I tore an article by Ralph Peters out of the New York Post a couple of weeks ago (Moment of Truth: Islamo-fascist terror could trigger a brutal western response, Aug. 20, 2006). I've held onto the scrap for awhile just so I could have time to sufficiently digest it--for believe me, I had trouble keeping it down. A bizarre, threatening screed, skipping blithely from absurdity to delusion with scarcely a pause for breath, the piece is nonetheless illustrative of a particular conservative mindset. In a time of uncertainty such as the present, it is in analyzing the thought patterns of such as commentators Peters' that we can renew our own sense of purpose and moral certitude.
Though perhaps irrelevant to my purposes here, the theme of Peters' piece is, basically, that the Islamic people had better get their act together or dire consequences will follow.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the piece is the way in which Peters seeks to dehumanize the Islamic people. Implying that Muslims think in an inferior manner, he says, "...only the Israelis have intellectual and moral integrity. Arabs and Persians rely on a culture of blame." Furthermore, Muslims don't think things through; instead, they "...continue to pursue grand, counterproductive gestures rather than effective actions." This is much different from how Americans and Europeans think. The people of the Occident know how to reason properly, since, "...our debates and disagreements are about how best to solve the problem." (Hooray for us! We westerners have all mastered the art of the syllogism. Thank heavens Islam preserved the writings of Aristotle for us when we were sunk in the dark ages.)
Anyway, this is a variation of the "those people don't value human life" argument, which is then used as justification for depriving the soul-less wretches of their own worthless lives. Peters' position represents a failure to grasp that Muslims may--rather than not being able to reason properly--simply disagree with us in matters of substance.
The idea of a "culture of blame" is also illuminating: it makes me wonder when our vaunted Western culture will ever take responsibility for its role in the problems of the middle east. We prop up brutal monarchies and oligarchies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and dictatorships like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, so we can continue to wallow in gas-guzzling profligacy. It's a lot easier to blame Islam for 9-11, rather than to face up to the fact that our government's policies have a lot to do with why we were attacked.
Sometimes it's difficult to determine whether conservatives are deluded, or whether they are engaging in shrewd psychological warfare, hoping that if they repeat a falsehood enough times it will overwhelm people's remembrance of the truth. Peters states that, "The western mood is turning from disbelief regarding the 'terrorist threat' to hard-knuckled realism about extremist Islam." This is a curious statement, given that the majority of the people in the U.S. (seemingly) bought the republican party line after 9-11, going along with Bush's senseless attacks on what he thought to be defenseless countries. It was only later that most people began to question the rush to war.
In another instance of revisionism, Peters hints that we're winning the war in Iraq, and that Al Qaeda has suffered serious losses in Iraq and Afghanistan--which would probably be news to them. He says, "...if the people of Iraq will not seize the opportunity we gave them...it won't be an American defeat, but another self-inflicted Arab disaster..." Self-inflicted?! Well, in case you've forgotten, we lost in Vietnam, and we're going to lose this one too. It's not so easy to defeat a people in their own country these days, especially a people who you've previously armed to the teeth. By staying in Iraq longer we are just going to make our inevitable humiliation all the worse.
Hilariously, as a solution to the problems in Iraq, Peters calls for moderation, for a moderate secular government. (Ironically, that's exactly what a lot of us are calling for in the U.S.) He wants a government, in other words, that doesn't oppress women or execute children or the retarded, a government not run according to the dictates of an ancient text. Isn't this otherwise what's known as a liberal government? Yes, gee whiz, those liberals are a bit more reasonable, aren't they?
But of course: the liberals in Iraq have probably even studied logic. But if we wanted a liberal government, why did we encourage Saddam Hussein by loading him up with weapons and money? Why did we dump the secularist Baath party? Why are we now trying to put a bunch of right wing Shiite clerics in power? It seems we specialize more in sewing discord. Too bad we can't just transport all the Christian, Jewish and Islamic fascists to Antarctica, or better yet the moon, and let them battle it out over their differing interpretations of words written thousands of years ago. More likely, one of these days they are going to realize that they all think the alike--and wipe the rest of us out. Sometimes I get the sinking suspicion that some of them have already come to this conclusion.
Peters wraps up his piece with a series of thinly-veiled threats. He says, "...the Islamists are resurrecting a militant, ruthless West." And then later he restates this as, "Islamist terrorists are reviving the West's thirst for blood."
Of course, one would think that our thirst had not only been revived following 9-11, but hopefully slaked by all the killing of innocents--and perhaps a handful actually involved in the 9-11 plotting--in Iraq and Afghanistan. But apparently not. It seems the conservatives want to work up our bloodlust so we'll continue to fight their battles for them. They are forever trying to brainwash us with lies and half truths, and I for one am sick and tired of these bozos trying to hijack my country--my America--for their own nefarious ends.
We're already at war, already killing people, so what, exactly, is Peters threatening? Escalation of conventional warfare is out of the question: Bush is not going to risk a draft since he doesn't want to be run out of town on a rail, so what are we talking about here? More bloodshed how?
Lately, the big thing seems to be to try to convince us that Iran poses a nuclear threat--that they have WMDs, in other words--sound familiar? Gee, I wonder who is really posing the "nucular" threat? Ominously, if a tad comically, Peters evokes H.P. Lovecraft to warn the Islamic people, "Do not raise up what you can't put down." But H.P. was warning against the monsters, right?
Ed Hamilton
www.hotelchelseablog.com