AS THE WAR between the United States and Al Qaeda enters its fifth year, the nature of the armed, transnational Islamist group's campaign remains misunderstood.Really? And by whom exactly? With the conflict viewed largely as an open-and-shut matter of good versus evil, nonmilitary engagement with Al Qaeda is depicted as improper and unnecessary.Yes, a Harvard elite is what we simpltons need to have our ignorant, unwashed selves straightened out and put in our places.
Yet developing a strategy for the next phase of the global response to Al Qaeda requires understanding the enemy -- something Western analysts have systematically failed to do. Sept. 11 was not an unprovoked, gratuitous act.Translation: America, had it coming! It was a military operation researched and planned since at least 1996 and conducted by a trained commando in the context of a war that had twice been declared officially and publicly.A military operation ... like any number of examples of US and UK Rangers and Commandos, respectively, during W W 2. The operation targeted two military locations and a civilian facilityThat dar "civilian facility" would be the World Trade Center, right? regarded as the symbol of US economic and financial power.Regarded as such by 13th century Islamist fanatics and their communist/socialist "tactical" allies in the West. The assault was the culmination of a larger campaign, which forecast impact, planned for the enemy's reaction, and was designed to gain the tactical upper hand.
Overwhelmingly centered on the martial aspects of the conflict, scholars and policymakers have been too focused on Al Qaeda's ''irrationality," ''fundamentalism," and ''hatred" -- and these conceptions continue to color key analyses. The sway of such explanations is particularly surprising in the face of nonambiguous statements made by Al Qaeda as to the main reasons for its war on the United States. These have been offered consistently since 1996, notably in the August 1996 and February 1998 declarations of war and the November 2002 and October 2004 justifications for its continuation.
Since the attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have delivered, respectively, 18 and 15 messages via audio or videotape making a three-part case: The United States must end its military presence in the Middle East, its uncritical political support and military aid of Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, and its support of corrupt and coercive regimes in the Arab and Muslim world. Hey what the heck, just withdrawal from the Mid East, sell the Jews down the river, and while we're at it, give the Jihadis most of Spain, Sicily, and Southern Italy, and we can call it even, right?
Al Qaeda believes that the citizens of the states with whom it is at war bear a responsibility for the policies of their governments.That of course would include young school-aged children such as those onboard the flight sent crashing into the Pentagon. Such democratization of responsibility rests, it has been argued by bin Laden, in the citizens' ability to elect and dismiss the representatives who make foreign policy decisions on their behalf.Translation: You elect the leaders we pre-approve, like say John F Kerry or Howard Dean, and you'll live. Elect those we dislike, and it's die infidel die!
Al Qaeda is an industrious, committed, and power-wielding organizationSort of like Walmart. waging a political, limited, and evasive war of attrition -- not a religious, open-ended, apocalyptic one. Over the past year, it has struck private and public alliances, offered truces, affected elections, and gained an international stature beyond a mere security threat.
It has implemented a clearly articulated policy, demonstrated strategic operational flexibility, and skillfully conducted low-cost, high-impact operations Ummm, I believe the word is massacres, not operations.(Riyadh 1995, Dhahran 1996, Nairobi and Dar es Salaam 1998, Yemen 2000, New York and Washington 2001, Bali 2002, Istanbul 2003, Madrid 2004, and London 2005). Of late, this versatile actor has exhibited an ability to operate amid heightened international counter-measures.
No longer able to enjoy a centralized sanctuary in Afghanistan after 2002, Al Qaeda's leadership opted for an elastic defense strategy relying on mobile forces, scaled-up international operations, and expanded global tactical relationships. It encouraged the proliferation of mini Al Qaedas, able to act on their own within a regional context.
Consequently, and aside from the war in Iraq, between 2002 and 2005 the United States and seven of its Western allies were the targets of 17 major attacks in 11 countries for a total of 760 people killed. In 2001, Ayman al-Zawahiri had explained the cost-effective rationale of these measures, namely ''the need to inflict the maximum casualties against the opponent, for this is the language understood by the West, no matter how much time and effort such operations take." Last month, he reiterated that commitment and announced new attacks against the United States.
How can the war be brought to an end? Well, for starters, by arresting people like you and charging you with sedition.Neither side can defeat the other. The United States will not be able to overpower a diffuse, ever-mutating, organized international militancy movement, whose struggle enjoys the rear-guard sympathy of large numbers of Muslims. Likewise, Al Qaeda can score tactical victories on the United States and its allies, but it cannot rout the world's sole superpower.
Though dismissed widely, the best strategy for the United States may well be to acknowledge and address the collective reasons in which Al Qaeda anchors its acts of force. Al Qaeda has been true to its word in announcing and implementing its strategy for over a decade. It is likely to be true to its word in the future and cease hostilities against the United States, and indeed bring an end to the war it declared in 1996 and in 1998, in return for some degree of satisfaction regarding its grievances. In 2002, bin Laden declared: ''Whether America escalates or deescalates this conflict, we will reply in kind."
Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou is associate director of the Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University.
Posted by: DanNY ||
09/14/2005 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Does Harvard have plans to open a Madrassa? I bet that large swaths of its faculty of humanities are nodding their heads at this sage advice and sound, objective analysis. How many of their students and how many of the readers of Boston Globe even contemplate a few of his points is an open question.
A commenter on LGF posted what I think is a dead on indictment of the problem facing western peoples. Here is a San Francisco bookseller horrified at the thought of Robert Spencer's new book, who unconciously blurts out the real reason.
The Byzantine empire was not defeated in outright battle, but by hundreds of years of small constant unanswered attacks that gradually destroyed its territory, wealth and people. Instead of meeting the enemy head on, killing them, and taking their land and wealth and becoming stronger in the process, the nobles of Constantinople epitomized personal cowardice. They mentally excused the problem was too difficult, far away and unimportant. It was a problem for the peasants on the border to deal with, not worth the nobles' blood and treasure. The nobles had much loftier concerns, such as their personal pleasure and how many angles can fit on the head of a pin. And each year the empire's borders were push back a little.
I had a seemingly minor but very telling incident today that relates to your question. I was chatting with a friend of mine who just happens to be a buyer for a Bay Area bookstore. This person has a 100% moonbat quotient (which is why I feel free to post this here, since the chance that they read LGF is zero).
While we were discussing various popular books, my friend blurted out, "And have you heard of this book The Politically Correct Guide to Islam? Unbelievable! I mean, they're actually selling it on Amazon!"
I said, "Not only are they selling it on Amazon, but it's in the top ten nonfiction books in the country."
Friend: "Really? You've heard about it?"
Me: "Of course. It was #16 on the NY Times bestseller list last week!"
Friend: (Mouth drops open in utter shock) "I... I flipped through it and couldn't believe what I was seeing. Stuff like, Does Islam promote violence? YES! I mean, who does this guy think he is?"
Me: "Robert Spencer, the author? He's actually pretty knowledgable."
(Climactic comment coming...)
Friend: "I mean, if I were to stock that book, this place would get blown up!"
In one phrase, my friend summed up the battle before us. The Muslims will not need to force us into dhimmitude, for we shall plunge ourselves into dhimmitude willingly, without even being asked.
And why? Because it all comes down to the cowardice of the moonbat. They "sympathize" with the terrorists and "justify" terrorism and "hope to feed the crocodile so that they are eaten last" because on some deep level they are deathly afraid of the violence they know the Islamists are capable of. Dhimmitude is the child of fear, and fear is the child of personal cowardice.
The moonbats, entirely as a result of their self-centered cowardly fear, have all become quislings ready to betray the entire civilization for just a few more years of hedonism.
They have ceded the playground to the bullies.
They are offering tributes of submission to a distant tribe they've never met but whose reputation they fear.
It's bad enough when a nation has a single quisling amongst its ranks; but when 40% of the population are quislings, you have a Code 5 Situation on your hands.
The Terror Threat color ranking may only be at yellow, but the Quisling Threat color ranking is at luminsecent magenta/neon green epilepsy-inducing pulsating checkerboard.
Posted by: ed ||
09/14/2005 16:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This was Zombie's response to a post from my humble self. So now you know, LGF's Commissar of Media-Bashing and Moonbat Eradication, "Shiplord Kirel," is the same person as "Atomic Conspiracy."
#4
AC,
Good to know you were the one to inspire Zombie to write this. I rarely read LGF, but will now make an effort to go there.
Posted by: ed ||
09/14/2005 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Nice to read this but I don't go to places that will not allow me to even register to post. LGF is such a site. It might be great site but If I can't register Charles can screw himself.
#6
SPOD - Charles opens registration occasionally - keep checking back.
(He handles stuff by himself, so can't just have ongoing registration.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/14/2005 21:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Barbara it's not worth the effort nor is the site as informational as this one is.
I think it's more like elitist bull shit. Having both run and moderated sites that were registration based before it's all pretty much automated if you want to do it.
MEMRI 's moderate muslim watch, a refreshing change from the hate and conspiracy theories. Long, needs to be p.49-ed.
Libyan Intellectual Dr. Muhammad Al-Houni: The Arabs Must Choose Between Western Civilization and the Legacy of the Middle Ages
By: A. Dankowitz*
The attacks of September 11, 2001 have focused world attention on the Muslim world, and have aroused keen debates in Arab intellectual circles about the religious, social, economic, political, and cultural circumstances that have given rise to the phenomenon of suicide attacks in the name of Islam. Muslim shapers of public opinion have argued that Islamist terrorism will force the Muslim countries to undergo a basic change and will oblige the Arab regimes to deal with issues that were previously swept aside, such as extremist religious education, democracy, and human rights. In addition, many Arab shapers of public opinion have concluded that the Muslim world has reached a turning point in its relations with the West, and that Western policy towards it will necessarily change in light of the threat of terrorism.
One Arab intellectual who has dealt extensively with the implications of the 9/11 attacks is Dr. Muhammad Abd Al-Muttalib Al-Houni, a Libyan reformist living in Italy. In a book published in 2004, titled The Arab Dilemma in the Face of the New American Strategy (with a preface by Tunisian intellectual Lafif Lakhdar), Dr. Al-Houni explains the basic change in American strategy since 9/11. He writes that unlike in the Cold War era, the U.S. will no longer support tyrannical Arab regimes that serve its interests. Instead, it considers the democratization of the Arab world to be in the American national interest, directly linked to the war on terror and to U.S. security. That is also why this new strategy will include efforts to promote civil society in Arab countries.
Al-Houni expresses the hope that the Arabs will cease to believe that life will go on as usual, and will recognize the change in U.S. strategy. Thus, they will make informed, correct decisions and will not be led astray by outmoded perceptions.
Al-Houni sets out in detail the factors generating Arab and Islamic terrorism, describes America's new enemies, and proposes ways to combat terrorism. He focuses on democracy in the Arab world, describing the intellectuals who oppose democracy and the factors obstructing its implementation. At the end of his study, he concludes that Arab societies are facing a dilemma: they must either sever their ties with their medieval legacy and adopt a philosophy of life and freedom rather than one of death and hatred, or else must sever their ties with Western civilization and reject democracy and modernity.
The following is a summary and translation of central excerpts from Al-Houni's treatise: [1]
The Arabs Don't Understand that the World Has Changed
Al-Houni begins his treatise by explaining that he intends to present a different viewpoint from the nationalist, conspiracy-based viewpoint currently prevalent in the Arab world, which maintains that nothing has changed in the world since the end of the Cold War or since 9/11. Al-Houni, who believes that American strategy has changed completely, seeks to present this change to the Arab world, which, he claims, suffers from a number of fundamental flaws, to which he points in his introduction.
Al-Houni asserts that there are various responses to the issues that concern the Arab and Muslim world, and that Arabs should not accuse those amongst them whose opinion is different of apostasy and treason. He writes: "The popular Arab political discourse today has only two ideological [extremes]... Today we [are forced to choose] between Allah and the devil, between nationalism and treason, between truth and falsehood, between corruption and virtue, between good and evil. In other words, we are completely blind to the fact that the spectrum of ideas is diverse. This logic can only lead to decline... The Arab political discourse is today a belligerent, ideological discourse based on self-aggrandizement, and attributing any profanity to others..."
Al-Houni harshly criticizes the Arab regimes, which he describes as "arbitrary, oppressive, and fanatic." The same depictions, however, could be applied, in his view, to some of the educated Arab elites: "In many cases, the intellectual elites have sought the help of the regimes' to oppress the [intellectual] who holds different views. The authorities have often acted violently towards the other in order to appease a certain group, and the only one to gain in such cases was the oppressive regime, whose lifespan was prolonged. Just as we demand that the authorities put an end to the acts of oppression and grant more liberties, we must reconcile with one another as intellectuals, and refrain from using the same means used by the regime â coercion and discrimination..."
The Basis of Past U.S. Policy: Alliance with Tyrannical Regimes to Defeat Communism
In the first part of his treatise, Al-Houni describes the American strategy during the Cold War as one guided by the Machiavellian principle of "the end justifies the means." In an effort to defeat Communism, the U.S. entered the war in Vietnam and Korea, promoted tyrannical and corrupt regimeswith which it was allied, provided aid to the Muslim fundamentalists fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, and was helped by bands of criminals, including the Mafia: "The U.S. has used all possible means, legitimate and illegitimate, moral and immoral... to reach this end... This American behavior, which has gone on for a long time, has caused all the peoples who hoped to be free [of their tyrannical rulers] to view the U.S. as their No. 1 enemy. For many, the term 'U.S.' assumed the meaning of an empire of evil, which must be harmed..."
"The Cold War was a difficult war, and the sides that participated in it did not settle for less than the total destruction of the other side. To this end, each side used the weapons it had⊠and the most important weapon was the Third World countries, which for 50 years had been the hostage of one or the other of the camps⊠The regimes were the hostages of the great masters of one of the [world] blocs, and the peoples were the hostages of those same hostages who managed to strengthen their rule by means of oppression, starvation, and deprivation...
"Most of the Arab countries that leaned towards the U.S. were at that time hostile to pan-Arab plans, and the American secret services allocated funds to these countries' apparatuses of oppression for the purpose of the war against Communism. The presidents of these countries made mistakes, which reached the level of treason⊠For example, they spied for Israel at the secret Arab summits and in wartime ⊠They introduced into the school and university curricula the worst of the dark reactionary ideas in the Islamic heritage â ideas such as al-walaa wa-al-baraa] 'loyalty and disavowal'] [2], and the idea of Jihad in the sense of killing non-Muslims and of harming and humiliating the other... And thus, millions of people were educated during the Cold War⊠on these illogical outmoded ideas.
"This education was a brilliant success⊠When the U.S. called on the Muslims to fight in Afghanistan, it found armies ready for battle among the members of these generations⊠Many of these young people thought this was an opportunity to implement the ideas they had learnedâŠ
"The U.S., which had declared [its commitment to] human rights over 200 years ago, did not rebuke the [Arab] rulers, or stop the acts of repression and the crimes they openly committed against their people, because in the eyes of the U.S. nothing surpassed the importance of its war on the Communist enemy⊠The Arab peoples were considered a contemptible agent... whose enslavement did not detract from the freedom [of the U.S.] and whose backwardness did not hinder the civilization [of the U.S.]. This was the image of the Cold War in the Middle East â exploited countries and impoverished peoples who had lost hope in all ideologies, and who had nothing left to comfort themselves with but Paradise after death.
"After the Cold War ended, the West, headed by the U.S., continued, as was its wont, to disregard the fate of these peoples and their struggles as long as its own interests were not harmed, and as long as the Arab oil flowed unobstructedâŠ"
The Reasons for the Tragedy of 9/11
Al-Houni considers 9/11 to be the end of a historic era, because the U.S. was attacked on its home ground for the first time. The enemy is a new kind of enemy, with no particular location â it is everywhere, including in the U.S. itself, and it takes advantage of the information and technology revolution for funding, arming and for choosing its targets. Terrorism today is more dangerous than in the past because the terrorists can obtain weapons of mass destruction.
In light of this new situation, says Al-Houni, a new American strategy is beginning to emerge: "The U.S. sees the new terrorism as a real enemy threatening its very existence, not merely its interests. It understands that the capabilities [of this new terrorism] are very great; its organizations have branches everywhere, and its targets cannot be predicted. All this requires [that the U.S.] change its political and military strategy in a manner appropriate to counter the new dangerâŠ"
Al-Houni classifies the roots of Arab and Islamic terrorism by the main motivations behind them:
· The lack of even a minimum of human rights in tyrannical states.
· The friendly relations between the U.S. and various Arab countries.
· The regional conflicts, andâ from the Arab and Muslim standpoint â particularly the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arabs believed that after the end of the Cold War and the removal of the Soviet threat, the Americans would impose a just, or semi-just, solution on the parties to the conflict. This did not happen; on the contrary, every day the Arabs watch TV footage from Palestinian lands â showing scenes of killing, destruction, land expropriation, demolition of homes, and establishment of settlements, and no one comes to the aid of the weak.
· The Arab regimes that plundered and squandered the wealth of their countries. This had negative repercussions for a society whose middle classes were disintegrating and whose poor classes were broadening. There can be no progress or moderation in the political discourse of a people that does not have a broad middle class. Therefore, the discourse of terrorism and its nihilistic philosophy generally find an ear among the armies of the poor.
· Arab education which provoked the students' hostility towards the external world and instilled in them ideas that reeked of hostility and hatred for anybody different. By means of these benighted, dark curricula, the young people have developed into men of the absolute truth, who believe that all the "infidel" peoples must be massacred.
Al-Houni concludes, "The Arab weapon used by the U.S. in the Cold War was costly. When the Americans used the Arabs and Muslims in a war that did not concern them, they were not interested in examining the curricula adopted by their allies, or in the Arab Koran-study schools of which Pakistan is full and which created the Taliban, the culture of Jihad against the infidels, and martyrdom for the sake of AllahâŠ"
Al-Houni emphasizes that the terrorists are not acting in a vacuum, but enjoy the help of countries that assist them directly, turn a blind eye to their activities, or do not have complete control over all their territory.
The Democratization of the Arab World Has Become an American National Interest
After discussing past American strategy, how terrorism brought about a change in this strategy, and who the new enemies of the U.S. are, Al-Houni analyzes the new American strategy, in which the democratization of the Arab world is a central goal.
In support of the idea of democratization of the Arab world, and in light of the Arab world's central place in the new American strategy, Al-Houni calls upon the Arab world to endorse democracy. He classifies the Arab intellectuals opposed to democracy into three groups. He enumerates the obstacles to implementing democracy in the Arab world, suggests to the U.S. how to strengthen democracy in those countries, and suggests to the Arabs how to free themselves of outmoded concepts.
According to Al-Houni, "The U.S. will not be able to dry up the wellsprings of terrorism without establishing societies with a minimum of democracy and human rights, and with modern education that does not oppose the [modern] era and its values⊠The U.S. aspires, of course, to protect its interests in [Muslim] countries, but these interests are no longer compatible with maintaining strong relations with cruel [totalitarian] countries. Therefore, for the first time ever, the U.S. finds itself obliged to intervene in what it considered, until not too long ago, the domestic policy of these countries. Since 9/11, the democratization of the world â particularly the Arab world â has become an American national interest."
In Al-Houni's assessment, the U.S. has decided to put an end to dictatorial governments, by using one of the following means:
a) Toppling the regime by force, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, or creating political problems and stirring up the minorities to eliminate these regimes;
b) Changing the regimes by non-violent means, by getting the regimes under threat to agree to internal changes, such as accepting the opposition, establishing non-government parties and organizations, and replacing the rulers peacefully.
The implementation of this recipe in any totalitarian country, according to Al-Houni, will mean an end to the old ruling class and the rise of new leaders.
"Flexing Military Muscle" Is Not Enough to Implement the New U.S. Policy
Al-Houni warns that it is not sufficient for the new U.S. strategy to flex "military muscle," but that it needs to implement a new policy in a number of areas:
1. The U.S. must put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that there will be two democratic countries â Arab and Hebrew [Israeli].
2. The U.S. must help the peoples of the region to establish economic organizations that will lead to their development. This step would complement the Middle East peace process because "a political peace without a social peace supported by a sound economy would be no more than an intermission between two wars."
3. The U.S. must act towards ensuring a minimum of democracy for the peoples of the region. This democracy would be the result both of internal demands and external support, and is "the key to many of today's complex problems..."
4. The U.S. must pressure the governments to change their school curricula, for it has become apparent that most of the perpetrators of the attacks [in the U.S.] and their leaders belong to those countries that have had extremist religious education for a long time, although politically they have leaned towards the U.S. The latter has realized that it is not enough for these countries to proclaim their support of the West and their friendship with the U.S., but that they must institute an educational system which will lead to tolerance and openness to Western culture, which will cease to see Western culture as opposed to Islam and to Arab traditions, and which will stop dividing the world into the "abode of Islam," and the "abode of war."
Criticism of Arab Intellectuals who Oppose Democracy
The new American strategy has encountered staunch opposition from various elements in the Arab world. Al-Houni focuses on the intellectual Arab elites, explaining that some of these intellectuals claim that the West does not have true democracy, since it acts democratically only within its own borders, but operates oppressively, arbitrarily and tyrannically outside them. Thus, says Al-Houni, the Arab elites are trying to get the Arab public to conclude that all regimes are alike and that there is no true democracy to which the Arab citizen can aspire in order to improve his life. They want the Arabs to believe that they must reject the West and its values, because they are a scam intended to bring about Western hegemony.
Al-Houni classifies today's Arab intellectuals who are opposed to democracy into three categories, and deals with their arguments:
· Islamists who do not recognize that humanistic ideas can serve as a basis for society. In their view, everything has existed in the past, and is present in the holy text [the Koran]. The present and future are not in our hands, but in the hands of a force that propels us like puppets. According to these Islamists, the proper way to live is to return to the times of our forefathers, in the seventh century, and to adopt the principle of the Shura [the consultative council] of early Islam.
When it is argued that the Shura never convened in the early Islamic era, that its representatives were appointed and not elected, that the idea of a society like that of the forefathers is imaginary with no basis in historical fact... they have no answer except to curse those raising these questions and to accuse them of heresy.
Al-Houni concludes that there is no point in arguing with Islamists so long as the starting points are different. The Islamists consider the past to be the pinnacle of humanity, whereas Al-Houni's starting point is human experience and history as an unending process.
· "Regime intellectuals" who view democracy as a bitter enemy of the Arab rulers. This group tries to persuade the public that democracy is suitable for the West but not for them, and at times it attributes to the "imperialist, conspiratorial West" the responsibility for Arab backwardness and the Arabs' inability to introduce democracy.
Al-Houni rejects these arguments, saying that the claim that the West is responsible for Arab backwardness might have had merit in imperialist times, but not after the imperialists left. Then, the Arabs were ruled by their own people, and it was they who squandered their countries' wealth in order to remain in power, at the expense of their peoples. "For a long time, we attributed all our ills and failures to imperialism. Today, this shirking of responsibility is no [longer] possible or acceptable."
As for the claim that it will only be possible to institute a democracy when the Israeli occupation ends, Al-Houni considers it disgraceful: "Arab societies cannot extricate themselves from their situation as long as they bow beneath the weight of their [tyrannical] regimes, which consider their own people to be a greater danger than the Israeli danger⊠The Arab armies will be led to a lost battle every time... In addition, the Arab armies are no longer armies that battle an enemy beyond its borders, but have become a police force threatening the defeated peoples..." [3]
#1
It is no real choice, it is a Darwinistic outcome. Those who cannot adapt and modernize, die out. Not just Islamists, but primitive peoples around the world face extinction, as unromantic and harsh as that sounds.
They just *cannot* coexist with a "better way of doing business". Despite no hostility from the better way, they are so outclassed that even they know at some level that they have no future.
The struggle against modernity is one of annihilation. The last ditch effort to literally destroy modernity in an effort to preserve a dead, and mostly falsely nostalgic, past.
An irony is that, at their founding, they *were* the modernist way, far superior to what existed before. Their popularity stemmed not just from having greater efficiency than what was, but in greater popularity over their wretched predecessor system.
They will survive as a belief system, but only as a shell of what they are today. A reformation will strip and discard much of the evolved but not essential doctrines, much as how Christianity has evolved since the Reformation.
See part I too... Purely for fun's sake, to have some reasons to be amused despite the Katrina sadness, kill it if inappropriate. Funny blog overall(http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/).
sans my comments - I couldn't add anything better
At 9.58am Eastern time, Tuesday September 11th 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
Why?
As UPIâs Jim Bennett wrote, âThe Era of Osama lasted about an hour and a half or so, from the time the first plane hit the tower to the moment the General Militia of Flight 93 reported for duty.â
Exactly right. Six decades earlier, the American people had to wait four months between Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid. But September 11th was Pearl Harbor and the Doolittle Raid wrapped up in 90 minutes. Flight 93 was supposed to be the fourth of Osamaâs flying bombs, its destination either the White House or the Capitol. Had it reached its target, the following morningâs headlines would have included âThe Vice-President is still among the missing, presumed deadâ. Had Flight 93 sheared the top off the White House, that would have been the dayâs âmoney shotâ, as it was in the alien-invasion flick Independence Day - the shattered façade, smoke billowing, the seat of American power reduced to rubble.
But the dopey hijackers assigned to Flight 93 were halfway across the continent before they made their move and started meandering back east. And, by the time the passengers began calling home on their cellphones, their families knew what had happened in New York. Todd Beamer couldnât get through to his wife, so the last conversation of his life was with the GTE telephone operator, who stayed on the line with him and overheard his final words: âAre you ready, guys? Letâs roll!â And then a brave group of passengers jumped their hijackers and, at the cost of their own lives, prevented that dayâs grim toll rising even higher. At a terrible moment for America, their heroism was the only victory of the day.
Four years on, plans for the Flight 93 National Memorial have now been revealed. The winning design, chosen from 1,011 entries, will be built in that pasture in Pennsylvania where those heroes died. The memorial is called âThe Crescent of Embraceâ.
That sounds like a fabulous winning entry - in a competition to create a note-perfect parody of effete multicultural responses to terrorism. Indeed, if anything, itâs too perfect a parody: the âembraceâ is just the usual huggy-weepy reconciliatory boilerplate, but the âcrescentâ transforms its generic cultural abasement into something truly spectacular. In the design plans, âThe Crescent of Embraceâ looks more like the embrace of the Crescent â ie, Islam. After all, what better way to demonstrate your willingness to âembraceâ your enemies than by erecting a giant Islamic crescent at the site of the dayâs most unambiguous episode of American heroism?
Okay, letâs get all the âof coursesâ out of the way â of course, the overwhelmingly majority of Muslims arenât terrorists; of course, we all know âIslamâ means âpeaceâ and âjihadâ means âhealthy-lifestyle lo-carb granola barâ; etc, etc. Nevertheless, the men who hijacked Flight 93 did it in the name of Islam and their last words as they hit the Pennsylvania sod were no doubt âAllahu Akhbarâ. One would be unlikely even today to come across an Allied D-Day memorial so misconceived in its spirit of reconciliation as to be called the Swastika of Embrace. Yet Paul Murdoch, the architect, has somehow managed to produce a design whose two most obvious interpretations are a) a big nothing or b) a splendid memorial to the hijackers rather than their victims.
Four years ago, most of us understood instinctively the courage of Flight 93. They were honoured not just by chickenhawks and neocons and Zionists and the usual suspects but even by celebrities. The leathery old rocker Neil Young wrote a dark driving anthem called âLetâs Rollâ that began with cellphones ringing. Then:
I know I said I love you
I know you know itâs true
I got to put the phone down
And do what we gotta do
Oneâs standing in the aisle way
Two more at the door
We got to get inside there
Before they kill some moreâŠ
Granted, even then, there were a lot of folks eager to âembraceâ their enemies. The day after September 11th, Robert Daubenspeck of White River Junction, Vermont wrote to my local newspaper advising against retaliation: âSomeone, someday, must have the courage not to hit back but to look them in the eye and say, âI love youâ.â Thatâs not as easy as it sounds. If you try to look Richard Reid the shoebomber in the eye as heâs bending down to light the fuse sticking out of his sock, you could easily put your back out.
But each to his own. If Mr Murdoch sincerely believes in a âcrescent of embraceâ, let him build one â at the headquarters of a âmoderateâ Islamic lobby group, or in the parking lot of your wackier colleges. To impose it on Flight 93 â to, in effect, hijack those passengers a second time â is an abomination. Flight 93 is about what happens when you understand that some things canât be embraced. Perhaps Mr Beamer and his comrades did indeed âlook them in the eyeâ and saw there was nothing to negotiate, nothing to âembraceâ. So they acted â and, faced with a novel and unprecedented form of terror, they stopped it cold in little more than an hour. Todd Beamer asked that telephone operator to join him in reciting the 23rd Psalm: âYea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of deathâŠâ He knew there would be no happy ending that day, but in their resourcefulness and sacrifice he and his fellow passengers gave their country the next best thing: a hopeful ending. Thatâs what the Flight 93 Memorial should be honouring.
Instead, in its feeble cultural cringe, the Crescent of Embrace hands the terrorists of Flight 93 the victory they were denied on September 11th. And it profoundly dishonours Todd Beamer, Thomas Burnett, Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham and other forgotten heroes of that flight.
Most of us are all but resigned to losing New Yorkâs Ground Zero memorial to a pile of non-judgmental if not explicitly anti-American pap: The minute you involve big-city politicians and foundations and funding bodies and âartistsâ youâre on an express chute to the default mode of the cultural elite. But surely itâs not too much to hope that in Pennsylvania the very precise, specific, individual, human scale of one great act of American heroism need not be buried under another soggy dollop of generic prettified passivity. A culture that goes to such perverse lengths to disdain its heroes cannot survive and doesnât deserve to.
Four years ago, Todd Beamerâs rallying cry was quoted by Presidents and rock stars alike. Thatâs all thatâs needed in that field: the kind of simple dignified memorial you see on small-town commons saluting Civil war veterans, a granite block with the names of the passengers and the words âLETâS ROLL.â The âcrescent of embraceâ, in its desperation to see no enemies and stand for nothing, represents the precise opposite of Beamer, Glick, Burnett and co: Are you ready, guys? Letâs roll over. Originally at The Irish Times, September 12th 2005
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/14/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I couldn't add anything better
Dittos Frank. even the headline says it all.
Mark Steyn = national treasure. Bravo.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
09/14/2005 0:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Truly perfect summation of the truly bankrupt elite. Steyn rocks - and rolls.
#3
When are we going to learn. I hope someone has the balls to blow that damned obscenity up and get a new and fitting monument to their heroism. Meanwhile, that architect deserves a kick in the groin, repeated several times for effect. Oh, sorry, I forgot that the bastard obviously can't have any balls if he's doing gutless stuff like this.
Posted by: mac ||
09/14/2005 5:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
No doubt CAIR and other fifth column organizations here in the USA will want to designate "The Crescent of Embrace" the third holiest site in all of islam.
This memorial design must be stopped. I've gotten off my ass to write a letter to every politician whose address I can lay my hands on. I ask (beg) all RB bretheran to do the same.
Posted by: Mark Z. ||
09/14/2005 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
