DAR AL HARB-ISRAEL: WHY AMERICA CAN'T WIN THE WAR AGAINST JIHAD

Why America Can't Win the War Against Jihad

College-educated, pseudo-humanists of the media have eroded American resolve. A poll just days after 9/11 showed that 76 percent of Americans said they would support military action against Al-Qaeda even if it meant 5,000 troops would be killed. Today, a majority no longer identifies the war in Iraq as part of the wider War on Terror. Moreover, less than 10 percent supports military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

Why don't college students know that a nuclear Iran would dominate the Middle East and the oil resources of the Persian Gulf? Why don't they know that a pacifist Europe, already Arabized, would succumb to nuclear blackmail? Why don't they know that the loss of Europe would wreck America's economy and radically curtail the scholarships and funding on which the education and careers of these college students ultimately depend? Why is there this ignorance?

Relativism closes their minds. By denying the existence of evil, relativism erodes America's confidence in the justice of its cause against Islamic terrorism. Like the mandarins of the BBC, those of CNN, ABC, NBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post choke on the word "terrorists." To avoid being "judgmental," these opinion-makers prefer to call terrorists "guerrillas" or just plain "activists." But this is not all.

Relativism has degenerated into "moral reversal." The clearest example of this metamorphosis is the media's coverage of the war between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Whereas the victim, Israel, is portrayed as the villain, the villains - Arab terrorists - are portrayed as the victims. This moral inversion is conspicuous on university campuses, where Israel has been demonized. But so has President George Bush been so demonized. It is precisely on those campuses where the anti-war movement has flourished. What is singularly significant, the anti-war movement facilitated the victory of the Democratic Party in the recent November elections.

Exceptions notwithstanding, the Democratic Party of today differs radically from that of Franklin D. Roosevelt or even of John F. Kennedy. The difference between today's Democratic Party and the floundering Republican Party is not merely political; it's also cultural. The Democratic Party now includes powerful anti-American elements. Some call them the "cosmopolitan Left." I think it's more accurate to call them the "anti-National Left" - the same Left that now dominates Europe and Israel.

This anti-National Left denounced the Bush administration's "unilateralism" and clamors for UN multilateralism. This it does despite the United Nation's demonstrable ineptitude and corruption, and even though most members of the UN are anti-American. The November elections signaled a giant step toward the subordination of US foreign policy to the UN. What does this portend?

What is gaining ascendancy in America is the inverse of Islam's "culture of hatred," namely, a "culture of self-hatred." If this development is not arrested, America, as a Judeo-Christian country, will gradually evaporate.

The goal of the anti-National Left is the "homogeneous and universal secular state." Nation states would cease to exist, replaced by a world government - the project of the UN. But a world government, like any state, would require a monopoly of power. It would have to have a worldwide espionage network to prevent any group from developing a portable weapon of mass destruction. A world government would, of necessity, be utterly totalitarian.

Although America has always been multicultural, its ethnic diversity was based on a tradition of freedom, self-reliance and self-restraint modulated by Judeo-Christian ethics. Today, multiculturalism has been tainted by the dispiriting moral nihilism of academia. The most prestigious universities have educated America's political, diplomatic and media elites, an increasing number of which are anything but champions of the American political tradition. American democracy is in trouble.

Since the American government is not about to curtail the freedom of expression on which the universities and the media depend - and which Muslims exploit - America can hardly win the war against its most dangerous enemy and still retain its reputation as a democracy.

One last thought. A wise observer said, "The whole Arab world minus its oil matters less to the rest of the world economically than the Nokia telephone company of Finland." If so, let me naively suggest that the US order its 82nd Airborne Division to take over the Saudi Arabian oil fields. Aside from a second measure concerning Iran, this would be a humane way for the US to win World War III.



Pertinent Links:

1) Why America Can't Win the War Against Jihad