sister-in-law admits that the Saudi regime is little more than the Taliban living amidst luxury.

One cannot help but note --- and grow irritated by --- the lengths taken by the government in general and the media in particular to differentiate the assorted ideological strains within Islam. Such pains are seldom taken in regards to Christianity. Usually rabid leftwing correspondents and bureaucrats can't wait to lump legitimate expressions of the Christian faith together with all manner of religious kooks and philosophical nincompoops when the perpetrators of various heinous acts happen to fall out of America's own ecclesiastical closet.

Media liberals had no problem with labeling Timothy McVeigh a Protestant when in the book American Terrorist it's revealed this homicidal nihilist did not believe much of anything in regards to the deity. Why the pains now among journalists for careful religious scholarship?

Columnist Charles Krauthammer has noted that, even though it was the United States that was attacked, liberal elites comport themselves as if the burden for understanding and tolerance rested solely upon America's shoulders. This is a conflict for our very survival. If the United States goes too far out of its way to spare the feelings of its enemies and their admiring enthusiasts, there might end up being very little of the United States left for this scum to kick around as we ourselves would bring about our own demise.