Iran an “axis of evil” in the modern world. 10 The remedy, naturally, is to defeat Islamic totalitarianism and leave it on the ash heap of history, to bring about what Richard Perle and David Frum termed (in the title of their book) “an end to evil.”
The “radicals” and “extremists” are our true enemy.
The Islamic world is divided into “extremists” and “moderates.” As conservatives like Francis Fukuyama and Daniel Pipes insist, the extremists are the ones who are against modernity. Scorning science, capitalism, and democracy, they seek to impose Islamic law across the Middle East, if not on the whole world. One version of this argument is that extremism springs out of an especially virulent religious fanaticism deriving from the Wahhabi strain in contemporary Islam. No wonder, writes Fox News anchor John Gibson, that so many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabi Islam is officially practiced and promoted by the Saudi royal family. Others on the right maintain that power, rather than religion, is the true motivation of the extremists. The power-hungry mullahs achieve their goals by conning and manipulating young people through incentives such as the promise of an eternity in paradise attended by seventy-two virgins. Now we see why the 9/11 hijackers went so willingly to their deaths! Conservatives disagree about the degree of support enjoyed by the extremists. Bush, however, seems convinced that they are a tiny minority who “practice a fringe form of Islam.” Bush argues that the majority of Muslims in the world are moderates who follow “the peaceful teachings of Islam” and embrace “progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.” 11
Force is a necessary response.
Since the terrorists oppose us for who we are, not for what we do, there is no appeasing them. As British prime minister Tony Blair said shortly after 9/11, “There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror.” 12 The only solution is to attack the Al Qaeda training camps, and to destroy the wider network of international terrorist groups. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah—they should all renounce violence, or face annihilation. Even more, the war against terrorism means toppling and transforming regimes that support terrorists. The magnitude of the task suggests a long war, perhaps an unending war. While America should seek international support for this enterprise, allying with countries like Russia and Israel that are also fighting terrorism, there are cases like Iraq where America should be willing to fight the battle by itself.
Liberals simply don’t understand the threat.
Conservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration seem puzzled that liberals, who regularly profess their allegiance to the values of liberalism and democracy, seem unenthusiastic about fighting a two-fisted war against terrorism. The reason for this, conservatives surmise, is that liberals are reflexively anti-American, or that liberals simply don’t comprehend the threat. In his writings, David Horowitz has hammered unceasingly on the gullibility of liberals, and on their alleged hatred of their own country. A few right-wingers have gone even further, suggesting that liberals are traitors. Most conservatives do not share this view. Conservatives generally agree, however, that liberals are dangerously naïve in placing their hopes for peace in unending mutual dialogue, or in the procedures of the United Nations. Liberals seem to think that if America leaves the Muslims alone, the Muslims will leave America alone. Finally, liberals don’t understand the need for comprehensive programs of homeland security such as are provided for by the Patriot Act. In this analysis, liberals are so concerned with protecting our civil liberty that they are unwittingly jeopardizing our security.
The goal is a liberal, democratic Middle East.
The Bush administration is
The “radicals” and “extremists” are our true enemy.
The Islamic world is divided into “extremists” and “moderates.” As conservatives like Francis Fukuyama and Daniel Pipes insist, the extremists are the ones who are against modernity. Scorning science, capitalism, and democracy, they seek to impose Islamic law across the Middle East, if not on the whole world. One version of this argument is that extremism springs out of an especially virulent religious fanaticism deriving from the Wahhabi strain in contemporary Islam. No wonder, writes Fox News anchor John Gibson, that so many of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, where Wahhabi Islam is officially practiced and promoted by the Saudi royal family. Others on the right maintain that power, rather than religion, is the true motivation of the extremists. The power-hungry mullahs achieve their goals by conning and manipulating young people through incentives such as the promise of an eternity in paradise attended by seventy-two virgins. Now we see why the 9/11 hijackers went so willingly to their deaths! Conservatives disagree about the degree of support enjoyed by the extremists. Bush, however, seems convinced that they are a tiny minority who “practice a fringe form of Islam.” Bush argues that the majority of Muslims in the world are moderates who follow “the peaceful teachings of Islam” and embrace “progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.” 11
Force is a necessary response.
Since the terrorists oppose us for who we are, not for what we do, there is no appeasing them. As British prime minister Tony Blair said shortly after 9/11, “There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror.” 12 The only solution is to attack the Al Qaeda training camps, and to destroy the wider network of international terrorist groups. Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah—they should all renounce violence, or face annihilation. Even more, the war against terrorism means toppling and transforming regimes that support terrorists. The magnitude of the task suggests a long war, perhaps an unending war. While America should seek international support for this enterprise, allying with countries like Russia and Israel that are also fighting terrorism, there are cases like Iraq where America should be willing to fight the battle by itself.
Liberals simply don’t understand the threat.
Conservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration seem puzzled that liberals, who regularly profess their allegiance to the values of liberalism and democracy, seem unenthusiastic about fighting a two-fisted war against terrorism. The reason for this, conservatives surmise, is that liberals are reflexively anti-American, or that liberals simply don’t comprehend the threat. In his writings, David Horowitz has hammered unceasingly on the gullibility of liberals, and on their alleged hatred of their own country. A few right-wingers have gone even further, suggesting that liberals are traitors. Most conservatives do not share this view. Conservatives generally agree, however, that liberals are dangerously naïve in placing their hopes for peace in unending mutual dialogue, or in the procedures of the United Nations. Liberals seem to think that if America leaves the Muslims alone, the Muslims will leave America alone. Finally, liberals don’t understand the need for comprehensive programs of homeland security such as are provided for by the Patriot Act. In this analysis, liberals are so concerned with protecting our civil liberty that they are unwittingly jeopardizing our security.
The goal is a liberal, democratic Middle East.
The Bush administration is
Similar Books
