Three looks into the future

     To those of you who appreciate alternative opinion, critical thought, and pragmatism this post may be of some interest to you.. To those of you who rely on the mainstream media or popular printed opinion pages to formulate your positions on policy.. Perhaps.. (Oh.. How to put this delicately) not so much..

 On Sat. Oct. 21st 2006, I had the good fortune to attend a lecture series hosted by the Tufts University Objectivist Club in conjunction with the Ayn Rand Institute, held at the Boston WTC  titled “The Jihad Against the West: The Real threat and the Right Response” ..
    

I sat in on the lectures of :


Robert Spencer noted religious scholar & author of several best selling books on Islam and Jihad Ideology including NYT bestsellers “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam & the Crusades”,  “ The Truth about Muhammad; Founder of the Worlds Most Intolerant Religion”..
 Mr. Spencer was also gracious enough to appear as a recent guest on the Ken Pittman Show..

Dr. John Lewis Professor of history from Ashland College (Ohio).. (A guest scheduled for this Friday the 27th @ 4:30) &

 Dr. Daniel Pipes religious scholar, author of several books on Islam, several hundred articles in various publications, as well as a much sought after opinion in  Washington and the Main Stream Media.. (Am working on an appearance)

The lectures were highly informative, and as the title of the event would imply the varying  opinions on  Jihad Ideology, its validity, as well as the level to which it permeates Islamic society, were the focus of each speakers oratory.. The Q&A that followed each lecture served to highlight the varying opinions on appropriate response, not only to 9/11 but to the open hostility emanating from  Islam in every corner of the globe lo these past 30 years.. 
     
 In Dr. Pipes opinion there are three prevailing mindsets that reasonable people use in defining the current global conflict the Western world is now involved in, there are:

1. The War on Terror: Which Dr. Pipes defined as the Western World fighting terrorism in no matter what form it takes.. Not only Islamic Radicals but any religious extremist, as well as Drug Lords in South America, Street Gangs in our community, or individuals like Timothy McVeigh, and Ted Kosczinski (the Uni-bomber )..

2. The war on Islam: the religion itself..

3. The war on Radical Islamist’s: Call it Islamic Extremist Ideology, Islamo-Fascism, Radical Islam, or Islamic Theocracy.. This is the opinion  Dr. Pipes supports..
 
To clarify he thinks we need to confine our aggression solely to those pious folk  who cut peoples heads off, stone and imprison women for adultery, and in general commit  98% of the atrocities around the world, all in the name of Allah, without questioning whether there is not something fundamentally wrong with Islam itself..
    
Though I greatly admire Dr. Pipes intellect and masterful command of Islam, I disagree with his notion that we should not be waging war against Islam itself, even if only an Ideological war..
 Islam itself has got to be confronted by the Western World and soon..

I too see three rational schools of thought but they each involve confronting Islam:

1. The WWII/MacCarthur doctrine:
     
Militarily we cannot shy away from our entire weapons arsenal in dealing with this problem, including nuclear attacks to remove governments we oppose like the Mullahs in Iran.. In the event of another 9/11 scale attack we should hold the Nuclear threat, like the Sword of Damocles over the Ka’aba in Mecca, as well..
Having never lost a generation of her sons and daughters to global conflict, the Islamic world has a somewhat romanticized perspective of war..
  Draconian measures would dispel that notion.. Quickly..
    
In any follow on occupations we employ the model used in the post-WWII occupation of Japan.. 

No more of this  “you broke you fix it“ nonsense.. Total war with unconditional surrender.. Let these countries pay for their own infrastructure as well as the cost to our government for the expense of the military occupation..  
    
Outlaw Islamic Theology the same way Shintoism was outlawed in Japan Post WWII..
Remove Sharia from any new constitutions.. This speaks to the need for an international acknowledged, enforceable doctrine to be drafted and signed by all member nations of the U.N... Signing would be mandatory and failure to do so would be grounds for a military response..
 
Said document would allow for religious and ethnic minorities to live and worship freely, without threat of persecution.. State sanctioned religious violence would also be cause for an immediate military response..

 Dr. John Lewis advocated this position during his lecture.. In his words “having a war on terror in response to 9/11 is like having a war on sneak attacks in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor..”
   
Dr. Lewis talked about  Truman’s reluctance to use our Nuclear option against Korea in the 50's and how it mirrors our problems with Iran today. In Prof. Lewis’ opinion we should have nuked Pyongyang in 1950..  The Chinese and the Soviets did not have the capability to respond in kind at the time, and this lack of resolve was a huge opportunity missed.. 
N.Korea is now threatening the stability of the entire world..

(Despite No. Korea’s recent decision to shut down their nuclear programs.. The proliferation of information in Nuclear and Ballistic missile technology the country has left the Western World with a vexing diplomatic problem with Iran as noted above..) 
     
The final bill still hasn’t come in for one tremendous strategic error, are we going to wait and see how the Mullahs in Tehran handle nuclear responsibility?

2. Demand reform within the Islamic community:
     In my opinion this is where the war will be one or lost..
    
Since Muhammad is looked upon as the most perfect human form, the standard by which all others are measured, Muslims the world over try to live their lives as closely to the Prophets as possible..

With that in mind, it becomes incumbent upon the secular scholars in the Western World to intellectually confront the inconsistencies in the Prophet Muhammad’s message.. Since he is one of the most well documented people who ever lived there is an abundance of source material..
    
Armed with the actual knowledge of Muhammad, his mission, his deeds and his words, (or  Hadithe), few critical thinkers give much credence to his divine revelations..

When asked whether Mr. Spencer thought Muhammad divinely inspired or just a shrewd political opportunist.. He responded “Well there is a chapter in my new book (The Truth about Muhammad) titled  “Revelations of Convenience”..
    

Mr. Spencer, who must live in a secure undisclosed location due to Islamist death threats, has consistently thumbed his nose at the Politically Correct mindset.. He along with others are trying to get the true words and deeds of this Prophet out to the Western World ,as well as defend Western Civilizations superior contributions to the greater good of mankind..

During his lecture and Q&A that followed, he railed against Western Guilt, & cited Thomas Sowell’s recent essay “The True history of Slavery” in defense of Western man and his efforts to abolish slavery.. He pointed out that Islam is the only religion whose followers still practice slavery, and indeed Saudi Arabia didn‘t formally renounce institutional slavery until 1963..
   

To accusations of racism he responded, “Ibrahim Hooper from CAIR(the Counsel on American Islamic Relations) has fair skin and blue eyes, while the victims of religiously motivated genocide in Darfur are Black Africans.. So it can not be racial”   
   
He cited the self censoring of the Western Media in the face of the Popes Comments and the “Danish Cartoon Wars” as further signs of our weakness to the Umma (The international Islamic community).. 
     
Though it came as no surprise to me, it would probably surprise most people to know; the humanitarian aide we send to Palestine and all the Islamic countries in need is viewed as “Jizya” or tribute money paid by non-Muslims to keep the peace..

That brings us to Dr. Pipes somewhat pie in the sky theory of dealing with the Islamists themselves..

3. The war is against the Radical Islamists:
     Waging war solely against the radicals presumes this is a small minority of the Umma who think this way.. This theory involves moderate Muslims rising up and reclaiming their religion..  Unfortunately there is much too much evidence to the contrary for this option to be considered possible.. 
   
To date there are no large moderate groups of Muslims willing to take up this challenge.. The dogma and the rhetoric in the Qu’ran as well as  Hadithe are what Muslims hold dearest to them, even above family ties.. At its core Islam is a religion that requires utmost devotion to God, in fact the word Muslim literally means one who submits..  
    

So while internal forces changing Islam's message sounds good in theory.. The fact is, short of an international conference to reform Islam, (akin to the one we in the West had a while back  in Worms), there is not much hope for peaceful co-existence with the Islamic World.. And very soon it appears we will need to decide if and how we are going to share this planet with them..   I much prefer my options 1 & 2..

Human Pride World-Wide
Bob Grant