Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
9/11: We are Still Losing
We lost the war to transform Afghanistan and the Arab world. Our leadership class still refuses to accept the truth that the Islamist ideologues continue to make material and ideological war upon us and our allies. We cannot bear to fully accept that Iran is making war in Yemen, Lebanon, Gaza, Ukraine, and Syria with plans to attack other targets–including us.
We are not permitted to notice, much less discuss, the fundamental problems of trying to integrate Muslim populations into secular Western culture.
The sheer idiocy of George Bush’s use of “the Religion of Peace” rather than a demand for Islam to renounce doctrines of jihad, to John Kerry’s capitulation diplomacy on behalf of Obama’s sophomoric policy vision, to Joe Biden’s sudden weird, disastrous surrender in Afghanistan… We have never had a clear-headed response to the reality and the challenge of Islam.
There is no “moderate” Islam. There is no “reformation” in the works. By its very nature, its traditions, and ideology, borne of the core documents expounding on the “Perfect Example,” will in every age drag adherents back into an orthodoxy wholly and increasingly unsuited to a world constructed under Western influence. The model secular state built by Atatürk has given way to the Islamic nationalism of Erdogan. The Middle East is a disaster because Islam there has only produced peace when under the rule of a militarily strong empire—the set of faux Western constitutional democracies and other imitation Western models (the fascism of the Bathists, the socialist dictatorship of Gaddafi). They were literally founded on sand, and produced chaos that fostered yearning for the security, procrustean certainties (and the tyranny) of Shariah.
The still unlearned lesson of 9/11 is that there still is a war that we do not even fully admit is underway. Islam remains surprised and pleased that we have not pressed its inherent internal weaknesses nor struck back proportionately and consistently to its excesses even as we accept many of its worst to live among us without question or challenge.
Happy 9/11!
Published in General
It’s often tempting to say “things are different now,” and to use that to justify jettisoning some long-cherished tradition in favor of something more modern and seemingly pragmatic. We hear it all the time from the left, this call to gut the traditional norms, whether those traditions are rooted in the Constitution, in Judeo-Christian history, or in the customs we’ve evolved and tested over generations.
When we’re discussing human nature, the function of markets, and many other features of ineluctable reality, that’s generally an imprudent end-run likely to turn out badly.
Occasionally, though, things really have changed, and it’s appropriate to cautiously change our behavior along with the times.
I think foreign policy is a domain in which the change has been such that anything approaching isolationism is no longer in our national best interests. I think we’re better off being the global hyperpower and, yes, the global police when it comes to that.
The world has become smaller in a sense that has existential significance. There was a time when we could largely ignore what went on across the oceans because there was no plausible threat that we couldn’t repel at our shores. That time has passed: All any state actor needs now in order to threaten — to truly threaten in a significant way — the United States are money, time, and intent.
Petrodollars bring the money. Islam provides the motivation, the intent.
Obama, Biden/Harris, and — if we’re very unfortunate — Harris/Walz will provide the time (and, given the Democrats’ track record and weird obsession with sending cash to Iran, will probably provide a lot of money, too).
Anyway, I’d prefer a technologically advanced, well trained, well manned, strongly armed, and globally present US military. It’s a small world full of bad actors. And I think we’re actually the good guys.
Sorry for the divergence from your point, @oldbathos. To your point, we do what we can do. Giving up is not an option. We have to fight on.
OK. I’ll bite. When do you think the inception of Israel was.
But not more conservative than me. Of course, I use a different definition of “conservative”. Remember, the Founding Fathers thought the conservative thing to do was to overthrow the government.
Still want to understand the whole “Patriot” thing
If someone thinks the United States is a horrible country based on horrible ideals how can one call one self a patriot?
Actually Jefferson started off as foolish as our current elites but he learned quick. The Barbary pirates can have that effect on you.
One of my all-time favorites.
“The” narrative.
The cool thing about going up against “the” narrative is you don’t need to sort out facts and specifics and marshall them in detail in support of actual arguments. For example, you don’t need to confront the points of the debate between Taft and Jackson about the Nuremburg trials. Instead, you can refer to a vague narrative. If you put the word “the” in front of narrative, it’s even better, because you don’t need to confront the complexities of competing opinions that were current at that time or now.
I’m still trying to figure out when the supposed Golden Age of bi-partisanship was in the so-far (bumpy) life of the Republic. Maybe it was just a Golden Moment no one noticed it passed so quickly. But there must have been more than a Moment, or else there wouldn’t have been time to establish a Narrative. I’m confused.
I’m wondering how long it will take Great Britain to recognize that and begin to control their own border. Unlimited, unvetted immigration is simply not sustainable without changing the country’s social order.
I find it best to ignore posters who come here simply to be perverse.
Western Europe is likely doomed anyway, just because they aren’t having enough children. Even if first expelled, all the muslims need to do is wait for the Europeans to die out, and then move in.
That phrase, for some reason, reminds me of when I was doing consulting work in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s. Each Saturday they conducted executions and amputations in the parking lot of the main souk (marketplace). Those convicted of capital offenses were beheaded, by sword, while those convicted of theft had their right hand cut off, also by sword. I never attended any of these very popular spectacles, but one of my Korean employees was there once, and was forced to the front rank of spectators and had to witness a beheading. He had nightmares afterwards and was unable to function, so was sent home.
I think of the friendship between President Reagan and Tip O’Neil as a time of happy and respectful bi-partisanship.
It’s also interesting that a few days ago Jerry told us the ICJ is the highest court in the world. Here he was praising opposition to the actions and precedents that led to international courts such as the ICJ.
I’m not suggesting that Jerry is always this inconsistent. If we looked hard enough, we probably could find issues on which he displays a remarkable consistency.
Consider how it works with Democrats. They can be pro-free-speech at some times and anti-free-speech at others. They can be pro-choice on one or two issues and anti-choice on many others. But if you look hard enough, you can find that there is a remarkable consistency that binds all these contradictions together.
I don’t see how anyone could have regarded it as respectful.
I dropped out of the comments on my own post after seeing one commenter faithfully echo the exact position of Osama Bin Laden portraying the Islamic world as a victim of unwarranted Western intrusions. Of course, bin Laden also thought that non-Muslim rule in Spain, Portugal, Malta, southern Italy, Greece, the Balkans, and Israel was the result of unjust Western interference.
Islam rejects the premises of democracy and the Western idea of the rule of law and expressly retains the right to impose its own system whenever it is in a position to do so. The fact that Islamic culture and rigidity have left the Muslim world weak, undeveloped, divided, and wracked with internal violence and subject to repressive regimes hinders their ability to expand by conquest but not export terror and violent young men.
I think there’s an aspect of “bipartisanship” inherent in the idea that, even if agreement can’t be reached, it’s still possible to negotiate without perceiving or portraying the opposition as monstrous and evil.
What I think we are losing is the idea that there can be multiple legitimate perspectives on many contentious issues, legitimate in the sense that generally decent fellow Americans might hold them without marking themselves as people no longer worthy of respect or consideration.
That only works if the parties offer ideas and viewpoints within a recognizable spectrum other than “the other guy is a hate-filled Nazi.” Harry Reed, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden do not acknowledge that the other side can have a position crafted in good faith. Scaring blacks and convincing women they will be forced to get pregnant, saving the planet, etc are all extremist, fear-based positions which make it tough to then turn around and say the other side is a decent bunch of guys we can work with.
Sure. But, come on, you gotta admit that the fact that Trump is gonna “put y’all back in chains” is pretty clear proof that Trump is “a bad dude.” How do you negotiate with someone like that?
A very insightful comment, Hank. I think the condemnations that come from the other side frustrate me almost as much as people who have no idea of what they’re talking about, but they’ll defend it to the death.
I find illegitimate fear-mongering outrageous; do those people have any conscience at all?
Fact check: Romney is the one who will put y’all back in chains. Trump endorsed Adolph Hitler in Charlottesville.
Wait, how can they both be evil, given that they don’t like each other?
This nuanced ethical reasoning makes my brain hurt.
Trying to be logical, consistent, ethical, and to make distinctions is a lot of work and also so five minutes ago. Come, feel the power of the Dark Side. Harris-Walz ’24!
They do that demonization because it works with 20% to 30% of their base who, to say it politely, are on the left-hand side of the bell curve and vote on emotion. As you say, it’s hard to turn around and say “hey, it was an election campaign” as Heels-Up once did.
Are we sure he’s on her side?
Or “it worked, didn’t it?” like Harry Reid.
If the GOPs knew how to play the game, his name never would have been spoken again without being called the Liar, Harry Reid.