LOSING THE WAR ON TERROR: THE VOICE OF DESPAIR ECHOES AGAIN

National Review Online (The Corner) ^ | August 20, 2005 | Andy McCarthy

[nosofar]

For what it’s worth, this is where I get off the bus. The principal mission of the so-called “war on terror” – which is actually a war on militant Islam – is to destroy the capacity of the international network of jihadists to project power in a way that threatens American national security. That is the mission that the American people continue to support.

As those who follow these pages may know, I have been despairing for a long time over the fact that the principal mission has been subordinated by what I’ve called the “democracy diversion” – the administration’s theory that the (highly dubious) prospect of democratizing Iraq and the Islamic world will quell the Islamists. (Aside: go ask Israelis if they think the fledgling “democracy” in Gaza and the West Bank – which is very likely to bring Hamas to power – promotes their national security.)

Now, if several reports this weekend are accurate, we see the shocking ultimate destination of the democracy diversion. In the desperation to complete an Iraqi constitution – which can be spun as a major step of progress on the march toward democratic nirvana – the United States of America is pressuring competing factions to accept the supremacy of Islam and the fundamental principle no law may contradict Islamic principles.

There is grave reason to doubt that Islam and democracy (at least the Western version based on liberty and equality) are compatible. But that is an argument for another day. The argument for today is: the American people were never asked whether they would commit their forces to overseas hostilities for the purpose of turning Iraq into a democracy (we committed them (a) to topple a terror-abetting tyrant who was credibly thought both to have and to covet weapons of mass destruction, and (b) to kill or capture jihadists who posed a danger to American national security). I doubt they would have agreed to wage war for the purpose of establishing democracy. Like most Americans, I would like to see Iraq be an authentic democracy – just as I would like to see Iran, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc. be authentic democracies. But I would not sacrifice American lives to make it so.

But even if I suspended disbelief for a moment and agreed that the democracy project is a worthy casus belli, I am as certain as I am that I am breathing that the American people would not put their brave young men and women in harm’s way for the purpose of establishing an Islamic government. Anyplace.

It is not our place to fix what ails Islam. But it is utter recklessness to avert our eyes from the fact that militant Islam thrives wherever Islam reigns. That is a fact. When and where militant Islam thrives, America and the West are endangered. That is also a fact. How can we possibly be urging people who wisely don’t want it to accept the government-institutionalized supremacy of Islam?

And if the United States, in contradiction of its own bedrock principle against government establishment religion, has decided to go into the theocracy business, how in the world is it that Islam is the religion we picked?

[nosofar]

The way W spoke about democratization of the ME became an almost religious fiat in his mind, a command from "the God of liberty." He actually misused that scriptural phrase in this political context!

W. is a politician and politicians speak a different language when addressing national audiences. I generally discounted this kind of talk because of it. I still think I'm right, but not quite as much as before.

[nosofar]

Spreading democracy should not be our goal.

The initial point was to push Islam in general. The war has done that, but not as much as was initially envisioned. I also suspect there are people in the administration who took their eye off the ball (the Islamists) and got a little too invested in 'democracy' in the ME for its own sake instead of a strategy in the WOT. I don't think it's near what it looks like because politicians tend to overstate things in the spirit of if you repeat something long enough and loud enough it it must be true (similar to 'Islam is a Religion of Peace'). I doubt Lincoln, for example, believed at least some of what he said during the Civil War, but the rhetoric was necessary to instill motivation and morale in the North.

[nosofar]

... AND Bush is doing a piss poor job of selling this war to the american people ...

This is what irritates me the most. This should have been considered as PART of the WOT and planned for every bit as much as the actual military operations. Maybe it was planned for, but it was a pretty crappy job if so.