What exactly does Buckley mean by the statement "(and many non-believers)"? Is he trying to imply not *all* non-believers are capable of functioning in a Democracy? Imagine if he'd said "many Christians", what would he be implying then?

I'd be a little dubious of what he has to say until he explained that.

...the idea that liberty, equality, and democracy belong to all mankind because God wants them to.

I'd love to see where in the Bible it mentions "democracy", never mind the Koran. A freedom granted to one by another is not a true freedom.

The American project was an Enlightenment one. Sad to see the religious try and claim it as their own. Fleeing religious persecution does not a nation make. The secular version may have "no color and no fizz" (what childish requirements!) but it at least works.

The example of Turkey, which practices a kind of democracy formally termed Islamic Democracy, should be a one that is more carefully examined. And more carefully examined should be the concept of Islamic Democracy itself. Much like Christian Democracy, it places a strong role on religion in private life, but separates it from politics and the state. If you want a good example of Christian Democracy, look at Chile, where the Catholic church is super powerful and the population heavily Catholic, but it is one of the freest societies in all the Americas. Imagine if the same could happen in the Middle East?... Such a thing might have to be somewhat imposed, as it actually was in Turkey, and as we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if that's what it takes then maybe that's what it takes.

It is not ISLAM that is fundmentally incompatible with free society, but SHARIA law that is.

Do not confuse the two: Islam is a faith; Sharia is a legal system (and as such, it can be changed, or outlawed.)

And it is Sharia that is incompatible with freedom, because it is specifically designed to keep people from becoming non-Muslims (or otherwise doing things that are considered non-Muslim).

It is Sharia law that must be destroyed, not Islam.

The answer is NO....underscore and repeat. Islam has been a violent affront to the west since the 8th century....Spain and Santiago Matamoros......"the shores of Tripoli" was muslim pirates attacking US ships, Vienna in the 17th century gave us the crescent roll to note having survived an islamic siege and on and on.
Like the Vikings, islam is a death cult, either convert 'em or do away with them or the violence will go on and on.

A spectacularly thoughtful, timely and honest post, Chester. Good work.

One of the things that makes this hard is that for our free society to both make this assessment and remain what we want and claim it to be (i.e., free), we cannot address Islam as a 'thing'. While I am deeply suspicious of Islam based on ignorance, plus the horrors I've observed from some Islamists recently, to continue down the path of thinking about 'it' as an 'it' would be to fall into a Marxist trap.

That is, dealing with Islam as a monolithic entity, or even as a bunch of sub-entities is little different than referring to "the bourgeoisie" or "the proletariat" - glossing over the important fact that it is individuals who make up a society or a religion (and its leadership, good or bad). The essence of the West is that we do not put as much stock in faceless groups destined to clash as we do in the hope that more and more individual human beings will aspire to our ideals given the opportunity. It is not necessarily an opportunity that all will recognize overnight without active education on our part. I like your quote about coming blinking into the light. Conversion to the truth of freedom can be confusing and fear-inducing at first!

To deal with Islam as an 'it' is to move away from exactly what the Judeo-Christic-inspired liberal West stands for: the sanctity of the individual... EVERY individual - his life, his conscience and his freedom... or 'her' if you prefer... another important distinction we need to keep in mind. All of which begs your question... :)

The tricky part, as with Communism, is that the most visible part of Islam in practice today seems to promote, or at least condone the absolute antithesis of these things: little or no respect for life (especially women, children and non-Muslims), coercion of conscience at the point of a knife, and deference to despotic, self-appointed leadership.

When we speak about "modern" Islam, I wonder if we're asking for an oxymoron. The analogy is imperfect, and I don't mean to imply moral much less religious equivalence here, but might the appeal to 'modern' Islam not sound to many much like an appeal to become a Unitarianan might sound to an Opus Dei Catholic? Again, imperfect but worth pondering...

So the best we can do IMHO is to keep the 'yes' answer open to INDIVIDUALS, coaxing, educating and *persuading* them of the value of Western liberalism (and for my own part, Christianity too - though not as a government policy) - all while confronting *leaders* who do not allow their citizens the freedom to make such choices.

If the God that gave rise to our ideals is the true one, then He dwells in the hearts of individuals already (e.g., your Iraqi friend). Given freedom, they will naturally gravitate to a society that expresses them best in practice. It's the freedom to make that choice that's at the root of this and which turns our attention back to leaders (not movements) in figuring out who to oppose and depose.

The assessment of an *individual*'s compatibility (leader or not) with Western liberal society can then rest on two things: their actions and stated intents. We must steer clear of attempting to surmise what might be in their minds absent observation of those two things. That's not a return to Clinton-era law enforcement. It's a forward-projection of our ideals and a big hearty "welcome home" to those who recognize that greeting for what it is.

James - I think you are reading more into the aside than was meant. Many can mean most but not all, or it can just mean a lot. If you read the phrase as "and the large number of non-believers as well" the subtext you are complaining about disappears. I think this is consistent with the overall tenor of the quote which speaks of Moslems, Christians and Jews as collective groups.

James is absolutely right. None of the documents or writings regarding our founding makes any mention of a deity or acknowledge any degree of faith, as neither do any of the most critical writings or speeches by American leaders since then. Indeed, the American project has always been an Enlightenment one, scrupulously secular, utterly devoid of any sense of Christian or other faith, except, of course, for when it hasn't.

To what fate are we assigning them if we answer no?

Better asked, if the answer is no, what is our fate?

>None of the documents or writings regarding our >founding makes any mention of a deity or >acknowledge any degree of faith.

The Declartion of Independance states we 'are endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights, that among these our life liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. ie, these rights are not granted by the state, King or Pope

Er, John, Tim was being ironic; Chester profound.

One cannot separate Islam and Sharia and be consistent. There is only one and it is Islam. That's what (we call) the Islamic "fundamentalists" are raging about.

Christianity from the beginning separated church and state. Right from Jesus' mouth "render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and to God the things that are God's." But Mohammed in addition to being a founder of a religion and military leader was also a Head of State. So there is no separation in classical Islam. He ruled. That is why it is a CRIME to criticize Mohammed in Islamic countries even today. We see efforts today throughout the West by Muslims to get their governments to outlaw criticism of Islam and we good secularists are on the brink of doing it.

Only if Islam will follow the ideals of the Judeo-Christian West which lift up freedom ("It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm then and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.") - something it has always avoided having to do - will it find its way out of the circular room it is in.

phwest wrote:
>None of the documents or writings regarding our founding makes any mention of a deity or acknowledge any degree of faith, as neither do any of the most critical writings or speeches by American leaders since then. Indeed, the American project has always been an Enlightenment one, scrupulously secular, utterly devoid of any sense of Christian or other faith

Go look at the presidential inaugural addresses (http://www.bartleby.com/124/), the vast majority of which refer to a deity... or the writings of a goodly number (though not all) of the founders, or as John points out, the DOI itself. Your assertion, phwest, is selective ("most critical writings") and false.

That said, the Christian principles at the foundation of this nation have never compelled, (much less coerced at knifepoint) any particular faith... or any faith at all. The great diversity of faiths (and non-faiths) thriving in the U.S. today bears that out. Accusations of an American theocracy are manufactured solely in the minds of those making them. They are not even in the same universe as Sharia law.

Thank you for an excellent posting. I would like to exhibit some profound wisdom here just to fit in, but I think you have pretty much covered the bases.

On a personal note --- I started out with a 'Yes', but am increasingly getting to the 'No' stage. With all respect to RM, it's not just Sharia that is in question here. It's Islamism, per se.

Islam has always been as far as I can see, a 'comprehensive' system of living. It's not really about 'religious' feeling or beliefs. It's about how those 'beliefs' are the TOTAL basis for life. The 'extremist' viewpoint in Islam is in fact the TRUE viewpoint in Islam.

We can probably be 'tolerant' of Islam as a religion, consigned to be a PRIVATE compact between the individual and his/her GOD, but we can never tolerate 'political Islam'. The problem is that they are very very likely exactly the same thing despite what some 'Westernized' Muslims prefer to pretend. You can't separate them without forcing Islam to reform/ redefine itself. Anyone see that actually happening in a practical sense?

If this continues(and it will, I fear), the answer will not even be NO any longer.

It will be HELL NO !!

I had a lengthy debate about this subject here:

http://www.affbrainwash.com/chrisroach/archives/020752.php

I said, in part, "acts of violence by Christian extremists find little support in the broader Christian community. One does not hear even in Baptist and Catholic Churches kind words for those that would defy the law and use violence again, for example, abortionists or others that deviate from their religious and moral teachings.

The reason is not some cultural difference, but different commandments to the faithful; Christians are told, in essence, to ignore unbelievers and pray for them. Christianity may influence one's political philosophy, but only indirectly. Christianity at its core is concerned with one's orientation to the world, not the structure of worldly affairs. In contrast, Muslims are told by their holiest text that such offenses must be met with violence."

One problem with Bush's view is that it contains two propostiions that guarantee conflict. First, he believes everyone everhwehre wants to be a liberal democracy and is capable of doing so. Second, he thinks that our own freedom is imperilled if other countries are illiberal and barbaric. Our first 150 years as a free society should dispel this notion. Today, protected still by two oceans and also a nuclear umbrella, the risk of other societies present to our own is minimal if we mind our business. Our freedom is far more threatened by imperialist galavanting in the name of Wilsonian idealism.

I should also add that the "universiality" of western ideans is not threatened by incompatibility with Islam. Islam is its own idea system, with a bearing on politics, law, and philosophy, and it is in large part incompatible with core western ideas and beliefs--one of the most important of which is Christianity.

Unfortunately the truest answer is yes and no. We have a number of successful democracies in the world today (Japan) which could have been regarded as irredemible at one time. But the Islamic world itself should be divided into several segments, some of which can be helped, others which should only be attacked.
I tend to think of Islam as a rebellious cousin of the statist/hierarchical versions of Christianity. In that sense, we are really dealing with a civil war partially inside the West itself.

O.k., just to make everything absolutely clear for everyone's understanding, when I wrote" "James is absolutely right. None of the documents or writings regarding our founding makes any mention of a deity or acknowledge any degree of faith, as neither do any of the most critical writings or speeches by American leaders since then. Indeed, the American project has always been an Enlightenment one, scrupulously secular, utterly devoid of any sense of Christian or other faith, except, of course, for when it hasn't.", I was mocking John for being profoundly wrong.

Just so everyone, including John, understands that, o.k.?

I believe that the ultimate answer to the question will be no. I'm not even sure that the Bushies believe the ultimate answer will be yes. I believe, though, that for the sake of our own souls we must try hard to find that yes answer, otherwise when we turn millions of human beings into radioactive dust the shame and guilt will consume us.
Right or wrong, we must try.

"Second, he thinks that our own freedom is imperilled if other countries are illiberal and barbaric. Our first 150 years as a free society should dispel this notion."

Oh, please, like oceans are significant protection in an age of jet aircraft and ballistic missles. Our nuclear "umbrella" is in fact a nuclear sword, and only protects us from those who can be detered by the threat of it's use.

Which doesn't necessarilly include people who genuinely believe in an afterlife.

It's both "yes" and "no."

It's most emphatically "no" in the sense that Islam views all people as slaves and calls on its followers to be slaves of God, to submit, and to place all of mankind under the same submission -- period. This is the plain fact, and there is no way around it -- for now.

There will always be some who take an "outward" view of Islam and seek to impose their particular interpretation of it on others. There is absolutely NOTHING we can do about this except to defeat them in diplomacy, in battle, at the polls, in whatever ways and by whatever means are required. This will never go away completely, but it will ebb and flow in the future as it has in the past.

If and ONLY IF we are prepared to destroy them utterly for acts of aggression, then they will seek some other path. If we don't oppose them, they have no reason to diverge from their first choice: conquest.

Conquest is expensive. It's our job to make conquest too expensive for them. It's not *their* job to refrain from conquest out of some love for us. They don't love us, and they're not supposed to. They're supposed to like themselves.

And that's where the other side of the strategy comes in. We can't just smack down the Jihadi's. We have to encourage everybody in their recruiting pool to go do something else -- preferably something that will do them some good and make their lives better.

As long as they feel like miserable failures, they'll be susceptible to calls for "jihad and martyrdom." You'll note the main supporters of "Jihad" are those who are in between cultures. They're the ones who have the most burning shame for their ineptitude, impotence, and total inability to function in the modern world -- and yet, an equally strong desire to *be somebody* in that world. They aren't the first idiots to decide suicide is preferable to shame.

It's that shame that feeds mass suicide. And a full-scale war with the West would be exactly that. So if we'd like to avoid such a war (and I sure would) then we have to help them overcome their shame. The best way to do that is to help them do something they can be proud of. I'd say liberating their own countries from brutal kleptocrats and scheming, dishonest clerics would fit the bill nicely -- even by their own very different standards.

And that's why, above, I said "for now." Only "for now" is Islam incompatible with freedom. Islam is being reinterpreted (as it has been many times in the past). If we quake in terror at their demand that they be allowed to dominate others, Islam will be reinterpreted into an uncompromising revolutionary jihad, leading to an all-out war of annihilation. If we stand firm and simultaneously offer help to those who wish to join the modern world on terms of mutual forbearance, then Islam will be reinterpreted to permit that rejoining.

It's up to them, but it's also very much up to us.

The only reason the Muslim world has any power-projection capability into the western world is that we let them in through the front door because we mistakenly believe that the principles of our internal freedom do not permit significant immigration restrictions. In fact, as we've seen, our own freedom is reduced because the faux freedom of open borders lets in a bunch of people that want to kill us. Hence, we endure Jersey barriers and airport searches because we do not undertake the smaller imposition of deporting unreliable foreigners.

Is anyone really worried about a Saudi or Al Qaeda jet attack across the Atlantic? Does anyone think this is very likely if we were not involving ourselves in such a volatile part of the world? Does anyone think without terrorism these people could do anything to us or that our physical remoteness from the Middle East would protect us if we shut down our borders from these people?

There is something Orwellian going on here. Bush and his supporters often state, "Our enemies hate us because we're free." And this is true, to a point. Our freedoms and way of life do indeed differ from Islamic and other regimes which differ from ours, and they may threaten them to the extent they offer a seductive alternative. But to the extent our way of life is self-contained, it need not create mortal conflict. Free societies without significant Muslim populations and without significant contacts with the Muslim world are not facing Muslim terrorism, e.g, Switzerland, Japan. The problem is that the whole range of human social organizations that differ from our own are potentially targeted by Bush's "freedom" crusade. Because, for Bush, freedom is not merely a lack of governmental restraints at home--a nonthreatening political goal--but rather a view of the superiority of U.S. institutions and the U.S. duty to impose such systems on other societies, with force if necessary. This is a utopian and stupid goal that will make us less free over time. We'll be less free from the expense of these crusades and we'll be less free because of the increased security needed from the enemies that we're stirring up. And we'll undertake these efforts indefinitely as they run into the incompatible Muslim culture. So-called conservatives are promoting and undertaking the most massive social engineering experiment ever. Think about that.

The Muslim world was quiescent and ignored the US until our increased involement after 1967. Going on the offensive is not always the best policy and is often the worst way to leverage one's strenghts. Read some Clausewitz.

Empires fail because they become overextended. And they make lots of enemies and our confused that others don't want what they're selling. We're going to follow down the same dead end as the British Empire if we're not careful. And we're likely to be just as luckless in the Middle East. This stuff needs to stop and real American patriots need to remember the counsel of George Washington about foreign entangelements.

John Quincy Adams said it best in his 1821 Independence Day address:

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

"But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

"She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

"She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

"She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

"She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

"The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit...."

Instead of Washington and Adams, Bush and the neoconservatives sound like Wilson and FDR. Some conservatives. What a joke.

Roach,

Our way of life depends on a global economy. The only way to isolate ourselves and withdraw fully overseas is to do away with much of the open-ness that leads to our freedom, from an economic standpoint anyway.

If we cease all engagement with the Muslim world, our standards of living will decline. Freedom means economic freedom and its attendant prosperity as well.

On the other hand if we continue our involvement with the Muslim world, it is difficult to then not attempt to convince them of the soundness of the philosophy manifest in the fact of our power.

So, do you advocate something akin to isolationism and disengagement, or do I read you wrong?

JQ Adams' words are powerful, but the opportunities afforded by open commerce and communication today would have boggled his mind.

We get one thing from the Middle East, oil, and even that we don't get much of because it's a worldwide market. I'm happy to pay the price of requiring that oil to go through third parties or heightened security vice the $250B/year price tag of what we're doing in Iraq.

I'm advocating strategic disengagement, yes. I favor free trade, but it's not the be all and end all. And its benefits are quantifiable as are the costs of terorism. The mideast has an African-sized economy. I think to trade with Japan and Europe does not require the exact same treatmenet of the single-commodity Middle East.

I specifically reject several premises, though, that have crept into so-called conservative discourse.

One, is the idea that democracy is always good and that all people everywhere are suited to it. This is the dumbest, most ahistorical and unconservative notion ever, stemming from the Wilsonian idealism of the early 20th Century.

Second, I reject the idea that our own freedom necessarily depends upon the freedom of others. We can trade with illiberal regimes and not be negatively affected. And we can isolate others that represent a threat. The suffering of others overseas does not hurt our freedom and welfare though our attempts to "liberate" them might affect both theirs and ours for the worse.

Finally, I reject the notion that a comprehensive solution is called for everytime a conflict comes up. Sometimes conflicts should be managed til they molify. This was our essential cold war strategy and it worked.

Which Islam are your talking about? There are several different versions and translations of koran and many different interpretions of it. To try to make some general statement about Islam is not possible.

Thanks for the great work, Chester. I thought the If-Then scenarios especially poignant. It sets up the question for a kind of reverse logic. Since the consequences of a No answer are not something that westerners are willing to consider, the answer must be Yes. There is no debate that would compel most of us westerners to even entertain the alternative, until it is proven that Yes is dead wrong, horribly wrong. The war on terror (or war in Iraq) can be looked at as an experiment. One that must work, lest my child or grandchild have to decide between fighting the Great Islamic War or praying toward the east five times daily. I believe we will succeed, because Muslims are, first of all, people. And once given a taste of freedom, people will not return to submission. I believe that if someone is given a choice between Sharia and liberty (and the person wasn’t worried about repercussions), the radical Imams would start running … for office.

Roach,

Where to begin?

"We get one thing from the Middle East, oil, and even that we don't get much of because it's a worldwide market. I'm happy to pay the price of requiring that oil to go through third parties or heightened security vice the $250B/year price tag of what we're doing in Iraq."

This makes no sense. Oil in Iraq is not the mission. Our largest supplier in the area is Saudi. The price tag you refer to has nothing to do with oil. You are correct that we don't get "much" oil from the Middle East, though 1.4 million barrels of crude per day ranks Saudi as #3. Who said we went to Iraq to get oil?

"I'm advocating strategic disengagement, yes. I favor free trade, but it's not the be all and end all."

What is strategic disengagement? Isn't that what the Bush admin already has in place? When it's strategically correct to disengage, we will. Is your plan different? Will it assume increased protection from terrorism?

And free trade IS an end all - it has certainly helped to reduce the rhetoric from China and Russia. When people are busy making a living that prospers, killing people becomes far less important.

"...the idea that democracy is always good and that all people everywhere are suited to it. This is the dumbest, most ahistorical and unconservative notion ever.."

The Bush doctrine of spreading democracy may be the only 'best' thing he left as a legacy. Bloated pork spending and sorry government size increases are making conservatives (like me) pretty unhappy. But the idea of pushing democracy on willing participants just makes sense - especially in an area that arguably has western suspicions. Saddam was not willing but the Iraqi people were - 74% approval last week of the invasion. "Unconservative?" I don't understand how that word relates. "Conservative" foreign policy always has democratic ideals as baseline.

"I reject the idea that our own freedom necessarily depends upon the freedom of others."

This is where I lose you. The entire Islamic Wahabists/Salfist theocracy doctrine includes everyone in our country -including you - dying, violently if need be. So why should we not spread the notion, at least, of liberty? If they are free the theocratic pursuit of killing us all as infidels is dramatically reduced.

"Sometimes conflicts should be managed til they molify."

I just don't see project managers providing a solution. The cold war strategy was not based or aimed at any theocratic regime complete with suicide as a foreign policy.

What you are saying in your post is "give up, give in, go home, and hope that's all we have to worry about.

A few things.

First, to reject an answer because it conflicts with some American ideal is not to engage a question intelligently. The question is what is true, not what would we like the answer to be. If the answer is that Islam and our way of life are incompatible then we should respond accordingly, as I argue, through some mechanism of separation and containment.

Second, oil is not our mission in Iraq. But part of our mission there is to spread democracy, create a model regime, and thereby spread a western way of life throughout the middle east. This is an explicit goal of the Bush administration and has assumed center stage because of the failure to find WMDs. The middle east matters and we must address it because it has oil and because some of its people want to kill us and undermine our influence in the world. One argument brought against strategic disengagement was the need for trade; and that was my response. I also reject the new "idealistic" policy based on democratization because I think it's unsustainable over time, will be too costly to impose, and will not serve our itnerests in many cases by bringing Islamists to power. You see many people don't want freedom, per se. They want to oppress their neighbors.

Bush is not engaged in strategic disengagement but deliberate, preemptive, and revolutionary engagement designed to spread liberal democracy even in countries that do not represent an immediate or direct threat to us and our interests. His stuff about staying "as long as it takes, but no longer" is nearly meaningless. Our mission is open-ended because our mission is overly ambitious. This is a radical strategy that seeks out and creates conflict and eschews stability. It's designed to "shake things up" in the sclerotic and illiberal Middle East. This is undeniable as a fact, regardless of whether this is worth the risk.

You say, "The entire Islamic Wahabists/Salfist theocracy doctrine includes everyone in our country -including you - dying, violently if need be. So why should we not spread the notion, at least, of liberty? If they are free the theocratic pursuit of killing us all as infidels is dramatically redduced . . . I just don't see project managers providing a solution. The cold war strategy was not based or aimed at any theocratic regime complete with suicide as a foreign policy."

Two problems with this analysis. One, there must be some coordination of ends and means for someone to be a real threat. If a toddler threatens to kill me, I should not then shoot it in the face because the threat is entirely hypothetical and practically zero. Likewise, in contrast to the Soviets, most of these fundamentalists and middle eastern regimes have almost no power projection capability and represent zero military threat to America. Some of their citizens represent a terror threat, but most of this can be avoided with investments in border security and immigration reform. THis is why, historically, wars were fought when there was some immanence to the threat. Often times threats dissipate without anyone doing anything. Hair-trigger reactions lead to unnecessary, costly wars and seed future wars based on revenge and (rational) fears of the necessity of preemption to our policies of preemption.

We're like Rome dealing with the Barbarians. We can secure ourselves along the equivalent of Hadrian's Wall--our borders, etc.--or we can engage in costly, temporary, and ill-conceived solutions such as raids into Daicia and Germania. Our policy at present is analgous to a Roman one that said in response to Barbarian Raids we should extend the Roman empire thousands of miles into Eastern Europe and Central Asia to whip the Barbarian menace once and for all by turning them all into good Romans, which, after all, is what all people deep down would desire to be. Rome in fact did do something like this on several occasions and found itself spending itself and its manpower into oblivion in ill conceived raids designed to solve the Barbarian problem once and for all. The modest and defensible Roman Republic became the unwieldly, decadent, and hard to defend Empire.

And the Cold War analogy is doubly apt. Communism too represented a comprehensive threatening ideology aimed at us and the whole world. Moreover, it had the benefits of modern technology and organization and nuclear weapons in contrast to most of the Islamists. Yet we won and acquired significant prestige among Eastern Europeans precisely because we did not barrel through their countries with tanks, killings lots of people, to give them the gift of democracy.

There is something in this world called nationalism. People naturally do not like their lives and the events of their lives controlled by strangers, even when those strangers are motivated by the purest motives. Something being imposed from without by soldiers at gunpoint doesn't always feel like a gift. Iraqis, you are right, wanted Saddam gone and are generally grateful for that. But most want us gone now too. There's such a thing as overstaying one's welcome.

We tried your "true conservative" isolationist policies after WWI, Roach. All we got for our efforts was a brief boom, followed by a long, world-wide crash. During both, we ignored the rise of a number of ugly totalitarian regimes. It cost us plenty to face them down later -- as the people who stood against the isolationists of that era *knew* and *said* we would ultimately have to do. It would have been far cheaper to "intervene" early, and to do so with our sleeves rolled up and ready to keep at it *forcefully,* and for the long haul.

I'm telling you and all my other isolationist friends the same thing: face it now! The price is rising exponentially, and it cannot be avoided forever -- no more than the older Fascisms, Militarisms, and Stalinisms could be avoided.

I think you would say that the material advantage of the United States is our principle and rightful concern. If so, then I agree with you on that.

As to your three "creeping premises," I think you are wrong about those.

First, if you believe "liberty" is a "natural" condition and a "birthright" to all humans, then you are kind of obliged to believe it's "good" for everybody. You may not believe liberty is a birthright, but I do, most emphatically.

And I don't want to hear a bunch of twaddle about the immorality of "imposing freedom" on anybody. In the first place, it can't be done. At least *some* of the people have to want it. In the second place, however, the United Colonies "imposed it" at gunpoint on a whole batch of people who were either hostile (Tories) or indifferent (at least a third of the inhabitants). No matter what kind of change you make in politics, it's automatically "an imposition" on somebody or other. Yer either fer it or agin' it, and I'm fer it.

Second, the idea that one person's freedom depends in some measure upon the freedom of their neighbors is a thing Americans should know to be true from their own experience: Independence, Manhood Suffrage, Abolition, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights. Each advance has removed restrictions from *both* the nominally liberated *and* their supposed "betters."

In international affairs, we started our revolution in a world in which Europe had one democracy (our enemy), a few tiny democratic city-states or cantons, a couple of creaking oligarchies, and all the rest were absolutist hereditary aristocracies. Now they're all democracies, of one sort or another (OK, Belarus is a bit behind, but...). I think it's reasonable to claim that as a dramatic improvement, both in *their* condition and in *ours.* In Latin America, too, the advance of political freedom is both good for them and good for us. Likewise in Asia. And the same (someday, oh Lord..) in Africa and the Middle East.

We can't fix it all, can't do everything, etc. etc. But I tell you that the *desired outcome* is clear, and there are clear, material reasons to desire it.

If the desired goal is freedom and we can help some but not all, then where is the best place to put our limited effort?

I think that's a legitimate question, and it speaks to your third "creeping premise" which you claim is that "a comprehensive solution is called for every time a conflict comes up." This is a straw man, as no one is suggesting any such thing. They are suggesting, rather, that the current case requires a different solution than isolating all Muslims from contact with the Western world.

If we can help some, but not all, I would say Afghanistan and Iraq were reasonable places to start helping. Lebanon may take care of itself, and who knows what will happen with Syria or Iran or Egypt or Pakistan or?

We tried ignoring them, Roach, and it simply did not work to our advantage. Now we're trying a different approach, and I hope it works out. If it doesn't, the result will be no worse than it would have been had we continued to let them stew in their own juice. That road led strait to Armageddon. This way may, too, but at least we are trying actively to create a more favorable outcome.

That's far better than hiding under the covers and wishing they'd all just go away.

We did not try true conservative policies or isolationism between WWI and WWII. For starters, WWI was itself a stupid itnervention that we never should have undertaken and in many important respects WWII followed in its wake.

Second, we undertook numerous efforts to antagonize Germany and Japan in the run up to WWII through lend-lease and the institution of boycotts. And, while I'm glad Hitler is gone and was defeated and think we had no choice after Pearl Harbor, I think the fact that we teamed up with the world's worst mass murderer to do so and left him in control of Russia and Eastern Europe in the war's wake suggests that the alternative may not have been much different and that the proper evaluation of that intervention should be a mixed one, from a purely moral perspective. We should consider whether the war was avoidable and how we would've faired without having intervened. We, that is, not a bunch of Europeans, many of whom were murdered by Stalin in the war's aftermath, in particular in Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc. More important, we left our own country with a bloated military industrial complex in the war's wake that is with us to this day. The war solidified the New Deal and did a great deal to expand our government by an order of magnitude permanently, making all of us less free.

You list a number of issues that show our freedom depends on the freedom of others, including others halfway around the world. Independence, Manhood Suffrage, Abolition, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights. For starters, some of those are "our" freedom of us is our countrymen. I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm an American. I care if Americans are enslaved or oppressed and will work to stop it because it dishonors my country and hurts those who are my natural allies. Some of those, though, have nothign to do with freedom. Suffrage? Further, I'm concerned others overseas are not free and are living in oppressive societies, but I don't think our government should throw around its weight and the public trust of our armed forces to change things if (a) it's unlikely to be successful and (b) our interests are not clearly advanced and(c) our interests may be harmed by intervention. We're just as likely to muck things up or get involved in less-than-idealistic wars--think about the Bananna Wars--then to do something useful if we start looking for reasons to intervene overseas rather than making the burden of intervention an extremely high one.

Your listing of liberal democratic progress in Europe and elsewhere is useful, but it ignores something important. In Latin America, Eastern Europe, and most of the rest of the Europe, we did not impose any regimes or transform any societies through force. Germany and Japan are the exceptions and they have numerous, important differenes from Iraq, i.e., facility with modernism, through military defeat, traditions of obedience to central authority. In the rest of those countries, democratic and liberal changes occurred through the effects of mass movements, discredited regimes, etc. It's notable those trends have largely avoided the Muslim Middle East and Pagan Africa. Why might that be? Are these societies different in important ways that warrant some restraint and humility on our part in foisting democratic change? I think so.

Just like you misdefine our pre-WWII policies as isolationist, you misdefine our pre 9/11 policies as "ignoring" the Middle East. We've been throughly involved with multiple Middle Eastern regimes long after the end of the Cold War. This has antagonized nationalists and fundamentalists, emboldened our enemies, associated us with the bad policies of both Israel and its dictatorial Arab enemies, and generally put us on Bin Laden's radar in a way we never would've been if we were not so throughly involved. So your major premise that 9/11 resulted from "isolation" and indifference is simply wrong.

And your use of patronizing strawmen characterizations of my position as "hiding under the covers" does nothing to shore up your position. I favor a strong defense. But a defense is not an offense, a global crusading never-ending serach for every country on earth that doesn't meet our standards. There are matters of degrees. There is respect for the principel of gradulaism and historical development and the inherent horror that is any war. I wouldn't invade Oman any more than I'd invade the Kingdom of Monoco in order to spread democracy unless my country were directly threatened, and any real conservative would understand that this is the best, time-tested policy of Washington, Adams, and the other Fathers of Our Country.

I noticed that none of the commenters mentioned Kurdistan. Doesn't the exception prove the rule? The problem doesn't seem to be Islam so much as Arabia, which can't be good.

I did a simple correlation awhile ago between the percent Muslim in a nation's population and its Freedom House score for political and civil repression. (The higher the score the greater the repression. Iraq-under-Saddam and N. Korea were 7s on both scores.) The correlation is about 0.6 although it has dropped by a couple of hundreths since 2001. Still, the Kurds...

"Second, he thinks that our own freedom is imperilled if other countries are illiberal and barbaric. Our first 150 years as a free society should dispel this notion."

Earlier America was not eggsackly liberal for blacks, Mexicans, and whatnot.

Earlier America was emphatically Christian, white, and proud of it.

Oh, please, like oceans are significant protection in an age of jet aircraft and ballistic missles.

Or hordes of Muslim immigrants.

"Second, he thinks that our own freedom is imperilled if other countries are illiberal and barbaric. Our first 150 years as a free society should dispel this notion."

Earlier America was not eggsackly liberal for blacks, Mewxicans, and whatnot.

Earlier America was emphatically Christian, white, and proud of it.

Oh, please, like oceans are significant protection in an age of jet aircraft and ballistic missles.

Or hordes of Muslim immigrants.

You can put me in moving towards the No camp. Sharia law to address one poster above is as part of Islam as Cannon Law is part of Catholicism, they co-exist as part of the faith itself. You cannot remove Sharia and still have Islam.

As someone who has studied the Middle East and its history years before 9/11, it has always been my view that Islam was the sole barrier to progress in the Middle East, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future. Islam does not lend itself to modern rational thought and reason. Islam places no emphasis on the individual or individual rights. It does not recognize independent thought, only adherence to the will of Allah and therefore is completely incompatible with Democratic cultures. One need only look at the major Islamic nations to understand what damage this "religion" has done to them. Low unemployment, low literacy, low birth rates, low self esteem, low tolerance and acceptance, the list goes on. And but for their oil wealth, these countries would be regulated to lower than third world status ala most of Africa.

When 9/11 occurred I posed the question, Is Islam to blame? Yes is the answer to that question, no is the answer to the question this post poses.

Chris Roach, I've really enjoyed reading your comments. You know I disagree with many of them, but I don't consider them shallow, trivial, or unthoughtful.

I'm inclined to agree with you that the U.S. might better have stayed out of WWI. But we did have a serious problem. By early 1917 we had loaned so much money to Britain and her allies that some feared a British defeat (and default) would bankrupt major sectors of American finance. In my view, it was the prospects of the high cost to American interests of a German victory that tipped the scales in favor of intervention. From this perspective, the "Zimmerman telegram" and Lusitania sinking were only slightly more than window dressing.

Of course, it's impossible to say what might have happened if we had stayed out. For all you or I can prove to the contrary, it might have led to Communist revolutions sweeping all of Europe. Who knows? My favored outcome would have been that they all call a truce and return to the status quo ante, but I'll admit that, too, seems far-fetched. Everything seems "far-fetched" -- except what actually happened. (and sometimes even that...)

My real point is this:

The "splendid isolation" of Independence Day, 1821 is simply not available to us anymore. That degree of separation from the rest of the world is NOT POSSIBLE. It's as gone as the "wild frontier." It's gone, Chris, never to return. I do lament them both, I promise you, I do.

It was already long gone in 1916, though we contrived then, and for a time after, to pretend it was not.

The only sense in which it is even remotely reasonable to assert that U.S. foreign policy in the 1920's and most of the 1930's was not "isolationist," is to set an extremely high standard for what is "truly isolationist," then say (as you appear to do) that actual policy was not isolationist enough.

Your ideal appears to be Switzerland. Heavily fortified neutrality may work -- for those who are willing, with the most perfect indifference, to "make themselves useful" to every moneyed thug on earth, and who have nothing of value to steal which they will not sell for an attractive price. I'm not sure the United States in the 21st Century can play that game to its advantage -- even if it should wish to.

I give place to no one in the degree of respect I have for the intelligence and wisdom of the revolutionaries who founded this republic. But the policies of Washington and Adams, like those of Jefferson and Jackson and Lincoln, were suited to the material facts of their time and place.

The doctrine of "no entangling alliances" was designed for a weak and divided nation, attempting to forge some unity despite tremendous internal conflicts (that did, at last, tear it apart), and at the same time, one presented with an interior wilderness of unparalleled wealth and opportunity. To face outward, in those circumstances, would have been the most criminal folly. Adams, Washington, even Jefferson and Jackson understood this situation completely, and they acted accordingly.

Their "good policy" was right for the circumstances, but it was just that and no more. The policy of "no entangling alliances" does not have anything even remotely like the moral standing of the ideal of "Liberty." Regardless of how you feel about either one, the two are different orders of things. A policy is tied completely to the exigencies of the moment. An ideal is a permanent signpost that always guides in the same direction, regardless of your own path or pace.

"Defense" and "offense" are integral parts of any strategy. Since you've read Clausewitz, you know that very well. You also know that no static defense can withstand a determined attack for more than a short time. There must be an active "offensive" component. Defenses only buy time. Those who cannot use that time to mount a successful counter-attack are doomed, and always will be.

If we stand on the defense only, we will lose a great deal, and probably more than you think.

I agree we have limited resources and limited opportunities, and must therefore employ what little we have to best effect.

But a policy of withdrawing behind our defenses and rely solely on conflicts between our potential enemies to forestall a fatal or a damaging blow from any one of them would be as foolish now as it was brilliant 200 years ago. We were a small target then, and more useful to the Colossus of the Age as a free country than we had been as their colony. We conquered a continent at our leisure, secure in the shadow of Britain for almost a century -- just as Western Europe has taken her ease in our shadow these last 50 years.

We're in the world, Chris, and there's no hiding place for us -- so large, so powerful, and so rich from a web of commerce embracing the planet. Since we cannot escape, we must do what we can to shape the world to our liking. There is no way out for us but through. I'd rather get "through" to a world in which people are most concerned with their local affairs and their local politics than to try (in vain) to abandon it all, go home, and leave it to others to set the rules -- along with the tempo and direction of change -- in global arenas where all actors, including ourselves, must prosper or fail.

To withdraw -- perhaps only to watch a grand coalition formed to topple the "new Colossus," that a pack of jealous hounds may divide the spoils. Or do you think Men so kind and filled with such forbearance that "that could never happen!"? They will follow their interests, and agonize over their ideals, just as we do. Our success depends absolutely on finding, supporting, and even in creating, actors whose interests (and ideals) are compatible with our own.

It's a tough situation, but I think some measure of active, outward, aggressive effort to foster changes we deem favorable to both our ideals and our material interests is very much in order. Indeed, I think it is our only course.

Well, Mark T, I've enjoyed this discussion as well.

I guess I don't agree with the propostion that we can't insulate ourselves from the world. We were less able to do so in 1787 than we are now. We were weaker, more able to be bullied by European powers, fought wars with one of them again in 1812, less defensible, with an open insecure frontier, etc. But we stuck to our guns, not coming under the protection of, nor the influence of, a foreign regime. Are we not better able to defend ourselves now, if we were to adopt a defensive strategy, that put troops on our borders (and also forward deployed) with an eye to our own interests and not just "international stability" or whatever neverending goal adopted by the folks in DC. I suppose we were less of a likely target than, but it seems we were low hanging fruit then as well, compared to today.

Switzerland is, more or less, my model and nothing in that model requires us to "do business with thugs." It just requires us not to take sides in every morally debatable conflict in the world, and, likewise, it requires us not to send troops all over the place other than under the most dire conditions.

The ideological compulsion to intervene overseas was present in the founding as well. This was the impetus behind the pro-French Revolution Jacobin clubs that sprang up over much of the US. Then, like today, it was argued a free society that can assist another revolutionary movement overseas should do so.

I agree in principle with you that we must defend our interests. I define those interests narrowly. In particular, I don't think that our strong interest is in promoting "democracy" overseas, particularly in barbaric parts of the world where the majorities of the people hate us. We might want to promote liberalism and the rule of law, but the two are often at odds, as understood by conservatives ranging from John Adams, Henry Maine, Burke, and even liberals like Fareed Zakaria. That is, "liberty" and "majority rule" are often at odds, both historically and particularly in the toxic cultures of the Middle East.

This argument does come back to globalization and capitalism (and thus to oil in the middle east) because that is often raised as the chief reason we can't "run away" from our international responsibilities. Well, guess what, with or without our intervention markets can handicap risk whether it's of nationalization or terrorism or pirates or whatever. There's no reason our own government should subsidize international trade when so many of its benefits go to foreigners, take away American jobs, or only serve the interests of a few plutocrats and international financiers. They can take their lumps when a factory in Pakistan gets blown up or their Saudi friends sell them out and maybe think twice next time about investing with such unreliable folks when civilized EUropeans and Japanese and their own countrymen are eager for jobs and capital investment.

If we can help some, but not all, I would say Afghanistan and Iraq were reasonable places to start helping.

The vague, collective "we."

Another chickenhawk ready for US soldiwers and Marines -- not him -- to free the world.

Glad you asked a piercing question.

I had a few others posed on the Belmont Club blog:

The heavy-hitting questions are rarely asked of Fifth Column muslim apologists, but they should be - and if they were, the answers would be revealing - questions such as:

Where does your loyalty reside? - is it the Nation that you have adopted, that has sheltered you? that you live in? or is it an alien movement, with foreign leaders, under cover of religion?

Can a Buddhist Temple, a Christian Church, a Jewish Synagogue or a Hindu Temple be built in Mecca?

Why should others be tolerant of a religion whose ultimate goal is the domination of others and the establishment of intolerance or submission for the others?

More piercing questions to be asked.

Enough with the "chickenhawk" BS David. If you've got an argument against his post then make it. I am sick and damned tired of hearing that strawman BS.

Make your argument or STFU! And yeah, that's a hot button. Although the vast majority of civvies do not sacrifice in this war means nothing to their ability to debate it either pro or con. I believe we've buried quite a few Marines that gave their lives for that very fact. Don't trod on that sacrifice. Ever!

We are rapidly heading to a "no" Chester. The #1 reason why? Ignorance. That is what we are fighting more than a religion. That and our tolerance is taken as a sign of weakness. Better to simply take them out then continue to sacrifice combating an archaic law and religion founded, based, and propagated through ignorance.

Someone mentioned the reality based feeling of "shame" that drives a large portion of the jihadis. Dead on the money with that one. But it is shame born of ignorance and mired in poverty. Our efforts are not in vain and the base roots of freedom have already taken hold. Further rebuilding of the education system will do nothing but enhance our chances of success.

Believing in the "yes" but preparing for the "no". JMHO.

I would recommend "The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat" by Roger Scruton; explains it all in detail.

"shame born of ignorance and mired in poverty. Our efforts are not in vain and the base roots of freedom have already taken hold. Further rebuilding of the education system will do nothing but enhance our chances of success."

Is this really true. Look at Bin Laden and also the 9/11 terrorists; they're all highly educated, in some cases with graduate degrees. Bin Laden was rich. This is not a matter of poverty but of ideas, and the extremely aggressive ideas of Islam.

Good point Roach but let's look at it. The leadership of Al Qaeda are highly intelligent fanatics. They draw their support and protection from the common man who in turn is highly uneducated and easily led. The common tribe is generally highly uneducated and lives, and dies, by Sharia Law. I believe those facts are indisputable.

As far as the "insurgents" in Iraq are concerned that is really quite a show of ignorance. Think about it for a minute. The Sunnis are the ones killing our men and women. We are the ONLY thing standing in the way of them being wiped off the face of the planet. Hence, they are biting the hand that protects them. Anyway you look at that it is simply ignorant. And desperation. $400 to place an IED vs $400 for an entire month in the IA or nothing at all due to the lack of an economy in Iraq. Not much of a decision is it?

The Imams and leadership have, and always will, fight any attempt to educate their people. Hussein selectively educated the Sunni ruling class but other than his favorites there was little done for the common man. Al Qaeda does nothing for an area it inhabits except spread enough money to buy protection. The seniors of Al Qaeda are typical cowards and use the ignorant to do their fighting. The fanatical they use as suicide bombers. It is simply easy to sway the masses if those masses cannot think on their own.

So yeah to your point that the leadership of Al Qaeda would not even come close to being labeled as ignorant, not so for the vast majority of their following.

Yes, we will complete the mission. Once we establish a strong educational system and the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan can produce a thriving economy you will see a total decline in the number of attacks. This is not something that is going to happen overnight and your idea of isolationism is a complete and total waste. If you remove the battle from the center of terrorism you are doing nothing more than shfiting the battlefield to our homeland. Period. No amount of lockdown anywhere will stop it. They can and will infiltrate our shores with relative ease. Unless of course you are advocating surrendering our entire way of life and living in a police state. Even then terrorism will come home to roost.

So I guess we could equate intellignece within the upper echelon of Al Qaeda with the "intelligent elite" of our own society, college professors, MSM moguls, leftist politicians, et al, and their intelligent position on surrender and appeasement. Either will get you killed. Appeasement was the policy that brought down the towers.

One other small item you misrepresented; the war against communism was not won by containment and appeasement as you stated. It was won by attrition and strength when Reagan built our warfighting capabilities to the point the Soviet Union could not match. The only way we survive the next generation is through strength and destroying those that would attack us. There is no way any type of isolation policy will work even if we were willing to give up all our freedoms to promote the idea. You would simply destroy the very way of life you want to protect by trying to hunker down and stay on any form of defense. That's not a promise I want to make to my grandchildren!

With regard to the oil comments: the majority of petroleum imports come from Canada, the Middle East is a relatively minor player for us, it's impact on other countires and their inter-related economies is the significant questions here.
The more radical versions of Islam (I prefer the Suffis, whom almost nobody mentions) seem to appeal mostly to tribal cultures. One important question in this might be whether the situation with the radicals is primarily a function of these cultures overlaying the religion or vice versa. Egyptian officers I talked to during my tour over there regarded the Saudis and other religious extremists as backward and unsophisticated, much in the fashion that members of obscure and bizarre Christian cults are seen by many here.
As far as the chickenhawk thing goes, I've been there once and have a resume in with the reconstruction office presently.

Good point Roach but let's look at it. The leadership of Al Qaeda are highly intelligent fanatics. They draw their support and protection from the common man who in turn is highly uneducated and easily led. The common tribe is generally highly uneducated and lives, and dies, by Sharia Law. I believe those facts are indisputable.

As far as the "insurgents" in Iraq are concerned that is really quite a show of ignorance. Think about it for a minute. The Sunnis are the ones killing our men and women. We are the ONLY thing standing in the way of them being wiped off the face of the planet. Hence, they are biting the hand that protects them. Anyway you look at that it is simply ignorant. And desperation. $400 to place an IED vs $400 for an entire month in the IA or nothing at all due to the lack of an economy in Iraq. Not much of a decision is it?

The Imams and leadership have, and always will, fight any attempt to educate their people. Hussein selectively educated the Sunni ruling class but other than his favorites there was little done for the common man. Al Qaeda does nothing for an area it inhabits except spread enough money to buy protection. The seniors of Al Qaeda are typical cowards and use the ignorant to do their fighting. The fanatical they use as suicide bombers. It is simply easy to sway the masses if those masses cannot think on their own.

So yeah to your point that the leadership of Al Qaeda would not even come close to being labeled as ignorant, not so for the vast majority of their following.

Yes, we will complete the mission. Once we establish a strong educational system and the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan can produce a thriving economy you will see a total decline in the number of attacks. This is not something that is going to happen overnight and your idea of isolationism is a complete and total waste. If you remove the battle from the center of terrorism you are doing nothing more than shfiting the battlefield to our homeland. Period. No amount of lockdown anywhere will stop it. They can and will infiltrate our shores with relative ease. Unless of course you are advocating surrendering our entire way of life and living in a police state. Even then terrorism will come home to roost.

So I guess we could equate intellignece within the upper echelon of Al Qaeda with the "intelligent elite" of our own society, college professors, MSM moguls, leftist politicians, et al, and their intelligent position on surrender and appeasement. Either will get you killed. Appeasement was the policy that brought down the towers.

One other small item you misrepresented; the war against communism was not won by containment and appeasement as you stated. It was won by attrition and strength when Reagan built our warfighting capabilities to the point the Soviet Union could not match. The only way we survive the next generation is through strength and destroying those that would attack us. There is no way any type of isolation policy will work even if we were willing to give up all our freedoms to promote the idea. You would simply destroy the very way of life you want to protect by trying to hunker down and stay on any form of defense. That's not a promise I want to make to my grandchildren!