War Ends With a Yawn

Am I the only who noticed that the Iraq War ended... and nobody cares?

At the end of the European war in May 1945 there were millions cheering in the streets, here and abroad. Ditto when the Japanese surrendered in August. The relief was palpable, worldwide and visible on every street, in every newspaper, on every radio station.

Today, the last of the combat troops pull out of Iraq and there are a few thousand quiet celebrations in the homes of soldiers and a bar here and there that sees some fist bumping.

This is more evidence of my thesis that one major reason the war against the jihadists is being waged so lackluster is the American people are not engaged. Apart from the military families and their friends, it's felt as if it's happening to someone else, as if it were another country fighting the war.

And so it will continue until and unless something wakes up the overwhelming majority of Americans to the very real danger from Islamist-inspired jihad.

I won't be holding my breath on that one.

Terrorists Are Honest, Sort Of

One thing you can say about Adolf Hitler, he never made any secret of his revolting plans for Germany (or the rest of the world). Mein Kampf was published years before he came to power and his grotesque ideas were all laid out there quite plainly, if one looked closely.

Ditto the modern Fascists of the Islamic variety.

In an interview with likely about-to-be Muslim Brotherhood leader, Mohamed Habib, the same occasional honesty is forthrightly on display.

On the upcoming election:

"[A]ny change away from the criminal practices of the current administration is a good thing, and we would be happy with whatever candidate would put a stop to it."

Well, when it comes to criminal practices, this guy would know. The Muslim Brotherhood is the grandfather of most modern Islamic terrorist groups. Among other niceties, the members of the group assassinated Sadat in 1981 for signing a peace agreement with Israel. Osama Bin Laden's second-in-command, Zawahari, was involved. It hasn't changed much since then.

The interviewer then asks:

"What are the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood?"

The answer?

The Muslim Brotherhood has an Islamic, civilized, uplifting project that is based on the idea that Egypt needs to rise again to greatness, because in its rise it will uplift the entire Arab world with it.

Right. Let's skip over the contradiction between "Islamic" and "civilized" for now. As I recall, the last time Egypt was 'great' was when Pharaohs controlled every aspect of Egyptian life, with only the most visible aspect being the thousands of slaves who died while being forced to build large tombs for mystical, parasitic rulers.

He immediately follows his comment with this:

This of course requires the creation of a society that values justice, equality, and freedom, and what that entails in regards to respecting the will of the people in choosing their representatives or leaders.

I can't decide whether this is too funny to be revolting or too revolting to be funny. But it does lean against my thesis that jihadist supporters are honest.

I was still unable to decide when he said this:

We have a civilized project that is very interested in education, scientific research, and the use of technology as an important element in the uplifting of nations and people.

Yeah, have you noticed how interested Islamic jihadists and their supporters are in science and technology? (Other than to co-opt them for weapons of mass destruction, I mean.)

Then, in true taqiyyah fashion (the Islamic-approved doctrine of disguising one's beliefs), he deals with the organization's relationships to CAIR and Hamas, the jihad supporting groups in the U.S and Lebanon, respectively.

Who represents you in the US?

Mohamed Habib: Well, there are there those who do represent us, who do that role.

SM: But it’s not CAIR, right? The Council for American Islamic Relations?[...]

Mohamed Habib: Ehh, this is a sensitive subject, and it’s kind of problematic, especially after 9/11…

SM: For them to say that there is a relationship between you two?

Mohamed Habib: Yes. You can say that.

SM: Gotcha. What kind of relationship does the Muslim Brotherhood have with Hamas? Do you offer them support of any kind?

Mohamed Habib: Hamas, like any Muslim Brotherhood entity, is not related to the other entities. But we do support them. We support them with ideas. We support them with advice and vision.

Ok, I guess that isn't really taqiyyah, after all. It's honest. He admits they support terrorist-supporting groups. Just like the followers of Mein Kampf did, with "advice and vision." The bullets are never far behind.

Levant Free Speech Case In Canada, When Winning is Losing

The Canadian Commissariat to Filter Free Speech recently... er, reboot. The Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission recently settled the case against Ezra Levant in his favor. Sort of. As Levant himself says better than I could:

This censor approved what I wrote. His decision is not that I have freedom of speech. His decision is that I have his approval. I'm not interested in his approval. The only test of free speech is if I can write what he disapproves of with impunity. That's what freedom of speech is, to piss off some second-rate bureaucrat like Pardeep Gundara and know that you have the right to do so, because you're in Canada, not Saudi Arabia. [emphasis added]

And, to think, it took them a year and dozens of bureaucrats to decide this.

Sadly, Levant's view is not widespread in Canada, as is evidenced by the fact that this tribunal exists at all. Canada's government is apparently in favor of free speech, provided only that no noisy, hypersensitive constituency is offended. (In this case, the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities).

Gee, political Muslims, offended by unflattering cartoons. Who would have thought? The jihad against free speech, and every other form of individual liberty, continues.

Dhimmitude in Publishing

At least one American publisher continues to embrace a role akin to the dhimmi — though they have the decency to regret it.

[Note: "Dhimmi" means: "[From the Arabic] 'covenant of protection,' referring to special status given to non-Muslims under Islamic law, whereby they are given certain legal protections and obligations in exchange for a poll tax collected annually."]

In this context, the charge refers to the refusal of Random House to follow through on its contract to publish The Jewel of Medina, by Sherry Jones. I haven't read the book (it hasn't been published), but the Wall Street Journal story makes it sound fairly innocuous, even complimentary, from the perspective of a Muslim.

According to the story, Jewel is "a tale of lust, love and intrigue in the prophet [Mohammed's] harem." The author says of her book, "I wanted to honor Aisha and all the wives of Muhammad by giving voice to them, remarkable women whose crucial roles in the shaping of Islam have so often been ignored -- silenced -- by historians."

I didn't realize Muslims were offended by the idea that their chief religious figure had a sex life. Or, maybe they just dislike lurid romance novels in general and are outraged by one being written in which he's the major protagonist.

Or, Random House may just be exaggerating their risk. According to them:

[T]he company received "from credible and unrelated sources, cautionary advice not only that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment."

Wouldn't that represent the perfect opportunity to publish not one, but a hundred such books? Not only would that, quite appropriately, stick a thumb in the eye of the censorship-loving jihadis, but dilute the risk to any one person in particular?

But, alas, publishing executives are on average no more courageous than those in any other field, and given the leftward bent of most of them in that business we could hardly expect otherwise.

A more stark villain of the piece is, not too surprisingly, not a radical foreign Islamist, but an American academic.

In April, looking for endorsements, Random House sent galleys to writers and scholars, including Denise Spellberg, an associate professor of Islamic history at the University of Texas in Austin. Ms. Jones put her on the list because she read Ms. Spellberg's book, "Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of 'A'isha Bint Abi Bakr."

But Ms. Spellberg wasn't a fan of Ms. Jones's book. On April 30, Shahed Amanullah, a guest lecturer in Ms. Spellberg's classes and the editor of a popular Muslim Web site, got a frantic call from her. "She was upset," Mr. Amanullah recalls. He says Ms. Spellberg told him the novel "made fun of Muslims and their history," and asked him to warn Muslims.

It is a commonplace observation that great civilizations fall less from outside conquest than inner decay. In the case of America, most of that rot originates in the universities, dominated as they are by every anti-reason, anti-individual, anti-freedom philosophy invented in the past 300 years.

Still, we have to throw Random House a few crumbs. Quoting the WSJ story:

Thomas Perry, deputy publisher at Random House Publishing Group, said that it "disturbs us that we feel we cannot publish it right now."

No doubt we will all feel very disturbed when the U.S. more closely resembles the UK of today, followed perhaps not too long after by more closely resembling Muslim Spain in the 10th century.

Asleep At Harvard

A recent column in the Christian Science Monitor on the Iraq War by Dr. Toft, professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is instructive. But not quite in the way she intended.

The article begins with the very true statement: "It matters what we call things." Unfortunately, Prof. Toft then proceeds to get almost everything else wrong. She writes: "The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the war in Iraq is a religious civil war..."

Er, has she been asleep in class this entire semester? The war in Iraq is nearly over and it hasn't been a civil war for the better part of a year, if it ever was. For the most part, since at least 2005, mostly foreign fighters have been trying to kill U.S. soldiers. Civil wars occur between combatants who are citizens of the same country.

True, plenty of Iraqi civilians get blown up by the psychopathic suicide bombers and guerrilla fighters among the enemy forces in Iraq. But they are incidental targets. It's the U.S. military personnel (and "collaborators" whom they hope to terrorize into submission) that are and have been the main targets. It is, after all, America that is the Great Satan, not the Iraqis. The latter are merely useful rocket grenade fodder to the mind of a jihadist.

As for the enemy being mostly foreign, there I'm on weaker ground. Weaker, like six-inch concrete is weaker than six feet of granite.

Even the so-called Left insist that al Qaeda members are not native to Iraq. (Remember, that was one of their talking points, insisting that Hussein had little to no contact with al Qaeda and hence was not a supporter of terrorism.) And, the Mahdi Army may be composed of chiefly Iraqis, but it's no secret — in fact, their leader practically boasts of it — that the army is ultimately controlled by rulers in Tehran. That makes them mercenaries of a foreign government.

Prof. Toft moves smoothly from error to fantasy.

Despite signs that security has improved, the religious civil wars in Iraq may have only just begun.

Er, is she not aware that the strife is winding down? When even the Washington Post acknowledges that the popularly-termed Surge has worked, is it harsh to suggest that Harvard professors should be able to admit it, too? That political changes are afoot to ensure the gains are long-term is equally evident to anyone who will look. Or, don't Harvard professors do research anymore before they render an opinion?

One thing that is still obviously true of at least this Harvard professor, though, is a love for embracing contradictions. Or, as academics prefer to name them, "nuances."

She writes: "The idea of victory versus failure is really a false dichotomy, however." Er, no. If one loses, one does not win. If one wins, as the U.S. has all but virtually done by now, one has not lost. I know the philosophy department at Harvard has some quirky interests, but I'm moderately confident it still offers an elementary logic course. Maybe Dr. Toft could sit in, discreetly.

She goes on to clarify this seeming paradox in a statement that clearly reveals her biggest delusion and fondest wish:

The real choice for US and British policymakers is between the more costly failure that will obtain from current policy and the less costly failure that might obtain from a well-thought-out and well-executed withdrawal.

Oh, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory! How sweet that would be. But even the persuasive Mr. Obama may find that hard to pull off (should Prof. Toft's students succeed in getting him elected come November).

Still, the good professor is definitely right about one thing, which is the main point of her article. Islam (as she puts it) is at the heart of the war.

Unfortunately, she draws the wrong conclusion, such as believing that this implies that the Sunni are at war with the Shiite and vice versa. The jihadists have provided ample evidence of being equal opportunity butchers when it suits their purpose, regardless of the sect of killer or victim.

Also, her prescription is illogical.

The withdrawal of US forces would allow Iraq's predominantly Arab Shiites and Sunnis to find common interest in opposing their two more classical historical adversaries: Kurds and Persians.

That contradicts a statement three paragraphs earlier where she says:

[R]eligious civil wars are less likely to end in negotiated settlement. Instead, combatants tend to duke it out until one side achieves victory.

Also, she appears to be satisfied with, if not actually advocating, civil war by the Sunnis and Shiites against the Kurds and Persians. If so, she should be ashamed. Kurdistan is peaceful and relatively prosperous; in short, a model for the rest of Iraq. And — Dr. Toft has to know this — the Persians live in Iran. Does she think another Iran-Iraq war would be a good thing?

But, then, perhaps I misinterpret her here. Possibly she thinks it's okay if they butcher each other, so long as they're not killing Americans.

I could agree with her on that, but unfortunately the Islamists have shown no willingness to leave anyone alone outside Iraq, either. Just ask the Danes. Or the Spanish. Or the Dutch. Or the French. Tragically, there are 3,000 Americans in New York we can no longer ask.

And, the more successful they are in Iraq, the more likely they are to be emboldened to press efforts elsewhere. Conversely, as they lose in one major arena, the heat tends to taper off in other hot spots. There are exceptions, but that just shows that the jihadist cancer needs radiation treatment as much as surgery.

The professor is right, though, on her key statement. Islam is central to the conflict. (We'll let go without elaboration that those on the 'pro-war' side have been shouting this open secret for several years now.)

It is this dreadful, life-destroying religion that is driving al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, and their ultimate material and spiritual masters, whether in Pakistan, Iran, or elsewhere. Oddly, Prof. Toft gives no indication that she condemns it as the fundamental cause of the violent conflicts in Iraq. This is even more odd given that she herself says:

Islam has been involved in more than 80 percent of all religious civil wars.

How she could fail to draw the right conclusions from this will have to remain a mystery. Maybe Harvard's psychology department could give us a clue; maybe its history department could give Dr. Toft one.

It does indeed matter what we call things. We should call this thing the War Against Islamic Jihadism, and a surge to wipe out these evil ideas is badly needed just now. Somehow, I don't think the Professor Tofts of this world will be enlisting anytime soon.