The Discerning Texan
-- Edmund Burke
Thursday, February 15, 2007
"The Enemy at Home" or The Enemy Abroad? Yes
Mark Steyn argues at The Corner that it's not all about the US--and with that specific qualification added, I can unequivocally agree with him. To wit:
No question about that. Steyn adds a historical reference to the "Religion of Peace" as practiced 125 years ago (emphasis mine):Speaking of "preferential patrilateral parallel cousin marriage" – and I don’t know about you but by the time I’ve said it I’m too exhausted to do it – but I hope everyone’s read Stanley’s take on Dinesh D’Souza, which is by far the best critique of The Enemy At Home that I’ve read.
Dinesh’s argument that America’s worthless porno-sodomite-lapdance culture is the root cause of jihad has one very big hole in it: He speaks in praise of "traditional Islam" and notes that most of the world’s people also live in "traditional societies" who are as revolted by our pop culture as your average imam. But how then do you account for the very problematic relationship "traditional Islam" has with other "traditional societies"? In Nigeria, in Sudan, in southern Thailand, etc.
It’s hard not to conclude that if America plus the fleshpots of, say, Amsterdam were all vaporized at twenty past three, at 3.21 the Islamists would simply shake off the dust and get on pursuing their grievances with the rest of the planet.
A pertinent point; however having read D'Souza's book, I think there may be too big of a rush in the conservative sphere to toss the baby out with the bathwater. Jonah Goldberg weighs in:I mention in my book that in 1871 John Norman, the acting Chief Justice, was fatally stabbed by a Wahhabi and the following year the viceroy, Lord Mayo, met a similar fate. And it wasn’t because Indian Muslims were worried their daughters would be tarting about like Paris Hilton. India’s 19th century administrators understood, as our governments still apparently do not, that Wahhabism is a project to subvert and radicalize Muslim populations. The only difference between then and now is that today’s Wahhabists are flush with petrodollars.
It’s very surprising, given that Dinesh discusses his own family background in India during his book, that he seems either unaware of or indifferent to the deep roots of the Islamo-imperialist project in the region.
No doubt. But Goldberg has a point, and I will take it further: sufficient consideration must be given to the value of America's "permissive" culture in recruiting devout young Muslims to the Jihadist cause. I travel abroad quite often, and it is generally the worst aspects of American culture which seem to be exported in inverse order of their true intrinsic value. It is easy to find a McDonald's in Mexico City or to watch "Brokeback Mountain" in a Sao Paulo hotel. It is much harder to find the actual moral principles that were the underlying foundation for the Founders, the Great American Experiment and our Constitution. And to the extent that we export a culture of permissiveness and decadence, it is unfortunately not that "Shining City on a Hill" aspect which stands out.Well, since we're all chiming in, I suppose I should say something too as I've written a review for The Claremont Review of Books (available soonish). I agree very much with Andrew on the big picture — the book's failings, man's inherent weakness for fanaticism, etc — but let us note that amidst the many flaws of Dinesh's argument, there is some truth to his basic point. American culture doesn't always help our task in winning hearts and minds. Liberals had no problem pointing this out when it came to, say, Jim Crow during the Cold War. Dinesh makes a similar point about the push for gay marriage, feminism etc. I don't see why we have to reject the point entirely simply because we think Dinesh exaggerates its importance way too much (and he does).
But, there is a caveat (though I'll be short so as to not anger the editors of the CRB): It shouldn't matter. If gay marriage is wrong, it's wrong. If feminism goes too far, it goes too far. Jim Crow was wrong because it was wrong, not because it gave the Soviet Union talking points at the UN. So even if Dinesh were right that our "pagan depravity" prompts Jihadis to behead Jews and Christians, kill homosexuals, enslave women, hijack planes, and blow up buildings full of civilians, the fault still lies entirely with the Jihadis.
I don't like Michael Moore. If he says something really, really obnoxious and, in response, I cut off his head I don't think I get to claim that he was asking for it.
Therefore, in a world where American culture is ubiquitous--only a Satellite dish away at worst, so also lies the ugly side of that culture. And--in the Arab world--where (as Steyn himself points out) the average inhabitant is a 17 year-old male; it is not difficult to see how the decadent side of exported American culture would be an enourmously impactful recruiting tool for young, disillusioned Muslims with neither a lot of hope, nor a plethora of sources for alternative ideologies.
D'Souza unquestionably is off base if he is suggesting that this cultural decadance is the sole cause for 9/11--Islamism and Jihad is what it is, as Steyn and many others like Robert Spencer point out. Still one cannot deny that--for a teenage boy who grows up in a world where men's complete dominance over women is a given and homosexuality is punishable by death--a rapdly spreading American culture where women openly display their power, sensuality and enjoy equality status with men, and in which same-sex marriage is becoming closer and closer to a ubiquitous reality--these and other issues with the exported "American morality" constitute a real reason for that teenager to be terrified the overwhelming change that such a cultural shift would entail in a traditonal Muslim society. And so it would make him an easy target for opportunistic Jihadists.
D'Souza's book is therefore important, not because it is the be-all and end-all theory behind the attack on America. In fact I think selecting 9/11 might be catchy for selling books and causing controversy, but the title almost misses the point here: I do not think it is even in question that the "decadence" of American culture, when contrasted with traditional "mores" of Islamist societies, is an enormous motivation for disaffected young Muslim boys and men to gladly take up the Jihadist cause which is called for in their own scriptures--if for nothing else in the name of the "morality" that (supposedly) underlies the belief in Islam.
I grew up in the 60's too, and I seriously doubt my own life choices would stand up that well to Islamic Law. Steyn and others are right that I probably would not have lived as long in any Islamist society--if for nothing else because of my own use of those "freedoms". But that does not mean I do not understand that--to someone where such a culture is as alien as an H.G. Wells flying saucer--the freedoms that we enjoy (in many cases to excess, or at least more than we ought to) are a real threat to their worldview and upbringing. To deny that is to live in a fantasy world. And this is the central theme of D'Souza's book, even if the titular conclusion is somewhat flawed. I enjoyed the book found it to be quite thought provoking, even if its central thesis is not completely impregnable.
Is it the Enemy at Home or the Enemy Abroad that is the problem? As Deion Sanders famously said to Jerry Jones: "Both".
Labels: Islam, Islamic Fascism, US Politics
