| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Americaphobia |
| 2007-03-29 |
| by Dean Esmay It's very hard for me to look at American Muslims, or Muslims in general, or anyone who considers themselves "liberal" or "progressive" or "humanist," who claim to stand for freedom and human rights and then attack everything America has done and tried to do in Iraq over the last four years. The fact is that the naysayers claimed we weren't really striving for liberation. We were. They claimed we'd install a new puppet dictator. We did not. They claimed that we wouldn't really try to set up a democracy. We did. They claimed there would be no legitimate elections. The Iraqis had three national elections in a row, all certified as legitimate by international observers, not even counting the local elections that were held before that. They claimed we'd do everything possible to get out of the country "before the next elections"--they claimed that before the 2004 elections and again before the 2006 elections. It didn't happen. Now these same people in many cases are cheering for a Congress that's trying to force us out of Iraq even though the war supporters consistently say "no, that would be morally and strategically wrong." Time after time the naysayers have proven themselves both morally and intellectually incoherent, and yet they never have the introspection to acknowledge this. Furthermore, anyone calling himself a "liberal" or a "humanist"--Muslim or not--is in my view faced with a stark choice: You either sit around pretending that a vicious, murderous, fascist "insurgency" that routinely cuts people's heads off and shoots children in the face is the "legitimate voice of the Iraqi people," or you recognize that there is in Iraq a government elected by the Iraqi people working under a Constitution written entirely by Iraqis that recognizes human rights better than any in the Arab world. No matter how many reservations you have about how it was done or how imperfectly that elected government implements the ideals expressed in that ratified Constitution. If you take the former position you have no business calling yourself a liberal or a progressive or a humanist. If you take the latter position, then maybe you have to swallow the bitter pill that someone named George Bush, whom you don't like and maybe think is incompetent, was the instigator of something that damn well needs to be supported. But you can't have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd. It's high time someone told you people this, whether you're Muslims or not. The progressive, humanist position is not, and never has been, the "anti-war" position. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #10 I see this in a slightly different light. I don't know much about Dean Esmay's past but this seems almost like one of those "coming out" pieces, as if he is giving a mea culpa and announcing to his looney liberal friends that he is not willing to side with murderous thugs just to keep the "I hate Republicans and George Bush" party going. He digs at Jihad watch because it is tough to acknowledge that the people whom you despised and felt superior to were right and you were wrong. So he acknowledges that his Americaphobia was misplaced but clings to his belief that he is more "open minded" than those people. If my theory is correct, then I welcome him back to the world of the sane, even if he comes reluctantly, but he is wrong to shut down the discussion about Islam's compatibility with democracy. I understand his frustration about dealing with the millions of Muslims who could live in a democratic world if only.... this or if only that.... But the reality is that to be a strict follower of Islam means that you can not separate church or state and that you can not tolerate non-believers. To deny the discussion will not make that reality go away. |
| Posted by: Fester Jomons8988 2007-03-29 12:41 |
| #9 I have to complete by saying that Arab culture because it refers to tribalism and islam is incompatible with democray so if considering Arabs as a a group then they must be unarabized for democracy being able to flourish. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-03-29 11:22 |
| #8 Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd. This is as idiotic than telling that Geramns and Nazis couldn't respect democracy. It is idiotic because it mixes two things: race and ideology. Arabs are not genetically unable to respcet democracy (another thing is what happens when someone has been impreganated with Arab culture) but Islam like Nazism is totally incompatible with it: idelogies who tell that there are people who have the right to enslave others and that there is a strict hierarchy between the herrensvolk are not compatible with democracy. And that is not islamohopbia but idiotiphobia. |
| Posted by: JFM 2007-03-29 11:13 |
| #7 "It was not illegitimate; it was misguided." I wouldn't call it "misguided". Certainly, anyone who took the magically curative powers of Western-style democracy as an article of blind faith was misguided. And that goes double for anyone who still believes with all his heart that democracy will cure what ails the Islamic world; for the evidence to date suggests that it may well not. But it's something we had to try. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-29 10:33 |
| #6 But you can't have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd. It was not illegitimate; it was misguided. I once was blind but now I see. My change of opinion does not make me islamophobic it makes me suicidophobic. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-03-29 09:49 |
| #5 The Jihadwatch crowd doesn't chop off heads and get off on the videos of the same. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-03-29 09:49 |
| #4 "Several of his regular contributors told him to stuff it, and left. I can't imagine why..." ...including his own wife! |
| Posted by: E. Brown 2007-03-29 09:14 |
| #3 you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd. So what, or for those with much more patience, your point is? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-03-29 07:43 |
| #2 "Strawman, manipulative, dishonest argument." Not too surprising; Dean is one of those "True Believer" types, and one of the things he truly believes (for the moment, at least) is "It's NOT the Islam, Stupid!!" If you visit his website, be sure to click on the link (in the upper left corner) to his Editorial Policy. Dean precipitated a major crisis at Dean's World a couple weeks back when he laid down The New Law: It is henceforth the editorial policy that if you cannot write with the following as your presumptions, you do not belong here:Several of his regular contributors told him to stuff it, and left. I can't imagine why...1) Islam does not represent the forces of Satan or the Anti-Christ bent upon destruction of the Christian world.That is our stated editorial position. You--and this includes commenters--will work from respect for that, or you just need to leave. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-03-29 06:36 |
| #1 Grapes looked pretty good, but then... Indeed, by declaring the whole thing illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage, backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd. Sour. Strawman, manipulative, dishonest argument. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2007-03-29 01:21 |