Good ol' Sully suggests here and here that no concession we can make will reduce the motivation fro Islamic terrorism. Therefore, our only course is to democratize the Muslim world in order to "drain the swamp" of fanaticism and to allow "the silent majority of Muslims to regain power from the fanatics."
Money quote:
"But deep down, how do we drain the swamp of Islamo-fascism? For all my criticisms of the conduct of the Iraq war, the reason I'm still glad we did it and still want us to get it right is that I see no fundamental solution to this unless we give the Muslim Arab world an alternative apart from Jihadism or the autocracy that fosters it."
None of this seems to ask the question, what if the silent majority support terrorism against the west, or the more important question: why do we allow these people to immigrate to the west in large numbers?
As long as we determined to have nearly open borders and to let people into the US who have a cultural antipathy toward us, we will not be safe. The neocons seem to think that the best solution is to make the rest of the world more like us so that we can let them in safely, but it seems to me that not letting them in would be a simpler, cheaper, and more effective solution. And then we can determine whether or not remaking them in our image is necessary.
Here's a post by Lawrence Auster on the messianic universalism that has infected neoconservatives. I am making essentially the same point he has been making for quite some time now.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment