America at Risk, the Movie
Newt and Callista Gingrich invited me to the premiere of America at Risk on the evening of September 11. I should explain in the spirit of full disclosure that Newt is a great fan of There's No Alternative, and has gone far out of his way to help me get the word out about the book. It's impossible for me not to be grateful to someone who has taken so much time out of an obviously busy schedule to help me. It's also hard to find fault with the political opinions of someone who so enthusiastically endorses my own. Consider my bias disclosed.
That said, I imagined it would be difficult to make a movie about Islamic extremism that didn't suffer from the usual vices of reporting on this subject--hysteria and an undifferentiated perspective on the Islamic world--and I expected the movie to be, more or less, a campaign commercial for Newt Gingrich. I was also dismayed by Gingrich's suggestion that the Ground Zero Mosque should not be built because Saudi Arabia doesn't permit the building of churches. There are many excellent arguments against that thing, but that's not one of them. So I was prepared to be sympathetic to his aim but dubious about the particulars.
I was in fact impressed. Although to an extent it was indeed a campaign commercial for Newt Gingrich (and would have been stronger and more credible with skeptical audiences had it not been, but let's live in reality), it was definitely more than that, and deserves to be seen on its own merits. I didn't agree with every assertion made--I particularly don't agree that reducing our dependency on Saudi oil will do a thing to mitigate the problem, oil being a fungible commodity--but thought the movie an excellent starting point for discussion, as the filmmakers intended it to be. I commend them for raising the issue of the pernicious effect of the export of Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia so forthrightly; most politicians won't at all, and that really is the aspect of the problem that most urgently needs to be addressed.
I was also impressed with the line-up of interview subjects, who included, for example, Bernard Lewis and M. Zuhdi Jasser. I'd never seen an interview with Jasser before and thought his contribution compelling. The movie is worth seeing for him alone, particularly for his discussion of a question so often raised here--why is it that genuinely non-radical Moslems such as he are so often unknown to the public and ignored by the media? I was glad too that the movie conveyed a point I far too often see unappreciated: The chief victims of Islamic radicalism are Moslems themselves. America (including its Moslem citizens) lost the Twin Towers and the Pentagon; The Islamic world has lost entire nations and generations to Islamic extremists, and for precisely this reason, many Moslems are our natural allies.
The movie is already and predictably being described as "fear-mongering" by critics. I thought it was dramatically effective, to be sure, but hardly think Gingrich is the one doing the fear-mongering. These things really happened and they are really happening. The charge of fear-mongering is more properly applied to those who smash airplanes into skyscrapers and propose to do it again, or those who threaten a second genocide of the Jews and seek aggressively to acquire nuclear weapons to achieve that end. You'd have to be completely insensate or in abject denial to fail to find that frightening.
Nothing in it came as a surprise to me, but for those who follow these issues less closely, it would be informative. I hope it gets a wide audience, it genuinely deserves one; and I hope critics will try to separate their feelings about Gingrich as a public figure from their assessment of the movie. It deserves that, too.
- Comment (7)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: America at Risk, the Movie
". I'd never seen an interview with Jasser before and thought his contribution compelling."
Jasser is a truly believable man, unlike that GZM Iman Rauf, with his eyes darting back and forth proclaiming peace and brotherhood while threatening world wide Muslim insurrection. "Love me or I'll kill you." That seems to be Rauf's moderate message.
I have posted video clips of Jasser in some of our discussions, of which you, Claire, were involved. I am glad you finally saw him. It always aggravates me when Fox brings out their obligatory moderate Muslim and he turns out to be some Imam from CAIR, an un-indited co-conspirator in the HolyLand foundation case. Jasser should be all over the news shows, but he is never on.
Newt needs to be commended for having the balls to condemn sharia and speak frankly about some real issues with Islam and Western civilization. Thanks for the heads up. I will watch the video.
Aug '10
Re: America at Risk, the Movie
It's almost spooky how closely our behavior mirrors the period of the mid-1930's, when Churchill and a few others in the west rang the alarm bell on Nazi rearmament and territorial ambitions. "War monger!" was the appellation that usually followed his name whenever it was mentioned in the press or public conversation.
Hitler could have been stopped with relative ease then. A few years later, well...
Gingrich resembles Churchill in a number of ways, including his intelligence, willingness to face public scorn, courage, and ambition. Selflessness was a virtue neither man went very far to cultivate.
Jul '10
Re: America at Risk, the Movie
I, too, was at the premiere and find your assessment spot on. I was concerned the film would appeal more to emotion than reason, but it struck the right balance. Dr. Jasser lives here in the Phoenix area and has been tireless in his advocacy for America in the fight against violent extremism. The more we can hear from him, the better.
May '10
Re: America at Risk, the Movie
Claire, I'm curious about this: "--I particularly don't agree that reducing our dependency on Saudi oil will do a thing to mitigate the problem, oil being a fungible commodity--." It strikes me that it is precisely because oil is fungible that reducing or eliminating our dependency on imported oil would severely hurt the Saudis.
Recent oil discoveries in the US suggest that, if we made it a national priority, ala going to the moon, we could be self-sufficient. Couple that with a sturdy Nuke power plant program and the net result would be a significant decrease in the world's oil demand. When supply goes up and demand goes down, price goes down, too. And if the Saudis suddenly found that their cash flow was reduced it might make them straighten out and become considerate world citizens.
So I wonder if you could elaborate. Am I missing something that you're seeing?
Re: America at Risk, the Movie
Tom, good question, so good that I'll open a thread about it--but not tonight, because I'm flying back to Istanbul tomorrow and wouldn't be able to hold up my end of the conversation. Remind me if I forget, okay?
Aug '10
Re: America at Risk, the Movie
Tom:
I think the conventional wisdom is that in a market with a fixed supply and demand of oil, it really doesn't matter whether you are buying from Canada or Saudi Arabia: any barrel you stop buying from the Saudis and buy instead from Canada simply induces someone else to switch the other way.
But if, as you say, you change the total supply or demand...
May '10
Re: America at Risk, the Movie
All you need is to have a 1) measurable impact 2) at the margin, on 3) perceived supply. That puts large cost risk on speculation and hoarding and removes the speculation incentive.
The problem with oil and "energy independence" is not security of supply, it is the underlying perception of high demand and "peak oil" driving the price; after the speculators are all-in, they're reluctant to sell when the price falls. They are economically better off hiring tankers, filling them up to store the commodity, and parking them in the Arabian Sea until they can afford to sell.
Remove the threat or the perception of "peak oil"- whether due to natural causes or international instability- and the international market smooths out again so that the fungible material once again actually acts like it is fungible.
We really have an unlimited supply of liquid fuels- we know how to make them the same way God does it- apply heat and pressure to carbon-based feedstock in the presence of water. The issue is cost. As soon as we have a reserve supply that renders OPEC moot as a market driver, a great many problems are solved, Jerry Taylor notwithstanding.