Hugh Hewitt on the The Tancredo Blunder

HughHewitt.com ^ | 07/18/2005 Posted at 5:40 PM, Pacific | Hugh Hewitt

[Checkers]

The Tancredo Blunder

Donald Sensing has all the links that really matter on the Tancredo blunder. (HT: StonesCryOut.) Pastor Sensing notes that I corrected the first post to specifically note that Congressman Tancredo talked of "bombing" Mecca, not "nuking" Mecca. The actual audio is available to anyone now at the website for WFLA 540 in Orlando. Note two things. First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that "extremist fundamentalist Muslims" attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if "extremist fundamentalist" Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response. Second, the Congressman also said "the most draconian measures" should be on the table." He didn't say "nuke," but it is a fair inference.

Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with "Stand tall Tom!" calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers. This creates a problem for Tancredo: He will offend this very loud portion of his support by regretting and retracting his remarks which he surely must do, and the sooner the better.

The remarks he made are a positive disservice to the United States, for all the reasons Durbin's were. He has to retract them. And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith.

I have been hearing from people who urge that Tancredo is just voicing the updated version of the MAD doctrine which kept the USSR at bay through the long years of the Cold War. That's silly. Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived.

Let me be blunt: There is no strategic value to bombing Mecca even after a devastating attack on the U.S. In fact, such an action would be a strategic blunder without historical parallel, except perhaps Hitler's attack on Stalin. Anyone defending Tancredo's remarks has got to make a case for why such a bombing would be effective.

Take down the Syrian regime? You bet. Replace the House of Saud? Fine. Bomb every nuclear facility in Tehran? Absolutely. The US would respond to a savage attack with fury --but purposeful fury. Bombing Mecca would be the opposite of purposeful fury.

Those who support him have to explain what the strategic value of such a response would be. There is none.

UPDATE: More at CaptainsQuarters, RovingTheologian OneClearCall, OpaqueLucidity Brainster's Bogus Gold and Mark Daniels.

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT. Yoni Tidi is a frequent and popular guest on my program, a deeply religious Jew and a retired major from the Israeli security services. On the program tonight he condemned the idea of attacking Mecca or any other target that is "Muslim" as opposed to "terrorist-supporting." We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.

A SCOTUS nomination will sweep Congressman Tancredo's remarks from the headlines, but I hope center-right bloggers will stand up and be counted on this issue. And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.

[Sir Gawain]

Explain how fear of not reaching paradise can be exploited if Mecca is bombed (or threatened danger). In such an instance, according to the twisted belief of the extremist, this would result in the promised paradise. Whereas Refusing to sentence them all to an early death and Global Jihad by virtue of releasing atomic weaponry to carpet the Middle east, would result in denial of their dream of numerous virgens in heaven.

Hardcore Muslims are required to visit Mecca once in their life. If the rock is destroyed, their requirement can't be fulfilled. If we defile their corpses with some unclean pig blood, they can't reach paradise. That is their weakness.

[agincourt1415]

Islamic Terrorists are the enemy.

But what is the point your are trying to make, with your question about a Nation we are at war with?

AND please answer another question for me, a town 50 miles away, from you is nuked by Islamic Terrorists, how should the United States respond?

Nuclear Response was our policy during the Cold War in Europe, AND it was our policy for a non Nuclear overwhelming attack.

And it is still our Policy and that of NATO.

[Sir Gawain]

Terribly ignorant article. Islam cannot exist without Mecca. Should Mecca be destroyed Islam would need to be reinvented and its religious rites and pilgrimage transferred to Medina. Then if Medina were likewise destroyed, that new version of Islam would cease to exist, and Islam would be reinvented and its religious rites like Hejira would be directed to Jerusalem. Islam is a "holy place" religion. It is not at all like global Christianity or post-Second Temple Judaism which can function well with only a symbolic or metaphorical reference to the Holy Land and Jerusalem. Every good Muslim who can MUST go to Mecca. So the precepts of the religion are fundamentally different from contemporary Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, etc, and the bombing, nuclear or otherwise, would be a devastating blow to Islam's core identity. As I outlined, there would be leaders and scholars who would transfer devotions to Medina, but this would not be universal and Islam would fracture into a wide variety of smaller sects some more spiritualised, some built on exacting blood revenge by eliminating all Americans.

Yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to get across to posters for the past hour or so on this thread. It's just too politically incorrect for some people to handle.

But the hand-wringers have no reason to fear. Mecca will never be touched by America. We're too weak to do what is required to win this war.

[BigSkyFreeper]

OBL is not a "true believer", he is one who has hijacked an otherwise legitimate religion just for his own perverse advancement. If anyone is naive, it's you.

[Mo1]

but that type of comment gives credibility to the lies they use to recruit youths.

That was the point I was trying to make

BTW .. good post

[Sir Gawain]

he is one who has hijacked an otherwise legitimate religion

History disagrees with your assessment of Islam.

[MitchellC]

And you think that your next door neighbor businessman that is a Muslim will all of a sudden strap on a suicide belt if Mecca is bombed? You also seem to hold "moderate" Muslims in low regard if you think they are that easily incited.

A few very may well for all I know. It would definitely cause Muslims here to reconsider their relationship to their religion and their country, if only momentarily; in their mind they're Muslim, and they're living in a country that just unquestionably declared war on all of Islam by needlessly wiping out the place they direct their prayers to. I tend to think that would make some of them snap and hand them over to anti-Americanism, if not pro-Islamofascism.

But the real deal would be in the Middle East itself. A Westernized Muslim may resist, but what kind of unnecessary propaganda tool would the Islamofascists be armed with there, where they could have control of the next generation's minds?

[k2blader]

I knew Hewitt was an idiot, but daaaaang..

[Soul Seeker]

I am not sure if you profess a Faith, but I find that belief to be rather naive in context of my understanding of faith in general. Islam and Cristianity may not be comparable but I guarentee Faith is not so easily shaken. If a Rock is destroyed, their Faith will not collapse. Someone will look within the Koran and find something to pull out that will validate their continued existance. Passage will be found to claim heaven is not lost to them. In the meantime until that is done, the immediate action would be a call for vengenace.

[Soul Seeker]

I suspected as much Mo1. :-)

[k2blader]

The Americans defending Islam--Republicans and Democrats alike--are the reason we'll likely never win the WOT.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I don't know what history book you use, but the history book I use, dates back more than 2000 years. Using your logic, if Islam needs to be destroyed, Christianity should be too.

[Sir Gawain]

I don't know what history book you use

The history that shows Islam has always been in a perpetual state of jihad since its inception. You really should study it some more if you don't want to keep looking foolish by claiming the ones correctly following it are somehow hijacking it from these newer modern interpretations.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The history that shows Islam has always been in a perpetual state of jihad since its inception.

Mankind in general too.

You really should study it some more if you don't want to keep looking foolish by claiming the ones correctly following it are somehow hijacking it from these newer modern interpretations.

I already have. If you bothered to read the Gospels, you'd have a clearer understanding of the Koran.

[Siobhan]

The Gospels are an entirely different genre than the Koran. Reading the Gospels does not lead one to an understanding of the Koran any more than a reading of the Gilgamesh epic would lead one to an understanding of the Koran.

[Sir Gawain]

I've read both. Have you?

I won't post it all here, but hopefully you'll read this and get a better understanding of Islam. This is basically the entire early history. Enjoy.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4467

[Sir Gawain]

I also guarantee you if you read that link, you will come to understand just who has hijacked Islam. Here's a hint: it's not the terrorists.

[philman_36]

We are not in a war with devout Muslims.
That's a true statement.
We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.
That is not a true statement.
We are in a war with devout Islamists. We are in a war with Islamists who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists.
Hey Hugh, you do understand the difference between a Muslim and an Islamist, don't you? All Muslims aren't Islamists. There are even Christian Muslims and athiest Muslims.
You, and some others, might be taken more seriously when ya'll make and understand the distinction and the difference.

[NRA2BFree]

I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam.

Note to Hewitt: Take 2 aspirins and go to bed. You obviously have a fever. You're delusional. Islam is our enemy, and that is exactly who we are at war with.

[angkor]

he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.

Really?

So if 55, 65 or even 75 percent of Muslims don't support the repeated and ongoing butcheries of Beslan, Baghdad, London, and Bali, are we supposed to take comfort that 25, 35, or 45 percent of Muslims do support the butchery of "infidels"?

Sorry, Hugh. The recent Pew opinion study - though couched in the brightest of Pollyanna optimism - tells me everything I need to know about the "vast majority of Muslims". And it doesn't even include Saudi Arabia, Syria, "Palestine", Libya, or Yemen.

Glad to see the low numbers for Indonesia and Turkey, which have cultural underpinnings much stronger than the insane and murderous Sunni-Wahabbi pathology.