Hugh Hewitt, for whose opinions I have the utmost respect, has written a couple of dismaying posts on his blog. His basic premises seem to be that the cartoons were nothing more than a juvenile, pointless vulgar stunt, and that the needless offense given by the cartoons has made them a perfect tool for jihadists to use as propaganda and undermine support for U.S. goals in the War on Terror.
With regard to the first point, Mr. Hewitt writes:
The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers.
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the parallels, beyond the facile. Toles' and Stein's commentary was, in its own Lefty way, rather banal. It had some mild shock value, but beyond that, it accomplished nothing. The reaction from readers, while unfavorable, was entirely predictable, and all we had was yet another instance of Left-wing disrespect for the opinions and sacrifices of Americans in uniform, and mainstream revulsion in return. A publicity stunt, a chance to act within pattern, nothing more.
None of this applies to the actions of the Jyllands-Posten. True, the cartoons were offensive to Muslims. True, they did not demonstrate respect for the beliefs of others that common courtesy demands. But this was no mere publicity stunt. The motivation for running the cartoons was to expose the censorship and suppression of speech that Jyllands-Posten editors noted when they tried to publish a book, whose purpose was neither to annoy nor to offend anyone. Faced with the fact that people were afraid to draw some pictures, Jyllands-Posten editors did the right (and truly heroic) thing, and challenged the censorship head-on.
What was the result? Was it "the usual" -- some nasty letters to the editor and a few empty threats? Not even close: what we got was nothing less than a global conflict, where the West received a very clear demonstration of the contempt that Muslims hold for concepts such as freedom of expression and freedom of worship (which includes the freedom not to worship). Not only that, but we also learned that Muslims consider the entire world subject to their beliefs; that they will threaten people for merely being compatriots of the few that offend them; and that for all their use of the UN and other international institutions, they will conveniently forget even the basics of international protocol and burn foreign embassies. Finally, we learned that building up goodwill -- as European appeasement has attempted to do for nearly half a century -- is pointless, as decades of submissive diplomacy and billions of dollars of "subsidies" failed to buy even a sane perspective from the Muslim world.
In short, the Jyllands-Posten cartoonists have accomplished in a few months what everyone from the Israeli government to hundredes of counter-jihadist writers and opinionmakers to even the invaluable Charles Johnson of LGF could not do: demonstrate beyond any doubt that "radical" Islam was a danger to Western civilization, that its adherents have no respect for ostensibly "global" rules of behavior, and that it is not possible to buy them off. For that alone, the Western world owes them a debt of gratitude the magnitude of which I can hardly fathom. And this is an action Mr. Hewitt considers "unnecessary"?
Mr. Hewitt also approaches the question from a more tactical point of view:
There are hundreds of thousands of American troops deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe among Muslim peoples who they are trying to befriend. The jihadists like nothing more than evidence that these troops represent a West intent on a new crusade and a new domination of Muslims. Idiot cartoonists make our troops' jobs more difficult, and the jihadists' mission easier.
And in a later post:
So, did the cartoons and their aftermath make it easier or more diffcult for Musharraf of Pakistan to continue to guide his country away from the lure of the jihadists? Easier or more difficult for Turkey to remain a friend of the West's? Easier or more difficult for the pro-Western people of Iran to summon the courage to change their government? Easier or more difficult for Jordan's King Abdullah to continue his course, which has included support for the reconstruction of Iraq even in the face of Zarqawi's murderers? [...] That doesn't mean censorship, or even self-censorship. Only a bit of reflection before rushing off to start new battles which divert attention from those already underway.
Again, it's time to step back and get a little perspective. We aren't fighting the War on Terror merely for the right to eat pork on our home turf or install less tyrannical governments in Mesopotamia. Our struggle is for the very survival of the Western civilization, which cannot stand without the liberal concepts of freedom of thought and expression. If we are willing to give those up just to gain some temporary allies in a tactical theater, we've already lost. To claim that the fight over what Danes may publish in Denmark "divert[s] attention" from more important battles is absurd: it is the battle. Why spend blood and treasure keeping Islamism out of Baghdad, if we let it run free in Copenhagen?
Nor am I particularly impressed with Mr. Hewitt's claim that this "stunt" has hurt our support from our Muslim allies. First, it is patronizing to those same allies, if we assume that just like their lunatic-radical mosquemates, they are unable to get over some cheesy drawings in order to fight the tyranny that threatens them far more than it does us. And second, if Hugh is right, then quite frankly, these are allies we don't need and do not want. Any such "allies" are just enemies we haven't discovered yet, and we'd be far better off putting them all on the business ends of our rifles. We can give up on them, and end this clash of Western Civilization and Islamic barbarism once and for all. Because if there's anything we've learned from Europe's recent troubles, it's that Islamists make for very fickle and dangerous "friends."
Some brief observations on the whole brouhaha over the Mohammed cartoons:
I have absolutely no problem with Muslims demonstrating en masse and expressing outrage over this. However thin-skinned they are, their beliefs have been offended, and they do have the right to voice their displeasure. If certain countries want to make this displeasure official, that is also their prerogative.
The preceding obviously does not extend to death threats -- or worse -- against the authors of the cartoons, their publishers, or the citizens of the countries where the cartoons have been published.
Let's take note: using the name of Allah for a terrorist organization, or having a mass murderer like Atta take Mohammed's name as his own does not bother the Muslims a whole lot. Commuter bombings in London, bus bombings in Israel, carnage against Russian schoolchildren in Beslan and Iraqi kids in Baghdad -- in the name of Islam -- all elicit barely a shrug. But print up some images of Mohammed, and the Muslim world explodes. This is a very crucial insight into the ethics of the Muslim community as a whole. We ignore this particular lesson at our peril.
I know it's an annoying cliché, but Words mean things. I've heard too many times now that our (Western) value systems require us to "respect the beliefs of others." They most certainly do not. We usually respect others' beliefs as a courtesy, but we are under no obligation to respect the beliefs of anyone at all. We do not have to respect your beliefs; we only respect your right to hold those beliefs. That means we won't hurt, imprison, or kill you for merely holding or expressing some belief at odds with our own. (A courtesy the Muslims frequently fail to extend to others.) In no way does our value system prohibit mocking anyone's religious beliefs, tenets, or icons. It's disturbing that so many people are unclear on this, to the point of claiming that freedom of speech does not extend to blasphemy. Those European officials who feel this way may want to have their watch repaired: it's a few centuries behind.
You have to feel for poor ol' Europe. Decades of anti-Israel sentiment, nearly a half-century of lips planted firmly on Arab posteriors, billions sent to the murderers in the West Bank and Gaza -- and all it took was a few lousy drawings to make them the objects of death threats, fatwas, war declarations, and expulsions from the same West Bank and Gaza. Don't get me wrong -- I am thrilled that Europeans are finally standing up for freedom and genuine tolerance -- but I also hope that it's dawning on them just what dangerous, fickle, and worthless "friends" they have been cultivating.
A fascinating AP story on the chaos that reigns in the Palestinian territories:
NABLUS, West Bank -- Policeman Jouma Ahmad settled the score the way he felt best -- by shooting his enemy nine times, right in the middle of a police station. ..
Ahmad, who was arrested after shooting and critically wounding a man he said stabbed his brother, said he had no regrets. "If someone beats you, you have to beat him back," he said in his jail in Nablus, one of the West Bank's most chaotic cities where police are trying hard to regain people's trust.
The excuse follows immediately -- and naturally, Israel is to blame:
Four years of fighting with Israel have severely weakened the Palestinian police force and strengthened gunmen, who effectively rule many Palestinian towns. Wild rampages by gun-wielding militants have wracked several Palestinian towns in recent weeks.
Never mind that this time, the "police force" seemed a little too strong, and not really concerned for all that rule-of-law nonsense. But then there's this:
Ordinary Palestinians are fed up, and that could cost Abbas' ruling Fatah party its majority in parliamentary elections in July, with the militant Hamas group expected to take up the slack.
So Palestinians, sick of "gun-wielding militants" are going to elect Hamas?!? No wonder they can't build a functional society.
The blame-Israel game then takes a turn towards comic absurdity that the AP reporter can't ignore:
But Palestinians say it will be difficult if not impossible to restore order unless Israel provides more breathing room, removing checkpoints, releasing prisoners and halting settlement activity.
"Our people want to see us functioning ... because they are craving security and safety," Tareq Zaid, the police commander in Nablus, said at his shell-pocked headquarters. "But this chaos is because of Israel, which has occupied our town and surrounded us, even shelling the building we're in now."
Zaid quickly added, however, that gunmen were keeping their weapons out of view. "Nablus is OK now," he said.
Within moments of that statement, at a funeral for a militant who had accidentally shot himself, dozens of gunmen brandished M16 rifles and shot them into the air. One carried a rocket launcher.
And what do those brave Palestinian peace officers do when they aren't settling scores at work? Well...
Police in Nablus claim they are slowly regaining control of the city, but a jailhouse meeting with 29-year-old Mohammed, imprisoned for collaborating with Israel, attests to a reality in which gunmen still hold sway.
Mohammed, whose full name is not divulged in this story for his protection, said he confessed under torture to aiding an Israeli pilot in a mission to shell a Palestinian police target in 2001.
Yes, by all means, let's negotiate a "peace" with these people, so that they can have a state.
The Washington Post headline blares ominously:
Immigration Opponents To Patrol U.S. Border
Now: everyone read the article, and point out to me even a single "immigration opponent."
From what I've read of the man, I am a big fan of John Bolton:
During that time, and during his early tenure in the second Bush administration, Bolton's first priority appears to have been to roll back public international law so it isn't used against us by other nations as they battle for power in a dark, Hobbesian world. At its most extreme, this view has led him to say that "if the U.N. Secretary Building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference," and to support former Chilean President Augusto Pinochet against the international courts that hope to bring him to trial on charges of gross human rights violations.
More generally, four years ago, Bolton said: "It is a big mistake for us to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so -- because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States."
I couldn't agree more, and find myself relieved that at least some members of the current Administration are not clueless on this front. So while I would prefer to have the man in the State Department and not wasting his energy on the UN, I can at least enjoy the spectacle of diplomatic teacups shattering on the floor, as all kinds of notables faint from the idea that this utterly gauche man will be the U.S.'s face to the world. The latest to turn pale and reach for the smelling salts are fifty-nine former professional placators:
Fifty-nine former US diplomats have written to the chairman of a key Senate committee in protest at the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.
Chief among the objections was Mr Bolton's stated view that the UN "is valuable only when it directly serves the United States".
This is a stunning revelation into the mind of the professional diplomat. Their job is to serve the interests of the United States. That's why they get the nice house overseas and the big bucks. But heaven forfend someone actually demand that the UN do this!
In addition, Mr Bolton was criticised for his record as US arms control supremo.
He had an "exceptional record" of undermining potential improvements to US national security through arms control, the diplomats complained.
This is somewhat ambiguously phrased by the BBC, but what they mean is, Bolton is generally against useless paper "arms control" agreements. From the Salon article:
But his competence has ultimately allowed Bolton to do much harm, scuttling the international agreements and treaties that make up much of the legal basis for international order and security. With Bolton's tireless leadership and assistance, the Bush administration has undermined the International Criminal Court, the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, and a potential international treaty on small arms trafficking -- while also opposing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
One would think that with the arms-control agreements having been proved worthless in a string of humiliating and flagrant violations -- hello? North Korea? Iran? -- the old diplomats would have enough sense to, well, diplomatically neglect to mention them. Oops.
The usual suspects feature prominently here:
Among the most senior signatories was Arthur Hartman, former ambassador to France and the Soviet Union under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and assistant secretary of state for European affairs under President Richard Nixon.
Princeton Lyman, a former ambassador to South Africa and Nigeria, Monteagle Stearns, US representative in Greece and Ivory Coast, and Spurgeon Keeny Jr, Jimmy Carter's deputy director of arms control, also signed the letter.
And, finally, this part:
But the former diplomats insist his hard-line views on states such as Cuba and Syria, as well as previous paid employment for the government of Taiwan, make him an unsuitable candidate.
This statement is so awe-inspiringly stupid, I am tempted to let it stand without comment. Apparently it's all right for former diplomats to receive paychecks from the Saudis, but anyone who doesn't sing Castro's praises, pretend the Assads are legitimate, or -- horrors! -- has worked for the government of a friendly nation, is "unsuitable."
You have to hand it to the Bush Administration -- whatever their many flaws, on the foreign policy front they have managed rattle quite a few cages, with results that are simultaneously distressing and hilarious.
'Elp! 'Elp! I'm Being Repressed!
Will someone please inform Professor Juan Cole (not to be confused with John Cole, ever) that what he calls "a new way of discrediting a political opponent" is also known as good ol'-fashioned criticism?
It seems to me that David Horowitz and some far rightwing friends of his have hit upon a new way of discrediting a political opponent, which is the GoogleSmear. It is an easy maneuver for someone like Horowitz, who has extremely wealthy backers, to set up a web magazine that has a high profile and is indexed in google news. Then he just commissions persons to write up lies about people like me (leavened with innuendo and out-of-context quotes). Anyone googling me will likely come upon the smear profiles, and they can be passed around to journalists and politicians as though they were actual information.
Nnnno. You're kidding, Professor! You mean, someone can have the temerity to (1) say something unflattering about you on the web and (2) get other people to read it, and link approvingly? Those Rovian fiends are Pure Evil Geniuses&trade!
Lest we have any doubts on what Cole considers quality argument, he approvingly cites an "ascerbic dissection" by no less an intellectual luminary than Dennis "Justin" Raimondo. (I must have missed the "dissection" entirely, as Raimondo does nothing more than call Plaut a few names, throw out some innuendo, and pile on enough non-sequiturs to stock two Costco aisles -- but hey, Professor Cole says it's "ascerbic," and who am I to argue?) Raimondo and Cole as allies -- enough said, really.
Well, maybe not quite, because the good Professor just can't resist setting himself up as the poor, defenseless Arab martyr to Horowitz's Merkava tank:
I am well aware that the GoogleSmear and other techniques of propaganda may well succeed. Horowitz and his minions are funded to the tune of millions, and I am just one lone individual. And, maybe it is even dangerous to tangle with someone who admires Kahane and his followers.
I'm not a fan of Horowitz, and I can't comment on his "millions." But really -- the good Professor works for one of the wealthiest universities in this nation, which funds all of his "work," including his pro-terrorist propaganda, and gives him credibility to boot. Yet the man fears a global Likud conspiracy with Horowitz on its pointy end, spending seven-digit sums to publish web sites that get indexed by Google. Fight the power, Dr. Cole.
Update: Dan Darling beat me to this, with a better response.
Steven Plaut has also written a thorough rebuttal of Cole's ramblings, including this revealing look at the Cole-Raimondo method of "research":
Cole rests the better part of his “self-defense” on labeling me “an Israeli defender of the terrorists (sic) around the late extremist Rabbi Meir Kahane,” the fellow who set up the Jewish Defense League. So what is the source of this invention reported with scholarly seriousness by Professor Juan Cole? Why, it is Justin Raimondo himself, of course! In fact, Cole thanks Raimondo profusely on his web page for smearing me as a supposed Kahanist.
The only problem is that I am not. Raimondo’s evidence for this smear against me is that he googled my name and the word “Kahanist” together, and discovered two articles of mine in which I used the word “Kahanist” in the text. But that was all he found. In neither article did I express any support for the Kahanists or Kahanism. Talk about Googlesmears! Cole, also accuses me of posting comments under a false name on a web bulletin board and accuses me of using illegal drugs, which is equally fanciful and absurd.
Just to add my small contribution to the "GoogleSmearing," here is Steven Plaut's original article on Juan Cole, meticulously researched, filled with direct quotes and links to original material -- contrast with the "material" that Cole and Raimondo present as their own alleged "refutations" of this article. Plaut is just not in Cole and Raimondo's league. Plaut should be proud of this.