| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| George Bush goes wobbly | |
| 2007-07-06 | |
| By DANIEL PIPES When Dwight D. Eisenhower dedicated the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., in June 1957, his 500-word talk effused good will ("Civilization owes to the Islamic world some of its most important tools and achievements") even as the American president embarrassingly bumbled (Muslims in the United States, he declared, have the right to their "own church"). Conspicuously, he included nary a word about policy. Exactly 50 years later, standing shoeless, George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries"), but he knew a mosque from a church - and he had more on the agenda than flattery. Most arresting, surely, was his statement that "I have invested the heart of my presidency in helping Muslims fight terrorism, and claim their liberty, and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace." This cri de coeur signaled how Bush understands to what extent actions by Muslims will define his legacy. Should they heed his dream "and find their own unique paths to prosperity and peace," then his presidency, however ravaged it may look at the moment, will be vindicated. As with Harry S Truman, historians will acknowledge that he saw further than his contemporaries. Should Muslims, however, be "left behind in the global movement toward prosperity and freedom," historians will likely judge his two terms as harshly as do his fellow Americans today. OF COURSE, how Muslims fare depends in large part on the future course of radical Islam, which in turn depends in some part on its understanding by the American president. Over the years, Bush has generally shown an increased understanding of this topic. He started with platitudinous, apologetic references to Islam as the "religion of peace," using this phrase as late as 2006. He early on even lectured Muslims on the true nature of their religion, a preposterous ambition that prompted me in 2001 to dub him "Imam Bush." As his understanding grew, Bush spoke of the caliphate, "Islamic extremism" and "Islamofacism." What euphemistically he called the "war on terror" in 2001, by 2006 he referred to with the hard-hitting "war with Islamic fascists." Things were looking up. Perhaps official Washington did understand, after all. But such analyses roused Muslim opposition and, as he approaches his political twilight, Bush retreated to safer ground, reverting last week to decayed tropes that tiptoe around any mention of Islam. Instead, he spoke inelegantly of "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East" and of "a group of extremists who seek to use religion as a path to power and a means of domination." Worse, the speech drum-rolled the appointment of a US special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, tasking this envoy to "listen to and learn from" his Muslim counterparts. But
Adding to the event's accommodationist tone, some of the president's top female aides, including Frances Townsend and Karen Hughes, wore makeshift hijabs as they listened to him in the audience. In brief, it feels like "déjà vu all over again." As Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 - nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming 'Islam is peace' - Mr. Bush has learned nothing." But we now harbor fewer hopes than in 2001 that he still can learn, absorb, and reflect an understanding of the enemy's Islamist nature. Concluding that he basically has failed to engage this central issue, we instead must look to his potential successors and look for them to return to Bush's occasional robustness, again taking up those difficult concepts of the caliphate and Islamic extremism. Several Republicans - Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and (above all) Fred Thompson - are doing just that. Democratic candidates, unfortunately, prefer to remain almost completely silent on this topic. Almost 30 years after Islamists first attacked Americans, and on the eve of three major attempted terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the president's speech reveals how confused Washington remains. | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #15 The Boy Scouts -- at least the ones I know, Asymmetrical T -- still make a point of being prepared, regardless of the motto. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-07-06 22:35 |
| #14 To put it simply; purchase your firearms and ammo ASAP. "Be Prepared". It's the old (USA) Boy Scout motto, that "They" chose to drop decades ago. That simple, direct maxim always made so much logical sense to me. We lost the BSA moral compass soon after we scrapped the Motto. I always loved seeing that decal on the the VW Microbuses and had no problem accepting the concept. |
| Posted by: Asymmetrical T 2007-07-06 22:03 |
| #13 the problem w/most westerners is that they believe muslims think There, fixed that for ya. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-06 21:16 |
| #12 To put it most simply: the problem w/most westerners is that they believe muslims think like we do. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-07-06 18:25 |
| #11 "Goes" wobbly? He's been nothing BUT wobbly for years now. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2007-07-06 15:01 |
| #10 As Diana West puts it, "Nearly six years after September 11 - nearly six years after first visiting the Islamic Center and proclaiming 'Islam is peace' - Mr. Bush has learned nothing." The OIC debacle is glaring proof of this. A huge part of the President's failings in this regard stem from his overly optimistic and naive view of human nature. This is just part of who he is -- a result of both his gentile upbringing and deep faith. Spot on, Captain Lewis! I have long maintained—and been equally belabored for it—that Bush's sense of religiosity prevents him from comprehending that another "religion" may instead be a political ideology masquerading as a faith. His own sense of evangelism blinds him to Islam's vicious zealotry. It explains his silly statements about Muslims yearning for freedom and liberty because he believes these desires are innate. It also explains his inability to prosecute a real war in which disproportionate force is used to utterly subdue the enemy. Every letter and dot! Disproportionate force is the only tool that will ever gain us any ground against our Muslim foes. They respect nothing else and will respond to nothing less. Only when thousands—or tens of thousands—of Muslims die for each victim of a terrorist atrocity will they begin to clean their own house. I don't see how, left to killing themselves, the Islam Problem will get fixed. For that solution to work millions upon millions would need to kill eachother. It's hard to imagine how that could happen fast enough. It won't. Ideal as that approach may seem to be, it will not prevent Islam's headlong rush to acquire nuclear weapons. To date absolutely nothing indicates that Muslims have any will to police their own ranks. To the contrary, any reform within Islam has been in the direction of greater Islamic "purity" and increased radicalism. That Muslims expect the West to clean up their jihadist filth and demand that we do it in a delicate fashion is the height of surrealism, not to mention insulting in the extreme. That Bush is indeed doing exactly this represents a pinnacle in delusional thinking. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-07-06 14:37 |
| #9 When the weak, meek, and dhimmi race to abandon everything of value, then good men need do nothing. So for now, we wait as Bush, Olmert, and Brown plunge headlong into the abiss. Keep your guns clean and store ammunition, food, and water because there is little time left. Will it be England, Israel, or Pakistan ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-07-06 10:05 |
| #8 The last half of Bush's presidency seems to be a race to the bottom against the dhimocrats. Judging by the approval poles, the dhims are still winning the race. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-07-06 09:26 |
| #7 What do you mean goes? George II have started by trying to eat his cake and keep it. Lets face it people: the times call for Andrew Jackson, but that we have is Woodrow Wilson with speech impediment. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2007-07-06 08:08 |
| #6 George W. Bush rededicated the center last week. His 1,600-word speech also praised medieval Islamic culture ("We come to express our appreciation for a faith that has enriched civilization for centuries" But he failed to mention that same medieval culture is trying to tear the hell out of civilization today and destroy everyone else's culture. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-07-06 07:54 |
| #5 McZoid: Are you suggesting that GWB and the administration understand the "nation destruction" concept and are being clever about it? I don't see how, left to killing themselves, the Islam Problem will get fixed. For that solution to work millions upon millions would need to kill eachother. It's hard to imagine how that could happen fast enough. |
| Posted by: Captain Lewis 2007-07-06 07:49 |
| #4 Captain Lewis: In the Fall of 2001, someone told me that the war on terror (or Muslim aggression) cannot be won until Muslims do the necessary killing for us. That means: nation destruction. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-06 06:39 |
| #3 Psychological projection means: one sees what they want to see, based on their own need for security or moral clarification. It is unfortunate that this President can't read the Koran objectively. In fact, he lets Karen (Airhead) Hughes do it for him. Most of the right wing blogs have turned against him. While support held at the start of the Surge, it collapsed when he endorsed independence for Kosovo, notwithstanding American signatures on an armistice agreement that guarantees perpetual Serb sovereignty. Then there were the apologies for bombing "civilians" (read Taliban supporters) in Afghanistan's Helmand Province. Not to mention the fact that that junk state has gone beyond producers of raw opium, to full scale heroin refiners while under NATO occupation, whose member countries are being crippled by drug shipments through protected Kosovo. Then there is the missiles in Eastern Europe that locals don't want, which could be made unnecessary through greater integration with Eastern Europe and North Asia, including Russia. Then the deference of Middle East diplomacy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which exists to advance Islam alone, by enforcing the aggressive Koran dictate that Bush can't understand. And the President appears willing to coast for another 18 months, while Iranian proliferaton and interference in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Syria, grows exponentially. Someone pull the knife out of my back. |
| Posted by: McZoid 2007-07-06 06:29 |
| #2 A huge part of the President's failings in this regard stem from his overly optimistic and naive view of human nature. This is just part of who he is -- a result of both his gentile upbringing and deep faith. It explains his silly statements about Muslims yearning for freedom and liberty because he believes these desires are innate. It also explains his inability to prosecute a real war in which disproportionate force is used to utterly subdue the enemy. |
| Posted by: Captain Lewis 2007-07-06 06:10 |
| #1 To be fair to the president, as both the civilian military leader of the country and its primary diplomat he faces a tricky conflict with regard to Islam. Nevertheless, attempts at explaining the reality must still be made. One one hand, the president wishes to reassure Muslims worldwide that America only wishes to target their militant extremist subgroup. But since that subgroup draws its inspiration directly from their holy text, he is forced to misrepresent or willingly overlook the nature of their faith (i.e. "religion of peace"). On the other hand, his role as the director of the military requires him to be frank about the commonality in the various worldwide conflicts where America has a compelling interest. Before his term ends we may be drawn into conflict with Iran, Pakistan or a host of other nations with strong extremist Islamic sympathies and ignoring the elephant in the room will undermine any effort. The domestic security situation also calls for honest discussion about the nature of the threat, which is why our next president must demonstrate not only this understanding but a superior ability to educate the American people about it. (And judging from the groundswell of popular support for Fred Thompson so far, a lot of people seem to agree with this analysis.) |
| Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723 2007-07-06 02:12 |