Death of Multiculturalism

Reynolds draws out attention to a Rod Liddle and a Shelby Steele column on "white guilt" or multiculturalism myth that blinkers westerners in our war on terror. Here is Liddle in the Times:

Quick, somebody buy a wreath. Last week marked the passing of multiculturalism as official government doctrine. No longer will opponents of this corrosive and divisive creed be silenced simply by the massed Pavlovian ovine accusation: “Racist!” Better still, the very people who foisted multiculturalism upon the country are the ones who have decided that it has now outlived its usefulness — that is, the political left.

It is amazing how a few by-election shocks and some madmen with explosive backpacks can concentrate the mind. At any rate, British citizens, black and white, can move onwards together — towards a sunlit upland of monoculturalism, or maybe zeroculturalism, whatever takes your fancy.

* That multiculturalism really is officially dead and buried can be inferred both from Ruth Kelly’s comments last week and, indeed, from the title of the commission that the government had convened in the wake of the July 7 terrorist attacks last year and to which her observations were made.

From Shelby Steele's column:

Over and over, white guilt turns the disparity in development between Israel and her neighbors into a case of Western bigotry. This despite the fact that Islamic extremism is the most explicit and dangerous expression of human bigotry since the Nazi era. Israel's historical contradiction, her torture, is to be a Western nation whose efforts to survive trap her in the moral mazes of white guilt. Its national defense will forever be white aggression.

But white guilt's most dangerous suppression is to keep from discussion the most conspicuous reality in the Middle East: that the Islamic world long ago fell out of history. Islamic extremism is the saber-rattling of an inferiority complex. America has done a good thing in launching democracy as a new ideal in this region. Here is the possibility--if still quite remote--for the Islamic world to seek power through contribution rather than through menace.

World Wars in the 21st Century

Niall Ferguson in the latest Foreign Affairs looks back to the 20th Century before looking ahead:

The twentieth century was the bloodiest era in history. Despite the comfortable assumption that the twenty-first will be more peaceful, the same ingredients that made the last hundred years so destructive are present today. In particular, a conflict in the Middle East may well spark another global conflagration. The United States could prevent such an outcome -- but it may not be willing to.

Wretchard at Belmont Club concludes his commentary on Niall Ferguson's thesis this way:

Yet those effete-looking internationalists probably grasp Niall Ferguson's point at a gut level: without an American gorilla under "internationalist" direction, The Next War of the Worlds may be in the offing. Yet to America, as the Ring was to Tom Bombadil, empire is too much of a burden. America's mystical faith that all countries desire freedom may partly be at bottom a wish that the world would leave it alone; leave it alone to watch a baseball game with a cup of weak beer in one hand and soggy hot dog in the other, neither knowing nor caring where Iraq or Kazakhstan was. And so it was until the airliners crashed into Manhattan in 2001. Who knows what it is now?

Humilating Americans

The latest Cox and Forkum is an appropriate response to this news from Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The American Civil Liberties Union and a leading Islamic group on Wednesday accused security officials at New York's JFK airport of racially profiling Muslims.

"The price to pay for racial profiling is too high," Dennis Parker of the American Civil Liberties Union told a news conference. "All people should be treated in the same way regardless of their race, their ethnicity or their religion."

(ht: Larry Kudlow)

Hitchens Flipping off the Frivolous

This is making waves....

Newsbusters has transcripts and video clips of Christopher Hitchens (not, by the way, your typical Bush-supporter to say the least) flipping off Bill Mahrer's audience for frivolously equating the political goals of Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Bush just because they share similar apocalyptic visions of the end times.

Hitchens called such understanding as "frivolous". According to Websters, frivolous means:

1. a: of little weight or importance b: having no sound basis (as in fact or law)
   
2. a: lacking in seriousness b: marked by unbecoming levity

Frivlous is an apt term for this. I guess I would say that Mahrer's (and many others) contribution to political discourse in the US is generally 'marked by unbecoming levity'. Here's how Hitchens finished his reply to the jeering and Mahrer:

Hitchens: “Cheer yourself up like that [by jeering]. The President has said, [in] quite a great contrast before the podium of the Senate, I think, applauded by most present, in his State of the Union address, that we support the democratic movement of the Iranian people to be free of theocracy -- not that we will impose ourselves on them, but that if they fight for it we're on their side. That seems to be the right position to take, jeer all you like.”

What he said.

(ht: Glenn Reynolds)

Interesting Recent Readings

• Paul M. has some good news in Israeli politics.
• More than a few people say how different (that is, better) Bush is outside D.C.
• And related to that, Peter Schramm points out that Bush isn't as uncuriousier as he is made out to be.
• Peter also links up Juan Williams with Bill Cosby. What will they think of next?.....
• Michael Barone talks about ABC's 5-hour special on 9-11, scheduled for the 10th and 11th of September
• From Glenn Reynolds, a poll showing that Iraqis in Iraq are more positive about Iraq's progress than Americans are
  

Crittenden's Psalm 9-11: I Will Fear No Evil

I can confirm Scott's strong encouragment to read Jules Crittenden's column in the Boston Herald today. It offers, I want to propose, a good antidote, invoking Sharansky (below), to the blindness of our time to see evil.

There are men out there who want us dead. This is undeniable. They want to see us all dead. Each and every one of us. They don’t know our names, they don’t know what our thoughts are about their grievances. They don’t know what our actions are and how we’ve lived our lives. They don’t care. They just want us dead.

I wish I had a sweet, comforting post-Sept. 11 lullaby to sing the ones I love to sleep when they experience fear of these evil men. But I don’t. Lullabies combat false monsters. Real monsters require something different.

Psalms, like lullabies, give comfort. But they don’t mask or deny the threat. They embrace it, and show the way to strength and ultimately comfort from within. What might a psalm say to anyone whose 9/11 fears have been reawakened.

UPDATE: Scott follows up his post on Crittenden's column above with a new post about Crittenden, called "Meet Jules Crittenden".

Omar Fadhil on the Shia Armageddon

Cliff May points out that Omar Fadhil, co-founder of the blog Iraq the Model, in the Philadelphia Inquirer proposed the same idea last Friday that Bernard Lewis does today in the WSJ (immediately below).

As an observer of the conflict from Iraq, I see the signs that Iran may be starting to launch the mullahs' version of an Armageddon, exploiting the religious beliefs of devout Shiites in the region. While this may sound more the stuff of prophecies than international relations, it is important to understand - especially in countries such as Lebanon and Iraq that have large Shiite populations.

Read it all.

Bernard Lewis: Apocalypse on August 22?

Here's Lewis' sobering opinion column that alot of people have been talking about, published today in Wall Street Journal. It is behind a subscription wall, but I believe this version is complete. Thanks DFME.

During the Cold War, both sides possessed weapons of mass destruction, but neither side used them, deterred by what was known as MAD, mutual assured destruction. Similar constraints have no doubt prevented their use in the confrontation between India and Pakistan. In our own day a new such confrontation seems to be looming between a nuclear-armed Iran and its favorite enemies, named by the late Ayatollah Khomeini as the Great Satan and the Little Satan, i.e., the United States and Israel. Against the U.S. the bombs might be delivered by terrorists, a method having the advantage of bearing no return address. Against Israel, the target is small enough to attempt obliteration by direct bombardment.

It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal, thanks to their own researches (which began some 15 years ago), to some of their obliging neighbors, and to the ever-helpful rulers of North Korea. The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.

Would the same constraints, the same fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers. This worldview and expectation, vividly expressed in speeches, articles and even schoolbooks, clearly shape the perception and therefore the policies of Ahmadinejad and his disciples.

Even in the past it was clear that terrorists claiming to act in the name of Islam had no compunction in slaughtering large numbers of fellow Muslims. A notable example was the blowing up of the American embassies in East Africa in 1998, killing a few American diplomats and a much larger number of uninvolved local passersby, many of them Muslims. There were numerous other Muslim victims in the various terrorist attacks of the last 15 years.

The phrase "Allah will know his own" is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. According to this view, the bombers are in fact doing their Muslim victims a favor by giving them a quick pass to heaven and its delights--the rewards without the struggles of martyrdom. School textbooks tell young Iranians to be ready for a final global struggle against an evil enemy, named as the U.S., and to prepare themselves for the privileges of martyrdom.

A direct attack on the U.S., though possible, is less likely in the immediate future. Israel is a nearer and easier target, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has given indication of thinking along these lines. The Western observer would immediately think of two possible deterrents. The first is that an attack that wipes out Israel would almost certainly wipe out the Palestinians too. The second is that such an attack would evoke a devastating reprisal from Israel against Iran, since one may surely assume that the Israelis have made the necessary arrangements for a counterstrike even after a nuclear holocaust in Israel.

The first of these possible deterrents might well be of concern to the Palestinians--but not apparently to their fanatical champions in the Iranian government. The second deterrent--the threat of direct retaliation on Iran--is, as noted, already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today, without parallel in other religions, or for that matter in the Islamic past. This complex has become even more important at the present day, because of this new apocalyptic vision.

In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time--Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam, ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil, however these may be defined. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.

How then can one confront such an enemy, with such a view of life and death? Some immediate precautions are obviously possible and necessary. In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are. There must be many such, probably even a majority in the lands of Islam. Now is the time for them to save their countries, their societies and their religion from the madness of MAD.

Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).

The Discerning Texan provides some analysis and more background.

Ahmed Al-Jarallah on the Fate of Dictatorships

It is interesting to read things like this in a column of a newspaper in the Middle East, The Arab Times to be exact. The writer is apparently the Editor-In-Chief.

Nasrallah’s dictatorship will sink like those of Saddam Hussein and other regimes, which did not know their true ability. Egyptians suffered under the dictatorship of the late Gamal Abdul Nasser who led them to war in 1967. The late Egyptian President believed Arab power can defeat Israel. However, the result was different as Arabs were handed out a humiliating defeat. Nasrallah, who is being remote-controlled by Iran and Syria, believes he is in the mold of many Arab leaders. But the fact is he is playing with fire.

Read the rest of Ahmed Al-Jarallah's editorial here.

I wonder, would we be seeing such comments in the Middle East if Saddam were still in power?

(ht: Cliff May at Corner)

Bloggers Raise Questions about Kana

Today's Jerusalem Post has the story.

According to the blogs, perhaps the most suspicious element in the Kana affair was the fact that the dead children whose photographs appeared in the media displayed virtually no signs of blood, bruises or broken bones and, with one exception, were not caked with debris or pulverized cement.

For example, according to the antiliberal Conservative Yankee blog, "The child in the photo shows no signs of injuries - no blood, no disfigurement or crushing wounds consistent with a building collapse. The two men [carrying the child] show no signs of having been digging in rubble. Their clothes are unbelievably clean, especially the black fatigues that would so easily shown concrete dust."

A Red Sox on Castro

In today's Boston Herald, Boston Red Sox's Third baseman Mike Lowell says this about life under Castro:

“My dad had to pack up his suitcase at 10 years old with his three brothers, who had nothing. And my mother was 11 years old and my grandfather, who’d been a dentist for 15 or 20 years, had to go back to school to be (politically) re-educated,” Lowell said.

“My cousins were political prisoners. My father-in-law was a political prisoner for 15 years because, at 19, they asked him if he agreed with communism and he said, ‘No,’ so they sentenced him to death. That’s not the way to live. I know it’s terrible to say, but I think of all of that and I hope he (Castro) passes away."

Kriesler Interviews Michael Oren

And here is Harry Kriesler's interview with Michael Oren (also mentioned below, two posts below to be exact). Also discovered as a result of VDH's recommendation. The date of the interview is November 8 2005.

Soldier. Historian. Novelist. Advisor. Sounds like an interesting fellow.

Fouad Ajami on Syria's Control of Lebanon

Post immediately below prompted me to a do a google on Fouad Ajami and I found his piece, The Autumn of Autocrats, on Lebanon in Foreign Affairs. It seems helpful for background, right now, on the showdown between Israel and Hezbollah (in Lebanon). The piece is dated June 2005 and refers to events earlier that year.

Here is the magazine's summary:

Summary: If the assassins of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri sought to make an example of him for his defiance of Syria, the aftermath of the crime has mocked them. For a generation, Lebanon was an appendage of Syrian power. But now the Lebanese people, in an "independence intifada," are clamoring for a return to normalcy. The old Arab edifice of power has survived many challenges in the past, but something is different this time: the United States is now willing to gamble on freedom.

Read it here.