The Candidates
According to Bob Novak, the race for 2008 just may give us a 240-plus-seat Democratic House:
Private House Democratic polls of the 50 most competitive congressional districts project a gain of 9 to 11 seats in the 2008 elections that would be an unprecedented further surge by the party following its 2006 gain of 30 seats that won control of the House.
All previous major surges of House seats have been followed by losses in the next election. The 54-seat Republican gain in 1994 that produced GOP House control was followed by an eight-seat loss in 1996. However, the current Republican political slump, fueled by President Bush’s unpopularity, would reverse that pattern if the election were held today, according to the Democratic polls.
The incumbent Republican House members who won by less than 2 percent of the vote in 2006 and are targeted for 2008 include Reps. Heather Wilson (N.M.), Deborah Pryce (Ohio), Mike Ferguson (N.J.), Jon Porter (Nev.), Jim Gerlach (Pa.) and Jean Schmidt (Ohio).
Keep in mind that it’s been nearly 6 months since the 2006 election, i.e., 25% of the ground has been covered between November of 2006 and November of 2008. And the Dems are ahead. Not good. And while we Republicans continue to have our necessary intraparty debate over issues like civil unions, what we often forget is that most swing voters have a real problem with something that most of us strongly support: Iraq. Bill Buckley’s latest piece on the Mesopotamian problem is both impenetrable and terrifying:
The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.
…
It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.
When the Romans were challenged by Christianity, Rome fell. The generation of Christians moved by their faith overwhelmed the regimented reserves of the Roman state. It was four years ago that Mr. Cheney first observed that there was a real fear that each fallen terrorist leads to the materialization of another terrorist. What can a “surge,” of the kind we are now relying upon, do to cope with endemic disease? The parallel even comes to mind of the eventual collapse of Prohibition, because there wasn’t any way the government could neutralize the appetite for alcohol, or the resourcefulness of the freeman in acquiring it.
Read the whole thing.
The issue of Iraq is now the GOP’s greatest catch-22. On one hand, the 60 percent of Americans Buckley cited as wanting out of Iraq are almost certainly responsible for Democrats’ likely congressional fortunes. Finding a way to wrap up Iraq by November of 2008 would stop the bleeding, and would allow the GOP to remain on offense in the overall GWOT without the albatross of Iraq hanging around the neck of the GOP nominee. On the other hand, I tend to agree with the theory that the country is now comprised of two sorts of people: those who believe that there is an Islamist threat to the West and those who do not believe this. I fall decidedly into the former category, and Buckley’s comparison of the West to Rome and the Islamists to the early Christians is especially horrific.
One of history’s greatest ironies is that Rome, the seat of the world empire that authorized and carried out the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, is now the seat of the mother church of the religion based on that very individual. If Buckley’s analogy is followed to its logical conclusion, one would expect that in another few centuries, we should expect Washington, DC, or perhaps the Big Apple, to be the seat of the global caliphate. To say that I don’t want my descendants to live in such a world would be an understatement to end all understatements.
Consequently, victory in the war against Islamist terrorism isn’t just a nice idea, it is essential. But victory cannot be achieved unless the politicians willing to pursue it are capable of convincing the public to entrust to them the reins of the state. The intraparty debates over personal indiscretions and domestic issues all pale in comparison to this central issue. Can the GOP convince Americans of the necessity of victory in this war? Would it be worth it to throw Iraq to the hounds if the alternative is a Democratic government completely oblivious to the fact that there is a broader war against Islamist terrorism? These are questions that require answers.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
[...] post by DaveG and software by Elliott [...]
April 28th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Hmm. Well Dave, if you really think that the best strategy for the GOP to use to come back to power is to scare people with the image of Washington DC becoming the capitol of the global caliphate, then I think it i rather obvious that you guys are at the beginning of at least a generation in the wilderness.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
DaveG, several comments.
1) How accurate has Novak been in predicting elections in the past? Let me remind you that this is the same person who said that the GOP would gain seats in the November 2006 election. And he said that one week before the election. No, I don’t think I care to give a damn about what Bob Novak thinks.
2) Bill Buckley’s hardly more impressive. What Americans support is a winner. If we manage to start seeing real progress in Iraq due to the surge, Americans will shift positions. And the following statement?
Laughable. Presidents veto bills all the time against public opinion, because we have a representative democracy, not direct democracy. We are not ruled by the mob, and we do not poll the mob before making each and every decision. To say that now that the legislature is in the hands of the Democrats, it suddenly is representative of the people, whereas when the GOP controlled it, it was unrepresentative, is sadly moronic. The people elect the legislature, and thus the legislature is representative of the people at all times.
It’s sad to read that Bill Buckley has switched sides and become a defeated Democrat, but good riddance. This war is still winnable, and it has always been so. That’s why we’re still fighting it, and that’s why Petraeus has taken charge. If we were to take Buckley’s spineless comment to it’s logical conclusion, then we should surrender to the jihadists now, because nothing we can do will have an effect against them. He is welcome to stretch out his own neck under their swords, but I think I’ll continue to oppose them, thank you very much.
The Democrats and Bill Buckley are welcome to the audacity of hoping we’ll lose and collapse as a civilization, but I prefer the optimism of the GOP and our candidates that we can fight and win.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Oops, forgot to close that first quote. Can someone please fix that for me?
April 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
JF, that’s actually Michael Novak whose article you linked regarding laughable 2006 predictions. The curmudgeonly Bob Novak was actually predicting significant GOP losses if my memory serves me correctly.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Tano, I take it you are decidedly in the “What Islamist threat?” camp?
April 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
America’s freedoms do make us somewhat weaker than nations like Russia or China who have the cruelty to withstand determined fundamentalists.
At this point Islamic radicalism seems to be on a slow trajectory of decline(demographically and culturally). Islamic radicalism is an existential threat not because it has an ability to conquer America in the long-run. No, Islamic radicalism is a threat because it undermines our ability to remain democratic and prosperous. It is really a miracle that Israel manages both with such strong pressures.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
DaveG, mea culpa. My #1 was primarily driven by my hatred for Bob Novak, and I screwed up as a result. I still stand by #2, though. Isn’t that what Guiliani’s appeal is based on?
April 28th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
DaveG,
There is no such thing as a “what Islamist threat?” camp. There are only sane, clear-headed people who have not pissed their pants and who are willing confront the threat as it really exists, and then there are Republicans.
Republicans seem to be people who are either imperialists - i.e. those who, when confronting the reality of America as sole superpower, cannot envision any way to play that role other than the way other superpowers in the past have played it in the past. Or they are fearful people who when confronted with a strange world can only imagine confronting that world with force. Or they are authoritarins - people who just want some authority figure to trust - some leader to follow. All of these types of Republicans can easily be rallied by a campaign of fear - like the one you just outlined, and the one that the Bush administration has been selling.
Yes, Islamic extremists are a threat. A very manageable threat. What this country needs is an administration that can cooly assess the nature of the threat and use all of the tools at our disposal to counter it. Not to run off a willy-nilly invade countries that are entirely peripheral to the threat. Not an administration that tries to conjure up these existential fears so as to carve out for themselves a freedom to do whatever they want - with all opposition treated as traitorous.
When it gets down to it, the radical Islamists are themselves divided into two sects that are fighting each other as we speak. One branch controls one middling country. The other controls nothing. The greatest “success” that either has had was an ingenious and horrific attack carried out with 29 cent boxcutters.
Sorry - maybe you guys have some need for viewing yourselves and your efforts in a maximally glorious sense. But this is not an existential threat to America. It is a real threat to the lives of many individuals perhaps, and should be dealt with, no doubt.
Personally, I am looking for candidates that have not lost their wits, that do not try to scare the electorate with visions of Armegeddon. I am looking for no-spin honesty, responsibility, wisdom - three virtues that I have yet to sense in any of your candidates.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Tano, how about some specifics? For example, you see two sects of radical Islamists, but I’m not sure which ones you are identifying. I see many more than two, which leads me to believe that you can be prosaic about the problem because you’ve been willfully ignoring the problem. But before I accuse you of suffering the same head-in-the-sand disease that most other Democracts suffer from, please elaborate.
And when you view the encroachment of Islam on Europe, what is your sense of the situation? That the riots in France aren’t a problem that need to be dealt with, that the violence wrought on Malmo, Sweden should be ignored, that the preaching of martyrdom in London are just for entertainment? I’ll stop there for now to get your response.
Since you’re so proud of the no-nonsense view of your candidates, can you explain how they will be more successful than Clinton in ensuring the terrorist thread is crushed?
April 28th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
thread -> threat
April 28th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
JF,
One of the two sects I refer to are the Iranian-based Shiites, who, though they aspire to leadership of ISlam, are severly limited by the fact that they are a minority sect in the religion, and will never be followed by the rest of the muslims. They aspire to as much power as they can have, obviously, but they are most likely limited to their fellow Shiites - in Iraq, the Gulf States, and in Lebanon. Those latter two could easily be kept away from the power center in Tehran because of the Arab-Persian dichotomy. Thanks to the Bush administration’s war, these people have an additional power center now in Southern Iraq, and possibly Baghdad as well - this is a problem, but it is not a million miles from being an existential problem for America.
The other sect is the Sunni-based al-Qaeda forces. They control no territory of any consequence. They are an amporphous network of terrorists - capable of a series of one-off terrorist attacks, some of which, if they are lucky, could be devastating in a certain context. But that is all that they are. They need to be fought with a whole range of tools - most of which do not, sorry to say, involve the military - although in certain instances that is appropriate. Most of the work involves coordination of intellegence and policing-type activities with countries around the world. And an underlying political effort to “drain the swamp”. Both of these efforts require America to be respected, admired, and a country that others want to work together with - a situation that we used to occupy. Regaining that position is going to be job #1 of whoever the next president is.
No doubt you could parse out the terrorist threat into many more specific groups, but at a general level, these are the operative categories.
As for Europe - the integration of their guest-worker and immigrant populations is an ongoing issue for them. loots of the reason for the riots and other troubles lay in the fact that Europe is still in the learning process regarding how to deal with immigrants. For most of the past few centuries they have beeen losing people who emigrated to America - dealing with new, foreign people is relativly new for them. Once again, a fair number of people seem to be pissing their pants over some of the things happening there, but in the grand scheme of things, these are minor incidents that those societies are learning from, and finding their way.
Radical prechers spout hate, for instance. One instinct is to repsect their freedom. Then it seems to be a real threat, and so there is a crackdown. Societies learn and adjust. Read some of our own history here in America when it comes to immigrant groups - it was not all holding hands as one gazes at the Statue of Liberty, then moves quickly into the suburbs and a peaceful life. Lots of bumps and momentarily scary moments along the way.
This is why I refer to pants-pissing. So many, either because of sincere fears, or cynical manipulation think that the sky is falling with each massivly hyped outrage. Sorry, but this is the way life has always gone. If you cannot distinguish big threats from small, or give proportion to what is happening around you, then you should not get near the levers of power.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Tano, thanks for the additional detail, and now I can see the reasons behind our different perspectives.
There are two major sects of Islam, yes. But many sects of radical Islam, stretching from al Qaeda and the Taliban to the Tamil Tigers and the Thai Muslim insurgents. Some are global and some are national, but all support violence as a means to the ends they seek.
The first issue I would take with your “it’s all good, no worries” perspective is projection–you believe that, fundamentally, the radical Islamists are rational and can be accomodated, and they, in turn, will accomodate us. The problem, of course, is that the radical Islamists will not be satisfied with the US withdrawing from Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or abandoning Israel, or development aid. They want to convert the world at the point of a sword. Radical Muslims still regard al Andalus as theirs; shall we sacrifice Spain as well? Pakistan will be gone a few days after we throw Musharraf to the wolves, and I think it would be a matter of weeks before Saudi Arabia fell to the radicals. The forces holding back a tidal wave of Islamic militancy is a dike that has sprung too many leaks. You need not worry about the various militant groups gaining a launching pad; they will soon have one, somewhere.
You say that the problems of militant Islam can be dealt with using diplomacy, collecting intelligence, and worldwide police work. Tell me–where has militant Islam been suppressed in the absence of military force? Not Egypt. Not Turkey. Not Indonesia. Not Malaysia. Not Pakistan. Not Chechnya. Not Jordan or Lebanon or Syria or Algeria. Where, then?
As for Europe, you can dismiss the riots and bombings as growing pains, but how many years will you wait before you declare it a crisis? The Muslim population of Europe is growing at an exponential rate, especially versus the native population. Do you think the sense of alienation and violence will suddenly dissipate when the Muslim population grows to 20% of the total population? 50%? Why do you believe that a Muslim majority in Europe will treat the native minority benevolently? What examples do you have, anywhere in the world, of this happening?
I’m glad that you’re able to embrace the bliss that comes of ignorance, but nothing you’ve proposed has any precedent or basis in reality. I think that is what many of us in the Republican party recognize that the Democrats have yet to realize. The question remains whether the Left will realize it before it’s too late, or perhaps even never realize it at all.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
“The Democrats and Bill Buckley are welcome to the audacity of hoping we’ll lose and collapse as a civilization…”
Yes, I’m sure that WFB, one of the fathers of modern conservatism, is delighted at the prospect of the United States “collapsing as a civilization.” Ridiculous.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Hunter, agreed. He is ridiculous.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Tano,
This is problem with the modern Democratic party. You’ve always posted on this site with intelligence, civility, and respect. You haven’t struck me as a Kucinich-like lunatic denying any and all threats. Or a conspiracy theorist, intent on attributing every negative occurrence to it’s plausible explanation. And I have no doubt that, on questions like terrorism, you really endeavor to come up with suitable answers. Some Democrats are entirely incalcitrant, but most, like you I think, are simply honestly ill-informed.
To say that we need to be proportion, and not overreact to difficult questions, is an entirely meaningless answer that springs from the “nuanced” school of thought many Democrats ascribe to. Of course we need to be aware of proportion. But, nothing you’ve said indicates why we ought to consider radical islam a “low proportion” threat.
Europe isn’t just dealing a small immigration problem which can be adjusted to, with ease. Their declining birth rates, combined with their heavy social safety net, makes them dependent on immigration. The only nations and peoples, with people to spare, are Islamic nations. Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, even tiny Yemin. The influx of these immigrants into Europe is astounding, and will be even moreso in the years to come. The simple fact is, you cannot, in a Democratic society add millions upon millions of people from an explicitly political religion, without fundamentally altering the nature of that society’s civil institutions.
Upwards of 70% of Muslims wish to live under Sharia. And it’s not as if Europe has anything remotely approaching a sane way to deal with immigration, and new citizenry. Were America to face similar challenges, it’s plausible that, assuming our general values remained constant, we’d be able to avert a crisis. But, Europe has, due to literally centuries of political and social phenomena, an entirely different way of dealing with cultures. America’s historically insisted on integration and assimilation. We’re historically a melting pot.
Europe has, in contrast long promulgated, and has become increasingly ghoulish in promoting this in recent decades, the notion that there are no better ways of living, only different cultures. They have a cosmopolitan world-view which explicitly rejects the notion that the new citizenry ought to, in some fundamental way, adopt the culture of their adopted homeland. Europe simply has nothing to fight radical Islam with, because they project no distinct an unique identities.
The equivalent of something being very “American”, is literally incomprehensible linguistically, or culturally, in some European countries. Their societies are going to be increasingly encroached upon by radical muslims, and even not so radical ones (the kind who personally want to live under sharia, but aren’t sure they want to impose on you), and Democracy is going to provide exactly Democracy is meant to provide in such circumstances. A representative government, representative domestic and foreign policies, representative social laws.
And we’re going to be staring at an increasingly Eurabia, with absolutely nothing to be done. The only way to win this thing- and Europe’s demographic crisis is far to gone to be halted-, is to moderate Islam. And you moderate Islam by presenting alternatives. Alternatives in terms of possible lifestyles, societal structures, and most importantly values. Europe can’t do this within their own countries, because they barely have values, and certainly none that they will offer to others (how paternalistic and unenlightened that would be!). And that means we need to A.) Succeed in Iraq, B.) Hunt down terrorists throughout the middle East, C.) Promote moderate governments, D.) Create strong civil institutions, modeled at least partly on those of the English speaking people’s, and E.) Prove ourselves to be the “strong horse”, unwilling to capitulate to those who view “foreign policy”, in much less “nuanced” terms, then the enlightened Democrats.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
JF,
I think you are completely in fantasy land with regard to the state of the Islamic threat, and that shows in all that you write.
First off, the Tamil Tigers are an ethnic minority fighting for political status. If you examine the history of Sri Lanka, you would see that minority Tamils have been fighting the majority Sinhalese for centuries. The dispute is not driven by the rise of modern extremist Islam.
Ditto for southern Thailand. The rebels there are ethnic Malays who history has deposited on the far side fo the border from the rest of their people. Yes there is a religious distinction, but that is not the driver of the dispute, nor does the religious aspect have anything to do with the al-Q or other Isamic extremist groups.
Using violence is a strategy of most groups with these types of disputes, whether they be Catholics in N. Ireland, warring tribes in Africa, Christians, and Muslims in the Balkans, peasants or landowners in Central America, or militia movements in the US. This is not something exclusive to Muslims.
You sound like a Chicken-Little with your images of Muslim hordes taking over southern Spain and Pakistan. Do you have any knowledge whatsoever of the real situations there? DO you really think that you can sit in front of your little computer in the comfort of America, reading all manner of RW extremist dreck, and better understand the situation than the people who actually live in Spain, or in Pakistan? Here is a hint - by any measure ever taken, the support for radical Islamists in Pakistan is under 10%. They are not poised to take over the country if Musharraf goes - in fact the most likely leader to emerge is a Harvard-educated woman who used to be the prime minister.
The Spanish people have no desire to be overrun by the raging Muslim hordes that you fantasize about - you think that maybe if this was a real threat that there might be some response by the Spanish people to that threat?
Sorry, I dont mean to be insulting, but you seem to be utterly out of touch with the reality in the real world.
“The first issue I would take with your “it’s all good, no worries” perspective ”
And with this, of course, you demonstrate that all you really have to bring to the table, besides fear-mongoring, is dishonest distortions. I made a point of emphasizing that our dispute is over the proper perspective in which to see these threats. I wrote nothing whatsoever to deny that there are threats, or that we should have no worries. What exactly are the worries, what exactly are their magnitude, and then, what exactly is the way to deal with them. That is the discussion that needs to happen.
You really need to get out a little more. I get the sense that you get all your information from the fear-mongers who have an interest in blowing everything out of proportion, to get you scared sh**less, so that you will support anything that those in authority want to do. Seems to be working on you, but not on me, or on Democrats, nor on an increasing majority of the American people.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
So Tano, in other words, you cannot cite any examples where militant Islam has been tamed in the absence of forceful military action.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“To say that we need to be proportion, and not overreact to difficult questions, is an entirely meaningless answer that springs from the “nuanced” school”
No Matt, it is what it appears to be. A breath of common sense.
Muslims make up about 3% of the population of the European Union. Up to 8% in places like France.
A challange, yes. Existential doom? Hardly.
Some of them are vulnerable to the preachings of extremists. Most of them are not - and are in Europe precisely because they want to embrace modernity. I happen to know personally an Arab immigrant to France who is, in fact, more French than the French, as converts, and many immigrants tend to be.
Maybe you can borrow some of your own rhetoric about war coverage from Iraq in order to understand this. When a bomb goes off, its big news. When some radical makes outrageous statements, we hear about it here. When the vast overwhelming majority of Muslims in Europe go about their daily life, sipping their espressos, learning the language, assimilating peacefully, then that doesnt quite make it onto Drudge Report or Power Line, does it.
“They have a cosmopolitan world-view which explicitly rejects the notion that the new citizenry ought to, in some fundamental way, adopt the culture of their adopted homeland. Europe simply has nothing to fight radical Islam with, because they project no distinct an unique identities.”
Sorry Matt, but I know this kind of nonsense is part of the RW dogma, but I am telling you it is totally wrong.
The opposite is, in fact, the case. Take France, for instance. The standard attitude in France, from left and right is totally opposed to the notion that immigrants should identify themselves as anything other than French.
IF you find that hard to believe, then reach down into your sense of the French being culturally arrogant and forever dreaming of past glories. “Frenchness” is a very big deal there, if anything far more so than Americanism is even on the right here.
Maybe you should actually go visit some of these places instead of relying on propagandists to paint these horror movie scenes for you.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
JF,
When extremists (of any stripe) operate in small cells, they will be defeated through security measures, intellegence, and police work. This happens constantly, in many places.
When extremists take to the jungle (or similar hideouts) in larger groups to conduct small-scale military-type actions, then one opposes them with military-type responses.
When individuals or small groups propagandize within societies, one opposes them with police force when they overstep their free-speech rights, and one works in the communities to give real alternatives to the alientated youth that might be susceptible to the preachers. That too is onging in many places.
To this day, the extremist groups have accumulated a string of one-off attacks, none of which has worked to advance any movement. There is no rising army of extremists storming the gates of Madrid, or London, or Bangkok or anywhere else.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Tano,
A third of children born in Paris today are Muslim. A 30% of people under 20 in France are Muslim. The most popular name for babies in Paris is Mohammed. Culturally French Women are having roughly 1.3 children a piece, as opposed to French Muslim women having 3 times as many. In other areas of the world like Yemin, Muslim women have as many 12 children, with fairly reasonable infant mortality rates. Whether you’re keen to believe it or not, Muslims are going to be absolutely astounding problem for the Europeans in a generation. In two, Europeans will be a problem for the Muslims.
It’s not a question of the French or anyone else, wanting those who live in France to identify themselves as French. It’s a question of what they’re willing to do to assimilate them. What sort of standards go hand in hand with immigration. Who’s performing cultural outreach efforts? Because, as it currently stands, the French Muslims are having a much easier time assimilating the French into their culture (you can walk into various towns in France, and see culturally French women, wearing head scarves as attempt to fit in with the dominant Muslim majority) then the French are in assimilating Muslims.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Tano, just because you aren’t aware of instances doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Syria and Hama. Jordan and Black September. Turkish military coups (1960, 1971, 1980). Egypt’s assassinations and mass arrests. For pity’s sake.. Afghanistan and the Taliban. The essence of what you’re saying comes down to “I hope.. I want.. I believe..” Where’s the proof? Where’s the proof that the majority of Muslims emigrate to Europe for cultural rather than economic reasons? So you know a French Arab, huzzah. I know a Moroccan and a few Lebanese, but what does that prove? Compare the number of countries where Muslims are a cooperative minority to the number of countries where Muslims oppress the minority. I’m a little puzzled that you so easily dismiss the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing, September 11, the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole, etc. but I can see how you might believe that since it only adds up to a several thousand dying, it requires little more than a little policing. I think most of us would disagree with you.
The areas where policing did work were in the West (IRA, ETA, Baader-Meinhof Group, etc.). Where did it work in the Muslim world?
Data, Tano. We need data. I’m afraid your speculation won’t be enough to convince us, and the fact that you’ve personally visited some countries doesn’t make you any more an expert on them than we are (the usual left-wing elitist dismissal was a nice touch, though). It may work on the left-wing sites, but not on right-wing sites. I definitely appreciate your attempt to dismiss the threat more than Bill Buckley’s wild-eyed hysteria that all is lost, however.
April 29th, 2007 at 12:12 am
There is a real concern that British Muslims do pose a threat to that country and its traditional values. So how prevalent are such radical views among British Muslims?
Some answers are provided by the most comprehensive survey to date of Muslim opinion in Britain. The results from NOP Research, broadcast by Channel 4-TV on August 7, are startling.
Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year’s 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.
When asked, “Is Britain my country or their country?” only one in four say it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, “Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws.”
Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year’s Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.
The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who “insult Islam.” When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.
Also concerning freedom of speech, as the NOP Research survey reports, “hardcore Islamists” constitute nine percent of the British Muslim population. A slightly more moderate group is composed of “staunch defenders of Islam.” This second group comprises 29 percent of the British Muslim population. Individuals in this group aggressively defend their religion from internal and external threats, real or imagined.
The scary reality is that only three percent of British Muslims “took a consistently pro-freedom of speech line on these questions.” The Muslim threat to British security is so severe that the assistant London police commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur, has called for an inquiry into the radicalization of young Muslims. Ghaffur sadly describes “a generation of angry young people vulnerable to exploitation.”
Before the London bombings, British intelligence services estimated that one percent of British Muslims either support or are involved in terrorism. While this is mainly a peaceful and productive immigrant population, a significant number are prepared to act against their own country.
The British government believes that, in recent years, 3,000 British Muslims have returned home from al Qaeda training camps. Intelligence experts estimate that 1,200 Muslim radicals (80 percent of Pakistani origin) are currently pursuing a terrorist rather than a democratic option to vent their disgust at Tony Blair’s support for America’s invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and opposition to Hezbollah.
Until recently, discussion about British Islam reflected an assumption shared by the government and its Muslim interlocutors: that extremism was alien to most British Muslims, and squeezing it out was a simple matter of finding the right words to explain that violent behaviour was an aberrant reading of Islam. That assumption and therefore the basis of deal-making between the government and Muslim leaders seems increasingly doubtful.
Some recent opinion surveys have shown a frighteningly high level of openness to extreme views. One poll, by NOP for Channel 4 television, showed that 19% of British Muslims “respect” Osama bin Laden; another poll, by Populus in June, suggested that 13% of British Muslims regard the suicide-bombers who attacked the London underground in July 2005 as “martyrs”. The government’s willingness to make concessions to Muslim “community leaders” for instance, in promoting a bill to limit freedom of speech likely to promote religious hatred has been criticised by some. What’s the point, they ask, of junking ancient freedoms to placate Muslims when radicalism continues to spread?
http://www.economist.com/research/backgrounders/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7796461
Here are findings from surveys in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia conducted from December 2006 to February, 2007 by WorldPublicOpinion.org with support from the START Consortium at the University of Maryland.
On average less than one in four Muslims believe al-Qaeda was responsible for September 11th attacks. Pakistanis are the most skeptical, only 3 percent think al-Qaeda did it. There is no consensus about who is responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington; the most common answer is “don’t know.”
Most significantly, large majorities approve of many of al-Qaeda’s principal goals. Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: “stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people,” “push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” and “pressure the United States to not favor Israel.”
Equally large majorities agree with goals that involve expanding the role of Islam in their society. On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”
April 29th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Thanks, Argo! Tano? Your turn.
April 29th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
April 29th, 2007 at 12:29 am
Attitudes to Living in Britain A Survey of Muslim Opinon
http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf
April 29th, 2007 at 12:29 am
This is why Rudy’s emphasis on immigrants learning English and becoming Americanized is good policy and will win votes.
Regarding the problem of immigrants with different values changing the shape or a democracy by voting: I differ with modern conservative thought here, and I do NOT think the majority should rule on social issues. I subscribe to the Locke/Jefferson/Ayn Rand concept of individual rights, wherein the majority can never take away the rights of a minority.
April 29th, 2007 at 12:34 am
David B, who said anything about taking away voting rights for legal immigrants?
April 29th, 2007 at 12:41 am
David B,
Hopefully Rudy isn’t paying lip service, but is prepared to back his words with actions.
Here’s one of the questions I submitted for Thursday’s debate specifically for Rudy Giuliani:
You said: “If (illegal immigrants) are ever going to become citizens, the thing I am really interested in, they have to read English, write English, speak English and…understand the basics of American civics.”
Question: Will you deport those refusing to assimilate?
April 29th, 2007 at 12:42 am
Argo, how would you determine who is unwilling to assimilate? Periodically mandate tests for immigrants?
April 29th, 2007 at 12:52 am
JF: Nobody, however I would favor not granting them to first generation immigrants, or a 20-year wait, because individual rights are not currently protected by the Constitution as they would be. The problem being alluded to was as unassimilated immigrants make up a large percentage of the population, they can change the society by voting. A properly protected Constitution would render them unable to do so.
Argo, Yes, Rudy supports tests for immigrants. He would withhold rights from them if they did not assimilate.
April 29th, 2007 at 12:56 am
David B, that makes sense. But it wouldn’t even be an issue if we enforced our immigration laws effectively. I think one particularly effective law would be to deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the US. You wouldn’t believe how many people fly into this country just to give birth here.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:02 am
JF: I think I’d support ending birthright citizenship, but I haven’t thought it through.
Where I vehemently disagree with conservative thought is in restricting immigration across the board. There is no reason we shouldn’t be welcoming educated, pro-American, English-speaking ambitious people to this country. It’s an outrage how impossible we make it for so many to come here.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:07 am
David B, I think that’s a straw man set up by the left. I don’t think the majority of conservatives are against immigration. We’re against immigration of the illegal variety; even Tancredo is only calling for action against the illegals. The Pat Buchanans left the GOP a while ago.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:10 am
JF,
Any individual in the US illegally who either willfully refuses or fails in his or her attempt to learn English would be subject to deportation for not complying with their assimilation obligations under agreed upon terms by which they’d be permitted to stay. Many politicians, Rudy included, are quick to say how they’d REQUIRE all illegal aliens who want to remain in the US to learn to read, write and communicate in English.
I’d like to know what specific measures would be implemented to deport those in the US illegally who do not learn to read, write and speak in English, and how such requirements could ever be enforced.
Perhaps a ‘Three Strikes Yer Out!’ rule could be applied; whereby an applicant for amnesty would have three chances over six months to pass a basic English proficiency exam and a 5th grade level US history/civics test…or receive a free one-way trip across the border from which they illegally came.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Argo, hold on a sec. Why even give an amnesty? Every amnesty is a signal to the next generation to come in illegally, English test or not. Let’s not give them extra incentive to come in. If they’re already hiding out from ICE, then it will be easy for them to hide from the examiners.
I say, let’s crack down on the border, and deport them as we find them. Maybe we won’t be able to deport all 12 million, but it will send a message to those who are thinking of crossing the border tomorrow. As for labor requirements, I’m sure some arrangement can be made (similar to an H1B visa), but we need to secure the borders first. Where illegal laborers come through, terrorists can come through.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:22 am
JF: Not a straw man at all. Recently tried to hire a friend of mine who is a Canadian. Costs a ton in legal fees and is a major headache, and often isn’t even possible. And that’s with NAFTA. It’s a horrible outrage.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:27 am
David B, oh, I know it’s tough to hire qualified foreign workers. Many years ago, when I used to work for a strategic consulting firm, the shenanigans we had to go through to hire Canadians was ridiculous–this idea that you can only hire a foreigner upon proving that there are no available Americans who are equally qualified.. jeez. But I guess my point is that I doubt these restrictions exist specifically because of Republicans. I’d sooner blame unions than the GOP, given how pro-business we tend to be. I’m saying that the Democrats portraying our party as across-the-board anti-immigrant is a farce.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:27 am
JF,
You want data? Why? Data is meaningful only when interpreted. And you make it clear that you interpret data only within our preconceptions.
For instance - you mention “instances” that I am supposedly unaware of.
But what are these instances of, do you think? What is the point you are trying to make?
Turkish military coups? Mass arrests in Egypt? What are these instances of, that are relevant to our discussion?
The Turkish military is staunchly secularist. They have a long history of repressing the Islamists. Egypt arrests and suppresses the Muslim Brotherhood. What point are you trying to make here?
Your reference to me “hoping, believing” is just utter nonsense. Sounds like one of the standard charges that ranters make against people they want to charge with being weak about something. So you just thought you would pull it out now because it sounds good? What have I expressed any hope for? What have I expressed any belief in?
You are just ranting here with cliches.
I shouldnt be surprised. Even Bill Buckley is a wild-eyed hysteric to you. Making that charge says a lot more about you than it does about him.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:34 am
JF,
I’m all in favor of first constructing a fence/wall along the US-Mexican border, and documenting a 95% reduction in illegal border crossings before allowing a guest worker program to proceed. I used the word amnesty because that’s, in effect, what will be granted to anyone who’s not summarily rounded up and is allowed to stay in America, regardless the number of hoops they’re made to jump through.
Ultimately, tough prison sentences will have to be imposed on employers who hire illegals. With a relatively tamper-proof ID system in place, ignorance will be no excuse. Once the job market dries up, those with no other ties to the community will return to the country from where they came…in most instances, Mexico.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Tano, so once again, you are unable to provide data. I asked you for specific examples of countries where militant Islam has been fully subdued by diplomacy. Considering that this is what you are calling for, your inability to provide examples is in itself proof that your policy recommendations are unrealistic. You’re also unable to provide support for your claim that Muslims in Europe are there because they are seeking freedom, not because of economic reasons. I’m surprised you can’t understand what I was trying to do by providing the examples I cited–I was trying to establish a pattern of successful examples of military force crushing militant Islam, which was something you claimed was not possible. In return, you have shown nothing whatsoever to prove that your claims are actionable and have precedent. Pathetic.
The burden is on you, as you are the one accusing us of exaggerating the Islamic threat and “pissing our pants,” my friend. Since you can’t produce any data to support your speculation, your views must necessarily be viewed with suspicion at best, and dismissed at worst. You claim to be worldly and condemn us for being provincial. It should be easy for you to prove your claims, and yet you can’t. There are only two possibilities, then: either the data doesn’t exist to prove your claims, or it is specifically you that cannot pull together the necessary support. I won’t speculate on what limits your ability.
I had hoped you would be of the moderate left variety, but unfortunately, you turn out to be just another extreme leftist. I’m sure you’ll find more sympathy back on Daily Kos.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:09 am
Argo,
Its 2:30AM here now, so I dont have time to parse through all of this. I aprreciate you providing data.
A few comments:
“Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments.”
So? That makes them dumb, or paranoid. It doesnt make them terrorists.
56% in that survey thought that as Muslims, they would be subject to “severe persecution”.
So maybe paranoia is present.
“almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year’s 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror. ”
If you stop and think about it, this is an ambiguous question (I read the actual wording in the PDF). It doesnt discriminate between someone saying that “I think the attacks were justified because…” or someone
meaning “the bombers thought they were justified because…”
“When asked, “Is Britain my country or their country?” only one in four say it is.”
What percent are permanent immigrants, as opposed to guest workers of some type?
“Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law.”
Once again - what percentage are permanent in the UK? And even then, many immigrants may
prefer Islamic law as an abstract alternative in a question, but that doesnt mean that they are seeking to impose it on a majority. I am sure many immigrants would wish their new country was like the old in some ways - but they accept the tradeoff. This question doesnt indicate that the 30% are doing anything more than expressing nostalgia.
“Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.”
So? They believe in their religion. Is that a surprise? The question is not whether they hope for this - the question is whether they respect the fact that the majority wouldnt want that. And the question does not indicate any interest in imposing fundamental Islam on Britain.
“When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not. ”
Sounds like our fundamentalists here.
We even have a presidential candidate, much favored here, who proudly tries to shut down “offensive” art or speech.
I am against all such efforts.
“hardcore Islamists” constitute nine percent of the British Muslim population. A slightly more moderate group is composed of “staunch defenders of Islam.” This second group comprises 29 percent of the British Muslim population. Individuals in this group aggressively defend their religion from internal and external threats, real or imagined. ”
Once again. So what? As long as they don’t do so violently.
There are lots of people in the US who staunchly defend their religion from internal and external threats, whether real or not. And most of them are on your side of the ailse.
“Most significantly, large majorities approve of many of al-Qaeda’s principal goals. Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: “stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people,” “push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries,” and “pressure the United States to not favor Israel.” ”
Whats wrong with standing up for the dignity of your people?
What group of people wouldnt want foreign troops out of their country?
And what is surpising, or wrong, with Muslims wanting the US to be a fair broker, rather than favoring Israel?
The passage you present does not make it clear if people were asked about these issues alone, or whether they were first identified as al-Q goals. They certainly seem to be far more general than al-Q.
“Equally large majorities agree with goals that involve expanding the role of Islam in their society. On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.”"
Once again. As a liberal who is vigilant against American religious conservatives, this strikes me as simply a foreign version of tendencies here. We certainly have, fortunatly few, people who want more religious laws adopted by the government, and many of those are contra what I take to be core Western values.
“Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”
If Muslims want to do that, peacefully, then why should we be concerned? Europeans are in the process of forming a single meta-state. Even the US put together disparate colonies to form a strong state. There is nothing wrong with the idea per se, it is only wrong if it were pursued with force. And that was not the question.
April 29th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Tano can choose, as he likes, to minimize the threat posed by Islamists. I have little doubt that, in the right forum, he’d be glad to discount 9/11 as a relatively minor event, approximately 1/8th as significant as annual US traffic fatalities. Still, I suspect and will hope until proven wrong, that he’s intelligent enough to recognize that the greater significance of 9/11 was not entailed in the losses suffered on that one day, but in what it seemed to portend for the future - a long period of danger from an enemy whose ferocity, in combination with modern technologies (not boxcutters, but airplanes and television, in this case), magnified their importance exponentially, and far beyond what their small numbers, minimal assets, and generally remote locations would have signified in any previous era.
To some of us, Tano may sound like a confident French socialist of the 1920s or ’30s explaining that the Germans were weary of war, that their armies were held in check by international agreements and economic limitations, that the combined military strength of the nations aligned against them were vastly superior, and that, anyway, though the German people might appear to support the Nazis in their more reasonable or at least understandable positions regarding the treatment and future unification of German-speaking people in particular, and the need to oppose rapacious capitalism and international financiers, they were on the whole uninterested in repeating the dreadful experiences of the Great War, and beyond that were just normal civilized people trying to make their lives better. The anti-semitism was backward, but not unusual - similar attitudes toward minority groups existed in every nation, including, of course, France itself. It was widely believed that the Nazis would be tamed by power, and, later, that they could be appeased. They were, in other words, thought to be quite manageable.
It’s still true that the Islamists don’t represent the same kind of threat as the totalitarians of old - that’s obvious, though it completely misses the point. Tano and his ilk can speak blithely of new ways to deal with such problems in contrast to the imperial modes of the past, but that’s just an abstraction. When he goes on to abbreviate the US strategy as “willy-nilly invad[ing] countries that are entirely peripheral to the threat” but then goes on suggest we “use all of the tools at our disposal,” he’s engaging in pure double-speak, while of course completely ignoring the arguments explicitly offered for Operation Iraqi Freedom in particular and underlying both the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, as well as many lesser-remarked actions undertaken domestically and worldwide, with and without our allies. He then contradicts himself again, and happens to flash his nutroots-conspiracist face cards, when he accuses the administration of “conjur[ing] up these existential fears so as to carve out for themselves a freedom to do whatever they want - with all opposition treated as traitorous.” Again, in other contexts, others on his side will strongly assert their determination to fight authentic threats and to join our allies. They’ll even approve of one or another operation. What this usually means is that they’re entirely in favor of the operations that are considered successful, don’t have anything to say about the ones that remain un-noticed by the public, and are firmly against the ones that prove more difficult than hoped.
The US and its allies are in the middle of a complex struggle to preserve a way of life and a world system that has been in place since the end of World War 2, that has served us magnificently well, and that also happens to have, so far, prevented the world from incinerating itself. The idea that we can either preserve the system (which includes ideas like national sovereignty, international laws of trade and war, and so on) or move to something new and better at no or low cost and with minimal risk is childish fantasy, as is the idea that we could run away from opposition by murdereous fanatics in Iraq and Iran, at the center of the world oil trade and the spiritual home of both Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilization, without ensuring terrible losses of every kind, and not least moral losses.
April 29th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Our lack of will to see a successful conclusion in Iraq emboldens the Terrorists and will convince them they are going to win in the long run.Because, if we don’t have the stomach to do what it takes to defeat them in Iraq, we are telling them we will not have the backbone to resist them anywhere except mabey on our own soil,and by then it will be too late!
They are prepared to fight this battle if it takes them 100+ years. We are ready to quit afetr 4 or 5.Lets face facts. They have the American peoples number,fueled by the main stream press. Just reak havock with suiside bombers day after day , get the press to cover it, and the American peoples will to resist will wilt like flowers in a drought.And know that t knowing what it takes to break our will, they will use these tacticts everywhere we try to resist them, eventually here too.
Time for some hard evaluations of friends and alliances. We spend millions supporting the NATO Alliance. Europe expects us to defend them if attacked, yet, several of the most prominent NATO countries refuse to do anything to help us in Iraq and resist our efforts to punish Iran with meaningfull sanctions. Yet we have to keep troops there and forces in Bosnia.
1. Pull our troups out of Bosnia or cut our troop level to a token force. If we have to bear the burden in Iraq, let the Europeans bear it in Bosnia.
2. Cut our troop levels in Europe by half and move bases out of nations that don’t support us there. It’s time Europe spends money on their own defense.
3. Shift these extra forces to Iraq to give relief to those troops who have extended or return tours of duty.
4. Have a crash program for energy independence,using not only alternitive energy,but taping into our vast oil reserves in the West and Alaska.
5. Once we free ourselves of foreign oil dependence, then we have some strong options in dealing with Terror supporting oil states. Either stop funding terrorist groups or we take out your oil. No oil no money. That includes Chavez too!
Also , if we had a true declaration of war,we could stop the press from showing the pictures and writing the propaganda pieces that embolden the enemy. Can you imagine if the press reported the same way during WW2 as they do today? We be part of the Third Richt now.Don’t forget, we hardly won a battle the first two years of that war.Hey not, 3000+ killed in 4 years, 15-20,000 killed in ONE DAY!!!
Until the American people fully understand the true consequences of cutting and running in Iraq,the Jihadist propaganda machine,aided by our news organizations. will continue to psyce out the American people.
We need a Republican candidate that can communicate the urgency of the situation we face. Failing that , it will take another 9/11 to bring us to face reality. And I fear, this time ,the consequences could be far worse.