The latest attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan put the ongoing debate about the many apologies made by President Obama and members of our government over the inadvertent burning of Korans by U.S. personnel in new perspective. While I completely agree with the points that Max Boot made on Thursday about the president being right to apologize, it’s clear that it doesn’t matter how many times Obama or Secretary of State Clinton or any American general utter contrite statements. The incident has merely served as the latest excuse for Islamist violence and riots whose purpose is to vent hatred against the West and perhaps also to serve the interests of our al Qaeda and Taliban foes in Afghanistan.
As Max said, the United States is not in Afghanistan as a favor to President Hamid Karzai but to buttress our security needs. Yet as much as Obama is obligated to say what he can to lessen the chances of attacks on U.S. soldiers there, the spectacle of continual apologies from members of the administration does grate on the sensibilities of many Americans. As with previous incidents in which Muslims sensibilities are said to be offended, whatever sympathy we might have for those who are angry about the incident is overwhelmed by disgust at their resort to violence and murder in the name of their faith. The problem here is not so much what Obama said in this instance but a willingness by this administration and much of the mainstream press to buy into a false narrative in which the history of interactions between the United States and the Muslim world is a one-sided story of Western insults to Islam. As Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News, Americans are sick of seeing their government grovel. It is high time to point out that Muslim violence against non-believers far outweighs the few isolated incidents for which a Western apology to Muslims is in order.
The problem here is not that Obama and Clinton continue to apologize in a vain effort to assuage the Afghan mobs. It is the mute acceptance of a situation in which any insult to Islam by any American or European under any circumstance is seen by the Muslim world as a justification for violence and murder while no amount of bloodshed or act of terror or deliberate insult to non-Muslim faiths is considered worthy of any notice by either side.
Throughout the Muslim world, Christian churches are burned and Jews are persecuted, as are Bahais and other minorities. Christians are under siege in Egypt. Jewish shrines have been attacked and desecrated in the West Bank. Synagogues were burned in Gaza. Yet none of this is considered important enough to notice by most in the West let alone to demand an apology from Muslims. Attacks and murder of Israeli Jews in the name of Islam over the years has become such a routine event that such crimes must be of the spectacular variety to attract much attention. The official media of Egypt, Iran and the Palestinian Authority crank out vicious hate speech about Jews and few care.
Yet let a cartoon satirizing the Prophet Muhammad be published or if a crackpot American pastor burns a Koran to get attention and we are told these acts are sufficient to justify mayhem and bloodshed.
It is to this set of unfortunate facts, and not just the president’s statement, that many Americans are reacting this week. This resentment is not so much at an apology that was probably be justified as it was at the entire tenor of this administration’s attitude toward the Muslim world. This is, after all, the same president who went to Cairo in June of 2009 to reach out to Muslims with a speech that symbolized his attempt to appease Islamic sensibilities. Predictably, that effort failed, as did his overtures to the Middle East in the wake of the Arab Spring protests. The weakness of our posture has only invited more extremist attempts to inflate minor incidents into causes for violence and murder.
America’s dilemma is that it is locked in a life-and-death struggle with Islamist forces. After all, the only reason we are in Afghanistan is that its Taliban government allowed its soil to be used a base for attacks on American citizens such as the 9/11 atrocities. In order to prevail we must seek and win allies within the Muslim world who want nothing to do with the Islamist agenda of unending war. To do that, we must show respect to their faith but so long as we accept a situation where we do not demand or expect respect in return, we are doomed to failure.
This article reads like the speech we wished an American administration would make. Bush was too low key (except for that early moment at Ground Zero) and Obama may really believe he's carrying out some concept of willingness to talk to anyone with an open mind — or something — except it's coming off as appeasement. What I'm trying to argue reasonably here is that it would be impossible for this administration to suddenly get tough or hardline or put a foot down or anything because it would either not be believed or turn out very badly. That is, the idea of mutually assured destruction is that if the other side believes you'll do it, you don't have to … but now, thanks to Obama, no one believes it so we'll have to.
The one-sidedness of the situation is precisely the reason why Obama's belly-crawling apology was so outrageous. This was an inadvertent error that was in no way intended as an insult to Islam. An expression of regret by our commanding general in Afghanistan was certainly in order, but no more. And it would have done no harm for some US official—perhaps a State Department spokesman (as if)—to point out that no Muslim leader anywhere has ever apologized for the murderous violence against Christians in Muslim countries around the world, not to mention Islam’s revolting strain of anti-Semitism. Apologies in the Obama vein accomplish nothing. They merely encourage the next manufactured explosion of outrage at some real or imagined slight. The Muslim world can scarcely be expected to grow up as long as we in the West continue to indulge these adolescent temper tantrums.
I don't believe that I can "show respect for their faith". I simply do not have any for 'them'. "Faith" should be an individual characteristic, and it should not be an institution as it is here in the US and elsewhere. The scientist in me really has very little believe in 'faith' as such. It is for suckers and those without hope – who should know better. What little that I have is carefully apportioned to those that I love, individually.. However, the Islamists do understand brute force. The more brutal, the more that they understand. The Japanese understood our extreme atomic brute force in WWII. As a result, we all benefited. The time has come to try it again, if it is not too late.
vandag1, to me it is now not so much a matter of "faith" as it is "knowing." I cannot scientifically "prove" to you that God exists. However, through the practice of mindfulness meditation, I have come to realize that an incredibly beautiful, compassionate, loving, Being of Light (God) DOES with CERTAINTY exist. Not only that, but this compassionate, loving Being of Light dwells within every living creature; though most people are not really in touch with it; because they depend TOO MUCH on their rational mind and senses. Sorry, I did not mean to get all spiritual on you here. (laughter)
The apologies are not the main issue. How in tarnation is American security increased by placing American troops as sitting duck targets to referee shifting coalitions of jihadist tribal warlords? Time to go. But actually faith is one resource that permits a society to overcome brutal force. Don't be so certain that the U.S. can escalate to a level of force that will automatically compel Islamic adherents to renounce their identity. And, yeah yeah yeah, someone in the bleachers calls for nukes. When conventional wars go sideways you end up with Iraq after the fall of the Baath party. When nuclear wars go sideways you end up with an end to the power of incantatory rhetoric and the onset of something for more implacable.
One word: Japan. n nI know it was an eulogy to a friend, and that it really is an extremist point, but there are times when I really think that Ann Coulter was right — and a religion that was spread by force is equally vulnerable to being destroyed by force. The problem Islam had with the Dutch cartoons was that if those were tolerated, someone else might do it and the whole theocratic power would break down. n nThink about this point for a minute: n nif an armed force was to have a noon burning of Bibles, Torahs and similar religious stuff — if they were to fly them in from Antarctica or somewhere — they weren't stealing or defiling our stuff but these were religious things they were bringing in on their own — we would be upset but it wouldn't be a threat to our religions. We'd be upset, really upset, but it would only serve to bring us closer to our faith. n nIf the same armed force was to have the daily noon burning of Korans and Islamic stuff, if they were able & willing to use deadly force with impunity and to simply shoot anyone who tried to interfere with them, in about a week, half the people who used to support Islam no longer would. n nWhat would happen to our highways if the police were not permitted to write tickets (or do anything else) on Wednesdays? By about the third Wednesday, people would be driving really fast, wouldn't they? So too here — if the fear of force were to be removed, Islamofascism would collapse.
Jon is right, apologies don't matter to the savages using the supposed desecration of their execrable "holy book" as a pretext for doing what they do best. But I think Jon errs in maintaining the popular fiction that there is a distinction to be made between mainstream Muslims and the Islamists from whom worldwide jihadi terrorism springs. n nMainstream Muslims, not just the militants, regard Westernism and Judeo-Christianity as anathema, and if Muslims are not actively hostile to us, then they are overwhelming in their eager support of the aims, if not the means of the jihadis. I believe the term Islamofascism should be used to describe not the fascist inflection of Islam, but the Islamic inflection of fascism, namely the fascism inherent in Islam itself. n nBurning any book is provocative and, depending on the book burned, wrong. Burning Mein Kampf would probably have offended a lot of Germans at one time. But should the hurt feelings of those who subscribe to the tenets of Mein Kampf cause us pangs of conscience? Likewise, should the hurt feelings of those who subscribe to the tenets of the Koran for the same reasons they make Mein Kampf — "My Jihad" — a perennial bestseller in their world cause us pangs of conscience? n nThe extent to which professed Muslims refuse to become less Muslim is the extent to which they will continue to be at odds with the civilized world, and we with them.
I agree. Google "Hussain Ibish." n nBut as to burning Mein Kampf — imagine if the world's response to the Krystalnaught had been to send in a sufficiently large and well armed force to be able to defend themselves and had the daily noon burning of Mein Kampf? There would have been a lot of fatalities but if they were able to sustain this, if the National Socialists weren't able to stop them, when it became apparent that the Nazis couldn't stop them, the entire Nazi movement would have collapsed. n nFascism inherently collapses when it can be challenged with impunity. Small "l" liberalism does not, but fascism does — as I once told a friend, the thing a police officer is most afraid of is not being injured, but being laughed at, of being reduced to ridicule. Fascist movements even more-so, if we were to reduce Allah to being the butt of all jokes, the Islamofascist movement would collapse. n nThe "occupy" movement, which is/was fascist, failed to realize this distinction. They thought that if they could camp out in defiance of regulations, they would destroy the authority of those whose regulations they were defying. Instead, all they did was annoy people — who were increasingly less willing to accord their issues any scintilla of respect. n nWe knew that we could remove them if we wanted to — our strength was that we knew we were holding our punch where a fascist entity — be it a university, movement or government — simply can't do that. And they didn't understand that — still don't. n nBut back to "Insane Ibish" — and he was by no means the worst one — the real issue is the Islamofascist academics — the homicide bombers are really pathetic human beings that belong in a psych ward, I know a LTC who did a study of one such individual who attacked his unit in Iraq. The true threat is not them but the people who motivate them. The Ibishes of the word — who always seem to have lots of money, coming from somewhere….
President Obama's apology didn't make a damn bit of difference. Can anyone think of an instance where Christians rioted and killed over a Bible burning? The sooner we get our troops out of that part of the world, the better. G-d help us!
"Christians rioting and killing" — Google "John Bapst." n nThe 19th Century Catholic Priest and not the Bangor (ME) High School named after him — the latter will show up first, it is a highly regarded private school, now nondenominational. n nAnd what is not mentioned is what the Protestants of Bangor said (and did) about this — the Bangor Daily News ran an editorial to the effect of 'the crazies in Ellsworth can do whatever they want down there (they burnt down the Catholic Church and almost killed Bapst, who fled to Bangor), but we are not going to tolerate that stuff in Bangor. And ALL OF US will stand with the Catholics (with our guns) in front of their church and defend it if the crazies come up here" (30 miles or so upriver). That part of the story is often left out for a bunch of reasons, and even then the BDN only implied guns, not actually saying it. n nI think — in terms of the size of the society involved and percentage of smaller populations — there has been more violence between Protestants and Catholics than there ever has been between Moslems and Jews. And when you look at the Salem (Danvers) Witch Hysteria of 1691-92, that really wasn't about witchcraft or religion. What is now the Town of Danvers wanted to split off from the Town of Salem, which Salem didn't want; the British James II administration had yanked the Puritan's Massachusetts charter because they had been considered not properly loyal — they hadn't been, as Puritans they had supported Cromwell — and the MA theocrats were desperately trying to hang onto power. n nNorthern Ireland is Orange and Green, not really Protestant and Catholic — what the British did was forceably deport the (Protestant) Scotsmen over to Ireland (Catholic) where they became known as the "ScotsIrish" — and were then exploited by the British to control Ireland. This is the roots of the problems there today — except that a good number of the ScotsIrish then emigrated to America and settled what is now known as Appalachia. (James Buchanan is ScotsIrish. n nPeople in Northern Ireland have been blowing each other up over which translation of the Bible we wish to use (think Suni/Shia) except that it really hasn't been about that. I can't say to Bible burnings in particular, but there has been intentional provocative defamation of the others faith on multiple occasions. n nThen take Socrates — he essentially was executed for challenging what might as well have been religious values "corrupting the youth, etc'" — that was all about a shift in political power from landowners to merchants and the landowners desperately trying to hold onto power. n n
The other morbid thought in all of this — that no one is mentioning — is how many other people the Iran nukes would be killing. The Palestinians are killed too — atomic bombs are circular weapons with circular radii of destruction and one need only draw circles around major Israeli cities to see this. There would be major Tsunami effects on the Mediterranean which would quickly go to the far shore and coastal cities in countries that have no hurricane or Tsunami preparedness systems. And we aren't even mentioning all the highly radioactive fallout and where that is going to go to. Nor are we thinking about what it will do to satellites and global communication — we have not had an above-ground nuclear explosion in the era of satellites, any satellite that is line-of-sight to the blast, and at the altitude they are at, it will be a lot of them, is going to pick up the EMP on its antenna and it will be just like putting tin foil in the microwave — the satellite will be fried. n nHence, even if Europe isn't worried about Israel qua Israel, it ought to be worried about what will happen to *it* if Israel is nuked. Gotta wonder what would happen to George Soros if the international money system were to evaporate in a flash…. n nWe have a legitimate national security interest in dealing with this stuff.
We wouldn't need to grovel if we were not there. It is time to pull out. george Will was correct a few years ago when he said we should leave and conduct anti-terror operations by drone and special forces. While nation-building is not always a bad idea, it is here. Afghanistan doesn't have the building blocks necessary to make a nation. Not another American should die in this primitive land. We should be packing our bags and heading for the exit immediately.
Unless we’re ready for really bloody business over an extended period, we should get out, slam our borders shut, and leave them to their own devices.
For once people in these comboxes are making sense. Of course, I’d extend the same treatment to Israel. Let them handle their own problems.
Grumps, at the end of the day as in 1948, 1967, 1973, and the Al Asq intifada Israel will do what has to be done, and hopefully lessons learned from decreasingly successful ventures into Lebanon, and with or without Uncle Sam giving them a slice each year of the billions and billions of backsheesh given to Egypt and Tunisia and the Palestinian Authority and Iraq and Afghanistan and Turkey and Pakistan and, oh look, Libya and…though yeah, come to think of it compared to its neighbors Israel is at least the best of a bad bunch. Think of it this way. Israel has to live in the Middle East. The United States doesn't.
Just wait to hear the resurrection of the whispers about the President's real faith….Every time he grovels to a lowly Muslim leader (Karzai is even less that that), many Americans will again whisper and suggest that his real faith is…..Islam,
Nah, his real faith is Obamaism.
Heaven help me, but I think the appropriate response to our guys being shot (2 dead, 4 hurt) would been to drive out a truck-mounted .50 cal machine gun and simply swept it back and forth. n nThose bullets are half an inch wide, they will take down hundred year old oak trees and would have literally sliced the protesters in half. n nWe are not dealing with a JudeoChristian culture that respects individual life. They would have respected us for this and we would have saved lives in the long term.
I believe that Obama, for the next three months, should daily come into the White House briefing room and get down on his knees and plead for Islam's forgiveness for our temerity of being Infidels. Then Obama should go over to the Afghan Embassy and publicly kiss the Afghan Ambassador's ass. THEN we will finally have peace with the Islamic world. (roll of eyes)
Why should the President of the United States apologize for the destruction of a Koran by American soldiers? If anyone should apologize, it is those who killed two American soldiers and wounded four others – these are deeds which deserve to be deplored, not the destruction of a book.
It would be vastly easier and more effective to invade a troublesome Muslim country for three weeks once every five years than to occupy it indefinitely. n nLeave Afghanistan now and tell them that USAF will return with fury if they misbehave. n n@Tobin: n"In order to prevail we must seek and win allies within the Muslim world who want nothing to do with the Islamist agenda of unending war. " n nIn order to prevail we must hit them hard and hit again until pain is unbearable. After 10 years we did not win any allies with a staying power. n nAl-Qaeda is gone but Islamists now are running Egypt, Turkey, Tunisia, Gaza, etc. Iraq will go Iranian-islamic way in a short time. nIf this is victory, I don't know how object failure looks like. n n