What’s Wrong with the World

Who in America, realistically, in 2001, had a working knowledge of Islamic doctrine, tradition and history, sufficient to inoculate himself against the lies and platitudes that would ensue? Precious few.

I certainly didn't. I needed to read up. I am pretty sure someone like Bush did too.

Which makes his buffoonery in the "religion of peace" all the more disgraceful, I think: why the heck would he even THINK he had a sure and definite handle on Islam, after such a short period (just 6 days after 9-11, when he was pretty busy doing other things). A person with a little humility might have limited himself to a more qualified statement. Maybe a conditional: If Islam is a religion of peace, as many suggest, ...

That the Democratic Party would very much like to roll back this realization, and re-establish complete ignorance of the nature of the Jihad and its Islamic roots as the regnant condition of the American people, is another observation that no one should forget.

Sadly, that the Republican party, as a party, isn't all that much better, is a sad observation on the shameful state of the Republic. It is, effectively, a testament to moral degradation, for it is degraded WILLS that lead men to hide from such obvious truths.

Meanwhile, the President has spent the better part of a week on foreign soil calling his countrymen unAmerican because they’re skeptical of his policy to resettle Middle Eastern migrants in the United States.

Shocking how the Dem anti-American default paradigm (so common during the Bush years) can now be shouted from the White House itself, without shame, and without a universal backlash that humiliates the president. A Republic that doesn't even love itself has problems.

>>Hearts break and chests ache for justice. If not both, you are not worthy of leadership.

Meh.

Who in America, realistically, in 2001, had a working knowledge of Islamic doctrine, tradition and history, sufficient to inoculate himself against the lies and platitudes that would ensue? Precious few.

Tony notes that he certainly didn't. Neither did I. Did you?

As for me in 2001, I could not have told you the difference between a Sunni, a Shia and a Sikh. I did not know that some Arabs are Christian. I was only vaguely aware that Pakistanis are not Arabs. I had never heard of Charles Martel, but had heard that rugs and pistachios come from Iran. I had seen the movie Ben Hur, in which a man in a flowing robe lets Charlton Heston drive his team of white chariot horses against Masala; and had seen The Man Who Would Be King, in which Sean Connery, son of Alexander, takes charge of a Muslim monastery or something. I had read Homer but did not so much as know of the existence of the Hadiths. So, in 2001, if the president informs me that Islam is a religion of peace, why, I tended to credit the notion.

How distant 2001 now seems.

Paul,

This comment struck me as particularly wise:

"What happened after September 11th was that most people forcibly categorized the shock and horror according to the historical paradigms they had long operated by:...on the Right, anti-Communism."

I suspect that many of the neo-cons (and I would include myself among them) used this paradigm in their efforts to nation-build in Afghanistan and the Middle-East -- including our effort to find and work with the small group of Muslim 'liberals' who do indeed exist and were willing to work with us (often at the cost of their own lives.)

I can say now I know better -- I wonder how many of those folks would say the same?

I can say now I know better -- I wonder how many of those folks would say the same?

Exhibits A and B: Libya and Syria respectively.

Tony notes that he certainly didn't. Neither did I. Did you?

Not at all. It required several courses of study. One was in the immediate aftermath of September 11th, and included a heavy dose of Bernard Lewis. Another was the antidote to that over-optimistic fare, including two French scholars, Paul Fregosi and Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq.

Medieval history is not something Americans do well, but the fact is that Islam was a huge factor for virtually the entirety of what we call Middle Ages; so any good history of that and related topics is bound to provide insight.

Democratic Party would very much like to roll back this realization, and re-establish complete ignorance of the nature of the Jihad

From American Conservative:

Last week Hillary spoke at the Council of Foreign Relations. She gave a denser and more detailed speech than what Republicans typically give, and clearly is knowledgeable. But some of those listening closely were troubled, with good reason. Building to her theme that the United States should take stronger measures against the Syria’s anti-Islamist Assad government, Clinton said:
In September I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.
And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East.

Those calling out for war should spell out the war they want. War against IS--allied with pro-Assad party or against Assad as well? Are they willing to risk confrontation with Russia?
Send tanks? yes but where and against whom?

From a counter-Jihad perspective, it seems very odd that the three states (leaving Afghanistan) targeted by the Western allies were all secular. What has removing Saddam and Qaddafi done to counter Islamic terror? Quite the reverse.
Paul Cella would prefer that we forget this inconvenient history--No American knew or could be expected to know anything about the Islam previous to 2001. Despite American decades-long involvement in ME, despite billions spent in arming Afghan jihadists- mislabeled as anti-communist freedom-fighters by a Republican administration.

Can it be a Just War if prosecuted through ignorance? Can it be a Just War is prosecuted through strategic confusion and incompetence?
Why is that peculiar targets for Western alliance has been secular govts unloved by KSA and Qatar? Do the strategic aims of KSA and Qatar coincide so perfectly with the USA and UK?
From this perspective, the counter-Jihad looks a lot like jihad paid for by KSA.

Well, looks like Turkey was listening to Jeff and gave him what he wants viz a viz Russia...

From a counter-Jihad perspective, it seems very odd that the three states (leaving Afghanistan) targeted by the Western allies were all secular. What has removing Saddam and Qaddafi done to counter Islamic terror? Quite the reverse.

Don't forget, from a generation earlier, toppling the beloved Shah.

And then there is the whole Syria thing itself, before the Assads.

Do we classify the kingdoms of Morocco and Jordan "secular" or "religious"? They aren't caliphates. But they aren't religiously neutral.

For some reason, we haven't gotten around to killing off the secular government of Turkey. Maybe it's only a matter of time.

For some reason, we haven't gotten around to killing off the secular government of Turkey. Maybe it's only a matter of time.

No need, Erdogan's party is doing a fine job of that. The moment they started preemptively arresting generals to break the Turkish military we should have contemplated arranging for a series of unfortunate events to be experienced by Turkish civilian leadership.

For what it's worth, I was appalled at Bush II's "religion of peace" nonsense after 9/11. I was immediately appalled. Appalled at the time. It was such a stupid thing to say, especially in the immediate wake of an Islamic terrorist attack. I'm not saying I was prepared to write a scholarly monograph on the history of Islam, but we already had enough experience with Islamic terrorism prior to that in our own country and foreign policy, for decades, to know better. (Er, remember that Al Qaeda tried to take down the WTC once before?) By the way, when the plane hit the WTC, people were _immediately_ saying that it was Osama bin Laden's work. I mean, within seconds. Such an attack was almost expected, and from that very source. Plus I did know a bit of world history over the last umpteen centuries. Not to sound dismissive, but it really didn't take all _that_ much esoteric knowledge to realize that Islam is not a religion of peace.

A CNN reporter has said almost exactly what Kerry said about the alleged difference between this Paris attack and the Charlie Hebdo and Jewish baker attack.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/24/cnn-reporter-parisians-shaken-because-this-time-it-wasnt-just-jews-targeted-this-was-just-people/

What is interesting is the utter lack of guilt concerning this "blame the victim" mentality. I realize it is all too human to say, "Whew! At least that terrorist attack was deliberately targeting X group of people, and thank goodness I'm not part of X group of people, so I don't have to worry too much about it." But that all-too-human response should bother people somewhat. After all, going to buy bread at a Kosher deli is hardly a blameworthy activity! I'm not trying to restart the Charlie Hebdo debate, but the point is here that both Kerry and this reporter are articulating the idea that it's sorta all right for people not to get all that het up about terrorism so long as it is targeted at someone they (and a majority of Parisians) can view as "the other guy."

Suppose, for example, that there were some Hindu terrorist group that went into a Muslim neighborhood and took hostages and murdered people at a Muslim-owned grocery store in the middle of Dearborn. Sure, in terms of actual danger or risk, I would conclude that I and my family are not at *very* great risk from that Hindu terrorist outfit. But now suppose that the Hindu terrorist outfit expanded its activities and started shooting a bunch of people in Chicago. I can't imagine standing up in front of a camera and explicitly drawing a distinction between the attacks and saying, in essence, "Well, it wasn't so bad when they just shot up that Muslim deli in Dearborn, but now look at them! They're shooting up people of all faiths in the middle of Chicago. Now that's _really_ bad." That would be obviously idiotic, callous, morally blinkered, and everything else. But evidently Kerry and this reporter don't even have that minimal amount of self-awareness to hear how their statements sound.

Earlier, I wrote:

I had read Homer but did not so much as know of the existence of the Hadiths. So, in 2001, if the president informs me that Islam is a religion of peace, why, I tended to credit the notion.

Later, Lydia wrote:

Not to sound dismissive, but it really didn't take all _that_ much esoteric knowledge to realize that Islam is not a religion of peace.

One can hardly disagree. Paul however makes the pertinent point:

Medieval history is not something Americans do well....

This is right. An American born about 1967 (as I was) learned in school a peculiar world history which skips somehow from Pericles and Caesar a thousand years ahead to greet Luther and William of Orange—Errol Flynn's Robin Hood enlivening Ye Merry Olde England at some indefinite era between. The theme of this style of history contrasts Enlightenment versus the Christian, preceded by Protestant versus the Catholic, underlain by Roman versus the Greek. When bored, when wishing to study an exotic topic for a change, one journeyed eastward with Marco Polo (pausing to rest only the briefest instant at Samarkand) and with William Adams to China and Japan. Christian missionaries were seen to travel everywhere abroad, oppressing the indigenes, an activity cast to foreshadow the American plantationist, oppressing the black. The theme of Saracen versus the Catholic apparently just did not fit the dominant morality play of the time. The theme of Saracen versus the Catholic seemed too minor, too discordant a riff.

Of course, there were the Byzantines, but who know anything about them, except that they seemed to own a lot of restaurants in Chicago?

And anyway, if you had read your Bible, you knew who Pharaoh and Ishmael were; and if you had seen Raiders of the Lost Ark, you witnessed John-Rhys Davies' genial portrayal of Islamic man with fez. What more was there to learn? Camels?

Regrettably, I read Gibbon, and even Belloc, only after 9-11.

If you were an American more or less of my generation, if during high school you once learned of Scipio but never of Sobieski, then you may know what I mean.

Lydia:

After sleeping on the matter, I find one more thing to write. I wonder if your answer and mine do not in some sense share the same, serious flaw; namely, that you are an intellectual, and that, though perhaps I (who for instance read neither Latin nor Greek) am not, I travel at least in intellectualism's borderland, as it were. When I wrote, "Regrettably, I read Gibbon ... only after 9-11," I was boasting, because, you know, who reads Gibbon at all, whether before or after?

This is not to imply that you have boasted. I have never known you to boast, but my point this morning is that the United States is no philosopher's kingdom. Americans used to dream of cowboys and Indians. Americans never dreamt of cowboys and jihadians. The Marines at Tripoli aside, Islam never fit our story.

That the United States is no philosopher's kingdom is hardly news, yet to expect a Marcus Aurelius (and by dropping his name does one not again boast?) to make U.S. policy is to expect a thing probably not in the nature of the U.S. Here for better or worse the people rule, not the Antonines or even W4.

So, yes, when you write, "[I]t really didn't take all _that_ much esoteric knowledge to realize that Islam is not a religion of peace," well, maybe, despite all that had happened, it did take that much.

Still, it is pleasant to write comments to the attention of a clique of readers who may know who Marcus Aurelius and the Antonines are. And after all, our republic does have a genuine, democratic intellectual tradition, for example, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZyMc29QQK8].

Here's the thing, though, Howard: Bush said that in the *immediate aftermath* of an act of Islamic terrorism, which was itself the last in a series (what seems to us in 2015 a rather slow series, but a series nonetheless) of high-profile acts of Islamic terrorism, attempted terrorism, and wishes of death to America. So there was another, completely non-intellectual, source of knowledge of Islam--mere observation of the immediate world around one over the years leading up to 9/11, and of course observation of 9/11 itself.

That would seem to be the time to re-evaluate any tendency one might have to think Islam the religion of peace, would it not? And why should the President be thought any greater authority on the religious essence of Islam than any other non-intellectual layman? To my eye it was blatantly obvious that President Bush's statements were a combination of political correctness (which we were already very well-acquainted with in 2001), wishful thinking, and a desire to influence Muslims by the power of suggestion. His comments positively _smelled_ like that. Any amount of political savvy and some moderately alert listening to the news should have given that clue. Above all, the sheer nature of the act we had just witnessed, coming from an Islamic group that had been loudly out to commit such acts for a long time (as reported over a period of years), should have caused skepticism about such a statement and should have made anyone wonder what the heck Bush was playing at by making such a confident declaration at such a time.

If that, then, motivated more reading or study, all the better.

and a desire to influence Muslims by the power of suggestion. His comments positively _smelled_ like that.

Well, yes, I remember that much. I assumed his statement was made as a political ploy, though probably with (more or less) decent motivations, along the lines of "I am trying to show our home-grown and otherwise nonviolent Muslims that when we decide to beat the tar out of terrorists and state supporters of terrorism, it isn't religious but something else."

Whether the ploy helped or not, for a period, is academic. It also helped along the state of the discussion to remain politically correct, i.e. to keep on NOT TRYING to ascertain what Islam really is.