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.

[Poincare]

So HH is saying that after the Islamists nuke American cities killing millions, we shouldn't nuke mecca because it might make the Muslims mad at us? What woulld they do next that would be worse?

Perhaps the threat of wiping out their RELIGION, as medieval as it sounds, might gain their respect. HH does not know the history of Islam's conversion by sword mentality. As of right now we have the bigger sword.

[sasafras]

Hugh is about as entertaining as day old coffee. The guy is so middle of the road that he might as well be a liberal.

[tkathy]

All muslims are required to give a considerable amount of their income to their heinous charities.

[U.H. Conservative]

"So HH is saying that after the Islamists nuke American cities killing millions, we shouldn't nuke mecca because it might make the Muslims mad at us? What woulld they do next that would be worse?"

Not buy his book?

[rmlew]

Don't look at the words. Look at actions. This is not a 1 year conflict, but a 1400-year one.
Turkey is try to join/immigrate and invade the EU.
North African countries are simply sending legal and illegal immigrants into Spain, Portugal, and France.