Consider the Source (UPDATED)
Like nuking the Vatican for the pedophilia scandal?
While we speculate idly about the nature of the attack to come, and the inability of our homeland-security forces to stop it, very few talk about what we should do post-facto if the promised disaster actually transpires. This is a surprising lapse if one believes an understood response helps in advance to create deterrence.--Victor Davis Hanson, July 6, 2004Is our reluctance to discuss the unmentionable because we think we can do nothing in response — as if there is no culpable nation-state, a toothless CIA can tell us little, we dare not upset fragile gains in Iraq, or that violence only spawns violence? In a world in which Hezbollah promises to help out with peddling Fahrenheit 9/11, the Spanish people are led by the nose by al Qaeda, and Americans lose their heads to cheers in Middle East Internet cafes, have we given the fatal impression that we would grunt a few times, flip the channel, and then do nothing after a repeat of September 11? [SNIP]
Thus the genius of the jihadists is that they provide psychological rewards on the cheap for millions in the Arab Street without costs, and in turn thrive on "credible deniability" of their tacit hosts. They smirk that postmodern Western liberality precludes Shermanesque collective punishment against the pre-modern. After all, a Christiane Amanpour can be at the front in 24 hours before a live 60-million-strong global audience to yell to U.S. troops on patrol "Don't step on that child!" — even as her husband advises the Kerry campaign back home. But do they also know that another 9/11 would throw such restraint out the window? [SNIP]
The key for the United States — in very quiet and deferential tones, in private, and to the albeit illegitimate leaders of these relevant countries — is to convey the message that if there should be a repeat of 9/11, the United States will hold any countries responsible who are proved to have aided or sheltered any of the guilty. Now what does that overused and near-meaningless phrase "hold responsible" really mean? A repeat of Afghanistan and Iraq in places like Iran or Syria? [SNIP]
Yes, another 9/11 would be a watershed event where the tragic choices in responding would entail only "bad" and "much worse." If it were to occur again, then we would have to realize that we had no foolproof ability to stop such mass terror. And if we were to accept that death sentence and do nothing, then we would also accept the sure end of our civilization as we know it. Compared to that scenario, discussing a bleak response right now doesn't seem so stupid. Keeping silent about it does.
Yes, a little over one year ago today, Mr. Hanson said the same thing that Tom Tancredo said, albeit far more artfully; that our options would be twofold in the wake of a WMD attack on us by Islamists. I’m willing to bet, however, that any disagreement accrued by Mr. Hanson’s op-ed was far more respectful than that dished out to Mr. Tancredo and to us “little people.”
In an email conversation with a well-known blogger, I opined that the rather shrill, illogical, strawman-filled and sometimes ad hominem responses to Tancredo and those who agreed with his *actual remarks* by normally intelligent and thoughtful men could stem from a certain mindset in which the detonation of a WMD never enters the picture; in which everything comes out all right; in which no one, nowhere, no how gets nuked (or gassed or dosed).
Actually I hope they keep that manner of thinking and have the chance to tell the rest of us—especially those of us who have had to make peace with being the agents of nuclear delivery—that they told us so.
Never in my life have I wanted so much to be wrong.
More from Pink Flamingo, Jawa and, appropriately enough, Allah
UPDATE: More from the little people; Instapun***k:
Imagine. Imagine not 2200 American dead and the wave of grief and anger that inspired. Imagine 100,000 Americans dead or horribly mangled and stricken by radiation. Islam's militant minority has openly targeted our highest cultural symbols. At what point do we fight fire with fire and seek victory over an implacable enemy? Have you really thought about the question?UPDATE: Reading thisInstead, you are icily superior about the words of one minor politician who has spoken what many think. Yet his words are a kind of safety valve for the endlessly patient supporters of the war on terror. It may enable them to go one more month, one more year of watching grinning two-faced mullahs stand on podiums accepting the praise of American politicians while they laugh up their sleeves and go back to another meeting of their cell.
But it will horrify and distance the good muslims? Maybe. It might also frighten them just a little. Is it so very unthinkable that the fence-sitting muslims of the world should begin to appreciate that there is an American volcano after all, one that will erupt in a fury every bit as implacable and much better armed than theirs if they carry their wishful thinking too far?
As Mr. Morrissey points out, Tancredo is not in the military chain of command. He is not making real strategy. But he is mentioning possibilities that could become very real on the day that 100,000 American mothers have to place flowers outside the contaminated square mile where the obliterated bodies of their children swirl in the radioactive breeze.
On his last visit to relatives in Pakistan this year, one of the London bombers, Shehzad Tanweer, boasted of wanting to die in a revenge attack over the way Muslims are treated. [SNIP]has caused me to re-think my opinion a bit but not revise it, not yet. I'll discuss tomorrow, but that doesn't mean that you can't beat me to the punch.Mr Saleem supported his cousin’s [Tanweer's] bombing at Aldgate station which killed seven people, saying: “Whatever he has done, if he has done it, then he has done right.” He recalled how Tanweer argued with family and friends about the need for violent retaliation over US abuse of Muslim prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
(Note for future reference: had someone spelled it out this way--verbally, of course--rather than give variations of "that's stupid" over and over again, the point would have gotten across more easily.)
(Thanks to Jeff Goldstein)
Baldilocks:
I'm sorry, I read through your Hansen excerpt above, and I didn't notice anything in there about responding to a nuclear attack from al-Qaeda by "bombing Mecca," which are the "actual remarks" to which Tancreco agreed.
Rather, when I reread the Hansen piece in toto (I read it the first time, too), I discovered several bits you inadvertently omitted... but which radically change the tenor of Hansen's remarks.
Such as this one:
"Rogue elements" that probably are not in control of Mecca.
Or this excerpt:
That sounds pretty specific and military to me; it really doesn't sound the least like Tancredo's cement-headed acquiescence to the suggestion of "bombing Mecca."
And it is precisely that imprecision that I object to, the sloppy and foolish idea that we're "at war with all Islam," so therefore, every Moslem everywhere is a legitimate target. If generic Moslems attack us, we can strike back at any other generic Moslem, without regard to whether he was involved in, or even aware of, the attack.
Yes, 15 of the 19 were Saudis... that is, fugitives from Saudi Arabia, fleeing death sentences there for previous terrorist activity. Yes, Wahhabism comes from SA, and many Wahhabist clerics in SA preach jihad; and no question, the House of Saud tolerated those people for a long time. But they are not tolerating them now; they're arresting and killing them by the thousands. Should we fling that all away, just to satisfy our tribal bloodlust by "bombing Mecca?"
What about the 3.7 million Moslems living here in the United States, nearly all of them American citizens and a huge chunk native-born American citizens. What's the solution for them... Manzanar?
I have seen this: but that's the way our enemies fight... why shouldn't we? Because we must run the world by our rules -- not by theirs. Do we want to live in their world?
Maybe we should try instead what I suggested in the very Dafydd piece you reject, echoing the very Hansen piece you prefer:
If this reads like appeasement to you, then we have very different dictionaries.
Do you see my comment as an ad hominem against Tancredo and the "little people?" I see it as pointing out the insanity -- from a military perspective -- of being struck by A, and then lashing out at B, when B -- the residents of Mecca -- had nothing to do with A's attack, didn't know it was coming, and could do nothing to stop it even if they knew.
Isn't it more intelligent and more effective to strike back at A, and at A's friends (Syria, Iran, and the brother terrorist organizations) who actually helped him, than at some irrelevant third party?
Especially when an attack on Mecca will simply turn into bitter and relentless combatants the many, many Moslems and Moslem countries that are actively helping us in our war against these terrorists; I refer to Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon (now), Saudi Arabia (now), and of course countries that are not Moslem run but have a very large population of Moslems.
Why am I wrong to write that "[real Americans] will never demand that we kill innocents to punish them for looking like our enemies?"
I totally support a massive response against the people who attacked us and those who aided and abetted them. I just want it to be against the evil-doers, not against innocent people living in the larger symbol that the terrorists themselves have already so arrogantly debased.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | July 22, 2005 at 06:58 PM
Where and how do you draw that line between "innocents" and terrorists? I believe that we're playing far too nice in this war.
If we start to see the kind of attacks London is seeing now, I favor a MERCILESS retaliation. If innocents are killed in the process... well, that crap didn't bother us in WWII and it shouldn't bother us now.
Dammit--- Sherman did that to the South at the end of the Civil War and he's revered as a hero today. War SHOULD be hell. And the terrorists should know that we'll open those gates on them if they ask for it.
Sorry for the rant, Baldi-- but I believe in fighting to win, whatever it takes.
Posted by: Acidman | July 22, 2005 at 08:48 PM
Our reliance on "smart" munitions have doomed us to this. We need to go back to grid bombing.
Posted by: Yogimus | July 22, 2005 at 09:00 PM
Dafydd: First of all, please save the adjectives like "cement-headed" for other blogs. You'll notice that I will rarely go there unless pushed.
Second of all, I didn't *inadvertently* omit anything and you well know that. Save the condescension for other blogs also. I add the points that make my point, as I do for any other article posted here and commented upon. That the link is added shows that nothing is “inadvertent.”
Thirdly, don't infer things that I didn't imply. Appeasement means to give in to the demands of an enemy. If you didn't suggest that we non-Muslims convert or die, then why would you think I said that you were talking about appeasement?
And, fourthly, if the “little people” comment doesn’t apply to you, don’t act as if it does.
Now…
After you've been attacked in a similar or worse manner as in the past you don’t respond the way you did before. Thus if Islamists up the ante past 9/11, we must also up the ante, if we are going to do *anything* besides mourn our dead.
It's pointless and silly to do otherwise because it sends a message to the enemy: that you can’t do any better or, worse, that you are afraid to do any better. The mistaken idea that the West was afraid to confront these “rogue elements” is what got us where we are in the first place.
Mr. Hanson may not have spelled out the next step, but rest assured, he knows what it is.
And…
Tancredo was specifically asked what we would probably do if we were WMD’d and he answered: that we would possibly respond in kind. That *is* indeed one of our options and has been for a long time for anyone who nuked/gassed/dosed us. He never said whether the option was a good one or a bad one. (BTW, it was Pat Campbell who spelled out *bombing* Mecca, not Tancredo.)
The thing is, Dafydd, we are not dealing with the type of enemy who cares about the usual things on the usual scale (land). They don’t care about national borders. They do care about Mecca and they care about spreading Islam throughout the entire world. Were they to possess a dirty bomb and learn its secrets, they’d use it to demoralize the non-Muslim world and break its will to resist. (And I’d like to know how you know whether or not these rogue elements are in control of Mecca. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, but flat statements like that need backup.) And, just as was so in any other war, any and all methods of demoralizing the enemy to the point of ceasing to make war must be considered. Not used, but considered. (And as you, of course, know, lots of innocent folk died in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden.)
As for your questions about the Muslims here, I don’t have answers there, nor did I suggest any. You, however, did.
Yes, I also reject the idea that we are making our war on Islam; we wouldn’t be conducting OEF/OIF in the manner that we are if that was so. That, however, does not preclude the notion that certain parts of Islam are making war on us (along with their own if they don’t dance to the Islamist tune; see today’s headlines).
Demonstrably, however, Tancredo’s remarks have no bearing whatsoever on how much certain segments of Islam hate us. If anything, they make it less likely that a dirty bomb will be detonated here. Osama said that “reasonable” people backed the strong horse, not the reasonable horse or the sweet-talking horse. It’s not a reasoning that you or I would use, but that’s not what we care about anyway.
As for the last quoted Hanson piece, it doesn’t change anything; he merely gives *other* options.
Question: if a dirty bomb is detonated in, say, Miami, what do *you* think should be our response and how should we limit that response?
Posted by: baldilocks | July 22, 2005 at 09:00 PM
What on earth makes you think insane maniacs who have perverted the Islamic religion be hindered by the threat of nuking Mecca? If this silly and juvenile threat was actually made it would do is probably inspire the terrorist further. Plus Dafydd ab Hugh is right except I would go further in calling this a nuclear version of lynching by Racists; killing random people because they happen to belong to the same group as someone suspected of committing a crime. If history shows anything Trancredo comments have probably further motivated their deranged world view and increased their recruitment. Don't their deranged threats motivate us? But in the end the premise is just plain juvenile. The discussion between Trancredo and Hewitt is roughly the equivalent of two 6 year olds debating whether or not Batman could beat up Aqua man. If I lived in Trancreado's district I would be embarrassed.
Posted by: Bill O.. | July 23, 2005 at 05:54 AM
Baldilocks:
Second of all, I didn't *inadvertently* omit anything and you well know that. Save the condescension for other blogs also. I add the points that make my point, as I do for any other article posted here and commented upon. That the link is added shows that nothing is “inadvertent.”
No, you can't skate by on that. It's one thing to omit points in a quoted piece that have nothing to do with your arguement. But it's utterly, completely wrong to omit points that contradict your argument.
You adduced the Hansen piece to buttress your demur to my position (Hugh's position) -- but you failed to quote passages that made it clear that Hansen was in fact arguing the exact, same position held by Hugh and me, in contradistinction to yours.
And now, you veer into the realm of the psychic, writing "Mr. Hanson may not have spelled out the next step, but rest assured, he knows what it is." Perhaps he does, but do you? Clearly, you assume that his "next step" would be to upend what he, himself openly said was his next step and instead turn around and nuke Mecca. That suggestion is odd, to say the least.
He never said whether the option was a good one or a bad one.
Baldilocks, this is intellectually lame. You're paraphrasing Tancredo's own "modified limited hangout" when he realized the enormity of what he had suggested. If Tancredo were just "throwing out possibilities," as he subsequently suggested, then why was that the only possiblity he suggested?
Demonstrably, however, Tancredo’s remarks have no bearing whatsoever on how much certain segments of Islam hate us. If anything, they make it less likely that a dirty bomb will be detonated here.
What makes you think that, Baldilocks? Why not imagine that it might enflame the non-terrorist Moslem world while simultaneously encouraging the terrorists to push us into just such an insane overreaction, precisely in order to turn the war into America vs. The Rest of the World?
More to the point, as the step you advocate -- rather, the step you applaud Tancredo for advocating, even while you absurdly claim he was only suggesting possiblities -- as that step is irrevocable and affects all the rest of us in unpredictable but potentially ghastly ways... wouldn't it be a good idea to think a second, third, and fifteenth time before going on the air and "throwing it out there?"
What will be the reaction of the terrorists to Tancredo's statement? Why is this any different than Dick Durbin just "tossing out there" the idea that Gitmo is a Nazi death camp, a Soviet gulag, and a Khmer Rouge killing field all rolled into one? Both are extreme, bizarre, and utterly unsourced ramblings whose major purpose appears to be gaining another "fifteen minutes" for the media-obsessed speakers.
I'm sorry you don't like perfectly descriptive adjectives, but Tancredo's musings were simply nutso, and they are likely to have a very bad impact on American foreign and military interests. At the very least, Bush and Rice will have to waste precious time explaining to our allies, Moslem, Christian, and Jewish, that Tancredo doesn't speak for anybody but himself, and that the United States has no policy to bomb Mecca if we're hit by al-Qaeda, which is currently based in Iraq and Pakistan with lots of help from Iran and Syria.
Question: if a dirty bomb is detonated in, say, Miami, what do *you* think should be our response and how should we limit that response?
Baldilocks, I already answered this in my first comment. As did Victor David Hansen in the very piece you cited -- and which I explictly quoted in my comment.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | July 23, 2005 at 06:32 AM
Dafydd, sorry but I don't agree.
After all, this is a clash of civilizations, not regimes, and the capital of islam is mecca & the black rock.
If 2 billion muslims realize that if the US gets WMD'd by their radicals our response would be to prove that allah is a liar and thus does not exist. They are then left with 2 options: 1) their allah is stroner than us, therefore they need not fear us and in fact the moderates would get off the fence and push us; 2) they don't want to test that possibility and the moderates would get off the fence and shut down the radicals.
In either case, one of their pillars of faith is instantly crumbled once mecca and that stupid meteorite gets defiled. After all allah has promised that no infidel could EVER defile the rock. If allah is proven wrong, on on earth would anyone but the most deranged continue to fight for a lying allah?
Of course some mullahs will try to spin some new fatwa claiming the rock was destroyed 'inshallah'. But I don't think most muslims will be buying it, because if allah was wrong about his pet rock, then what if he was wrong about paradise and that 72 Virginians wouldn't be waiting for them instead of virgins?
Whether we would actually do so is of course subject to the particulars of our being WMD'd, but it never hurts to let them know the option is on the table. And short of being WMD'd every new act of terror inflicted on us will result in emargoing the homeland of the attackers, ie, the homeland faithful don't get to go to mecca until they crack down on their radicals.
Idle speculation; but I wonder if after holding hands with the last Saudi prince to visit his ranch, I wonder if Bush didn't lay down some ultimatum that SA could not afford to ignore? Because it seems to me that SA all of a sudden started getting proactive to rooting out the radicals at home, where before there was just a token reaction to every incident.
Likewise I see no disadvantage of Israel making it plain that if they get WMD'd, the dome on the rock is going down and all the gold on it will be used to pay for the operation that took it down.
That's just hardball. If the muslims are that stupid, bring it on, but rest assured that 2 billion people are going to seek post-traumatic counseling for a religion that was self-destructed by their stupidity. The upside of course is that enough people would be rational enough to rout out the rot within their faith.
Again, I sincerely doubt that people will pursue jihad for a religion that was just proven to be 'crack for the masses'.
Posted by: AH·C | July 23, 2005 at 10:29 AM
"Again, I sincerely doubt that people will pursue jihad for a religion that was just proven to be 'crack for the masses'."
Sounds kind of Marxist to me...if waht you say is plausable is not Christianity crack for the masses?
Posted by: Bill O.. | July 23, 2005 at 01:09 PM
Nuking Mecca? I say lets dispense with waiting for something "dirty" to be detonated here. Let's just do it now when they least expect it. With vim and vigor. Bluster and bravado. They will learn how serious they are when they see the radioactive, smoking stink that was once the center of Islam. Appealing I say. And if one of them get brave and dirty bomb The Vatican, we American will be upset but it won't stop Christianity (since we all know that the center of Christianity is America not the stuffy Vatican).
I wonder if the great Power on High has seen this all coming. A great war between factions with unquestioned faith in Him? Each constantly blowing things up in hopes of making the other side concede. Well both sides have said that the Almighty guides them. And who are we to get in the way of the Almighty. So let the good times roll!
Posted by: T-Steel | July 23, 2005 at 01:44 PM
One problem, T-Steel: we're not blowing up people lying on the beach in vacation spots or on their way to work unless you count terrorists on their way to blowing something up.
Dafydd: no worries, I haven't forgotten you.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 23, 2005 at 01:57 PM
Baldilocks:
After all, this is a clash of civilizations, not regimes, and the capital of islam is mecca & the black rock....
If 2 billion muslims realize....
[I]t never hurts to let them [Muslims] know....
[T]he homeland faithful don't get to go to mecca until they crack down....
If the muslims are that stupid....
2 billion people [Muslims] are going to seek post-traumatic counseling....
Baldilocks -- you are a collectivist. You simply do not see Moslems as individuals; to you, they exist as an undifferentiated mass. One Moslem is the same as any other Moslem.
They all look alike.
I am stunned that you don't see this in yourself and see how this drives your barely suppressed glee at the thought of "bombing Mecca." T-Steel's sarcasm -- "let's just do it now when they least expect it" -- doesn't come out of nowhere, Baldilocks; that is exactly how you are coming off in this thread.
How did you feel about the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Was that wrong only because the wrong religion was targetted?
If we're hit with WMD by Jamal Islamiya, we nuke Mecca -- ignoring the fact that JI is Indonesian, and they don't even speak Arabic. But hey, one Moslem is as good a target as any other.
If the attacks persist, we can follow up by taking out the Aswan high and low dams in Egypt; that oughta kill several million of the buggers in the Nile River delta. If that doesn't stop those pesky Indonesian terrorists, we can always go after Istanbul, where I hear there are a lot of Moslems. And don't forget the Kuwaiti oil fields -- that would put a crimp in Moslem finances!
Other targets to retaliate against Jamal Islamiya could include Teheran; we'll kill the mullahs. Of course, there's the minor matter of the fourteen million Iranians living there, most of whom hate the mullahs and love America -- oh, but they're Moslems. Never mind.
And let us not forget what was considered the capital of Arabic culture even before the rise of Islam: Baghdad! The Caliph of Baghdad was for centuries the greatest religious leader in all Islam. We can always spare a nuke or two for Baghdad, which is just crammed full of Moslems.
My God, Baldilocks. How thankful I am that people who think like you and Tom Tancredo do not determine our military policy. But I am terribly saddened to realize how deep the collectivist infection has spread, even within the blogosphere.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | July 23, 2005 at 03:26 PM
And you, Dafydd, cannot read; I never said any of those things. If you are going to deploy the ad hominem argument, the least you can do is figure out who said what.
Enough.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 23, 2005 at 03:33 PM
Me sarcastic? Yup!
You are right Baldilocks. We don't blow up "people lying on the beach in vacation spots or on their way to work unless you count terrorists on their way to blowing something up". But in the Universal Scheme, that doesn't matter. Our primary goal is eliminate radical Islamist terrorism, correct? Doesn't matter how you get there. It's the getting there that counts. All this yipping and yapping. I say let loose the Dogs Of War and see where they lead. Let's get our crusade on. Yep, it's a crusade so let's stop kidding ourselves. Crusading isn't a bad thing as long as your honest about it. The terrorist got their Jihad workin' so it's time for us to get our Crusade workin'.
You'll feel good in the morning knowing that our Knights are converting the savages. C'mon! Work with me here.
Posted by: T-Steel | July 23, 2005 at 05:09 PM
For Dayfdd,
What was your position on conducting bombing during Ramadan in Afghanistan?
If you supported it, why? And how do you distinguish that position from your opposition to the "Tancredo option"?
If the argument against Tancredo is that "it will make more Muslims angry"--how then do you justify bombing during Ramadan?
Posted by: Christopher Cross | July 23, 2005 at 05:52 PM
I think Scientology could solve this whole problem. Katie, don't you agree? Katie? Katie!!!!
Posted by: t. cruise | July 23, 2005 at 07:37 PM
Christopher Cross:
What was your position on conducting bombing during Ramadan in Afghanistan?
If you supported it, why? And how do you distinguish that position from your opposition to the "Tancredo option"?
If the argument against Tancredo is that "it will make more Muslims angry"--how then do you justify bombing during Ramadan?
No, my argument against Tancredo is that we do not intentionally kill hundreds of thousands of civilians simply because they happen to be Moslem, because they kind of "look like" our enemies, knowing they had nothing to do with whatever attack we're responding to.
I applaud the fact that we continue to fight on Ramadan or any other Moslem holiday. I couldn't care less if their feelings are hurt.
But I do care, from an operational standpoint, that we not embitter and enrage our own allies to the point where they actually switch sides... which is the most likely outcome if we were to bomb Mecca.
Dafydd
Posted by: | July 23, 2005 at 07:58 PM
I hereby apologize to Baldilocks; these words:
If 2 billion muslims realize....
[I]t never hurts to let them [Muslims] know....
[T]he homeland faithful don't get to go to mecca until they crack down....
If the muslims are that stupid....
2 billion people [Muslims] are going to seek post-traumatic counseling....
...should have been attributed to AH-C, not to Baldilocks.
So all of my response above that includes this quotation should be directed to AH-C, as well. My sentiment is still the same -- only the target is changed.
Again, my apologies to Baldilocks.
Dafydd
Posted by: | July 23, 2005 at 08:07 PM
Very much appreciated, Dafydd. It's forgotten. I'll respond to the other stuff tomorrow.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 23, 2005 at 08:18 PM
Daydd,
I applaud the fact that we continue to fight on Ramadan or any other Moslem holiday. I couldn't care less if their feelings are hurt.
But I do care, from an operational standpoint, that we not embitter and enrage our own allies to the point where they actually switch sides...
These are kind of in conflict. If the bombing during Ramadan had the potential to embitter/enrage our allies to the point where they actually switch sides, wouldn't that preclude bombing during Ramadan?
If so, one must ask, of what use are such allies?
And wasn't the exact same argument made at the time? That such bombing would alienate potential and actual allies?
If we're talking operational standpoints, then you have to ask where is the radical islamist center of gravity? I'd argue it sure isn't Damascus or Tehran.
Alternatively, if bombing during Ramadan following 9/11 is ok, but bombing Mecca following a nuclear attack on NYC or LA--what about one of the lower tier cities? Medina?
If the counter is that "well, bombing Ramadan was different since it was PART of an ongoing military operation whereas bombing Mecca would just be pure retaliation"--then what's the response to the argument: Ok, we won't JUST bomb Mecca, we'll invade Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran, etc etc--and bombing Mecca would be a strategic aspect of that military operation.
Posted by: Christopher Cross | July 23, 2005 at 08:31 PM
Christopher Cross:
These are kind of in conflict. If the bombing during Ramadan had the potential to embitter/enrage our allies to the point where they actually switch sides, wouldn't that preclude bombing during Ramadan?
If it did, it would be a bad operational idea. However, Moslems constantly attack each other during Ramadan; and I don't recall a single case where we lost significant allies among the Moslem nations by doing so. They bitched about it, but it was pro-forma. Therefore, it's not a problem, and we should continue doing so.
And wasn't the exact same argument made at the time? That such bombing would alienate potential and actual allies?
Yes. But it was wrong. That does not mean that it's impossible to enrage Moslem allies enough that they join our enemies: it just takes more than bombing during Ramadan... which, as I said, they themselves do.
But they themselves have never nuked Mecca. And that, I'm pretty sure, would indeed be insane enough that we would turn the entire Moslem world against us forever.
If we're talking operational standpoints, then you have to ask where is the radical islamist center of gravity? I'd argue it sure isn't Damascus or Tehran.
Spiritually? Or militarily? If the latter, it surely isn't Mecca, which is of negligible military value.
Alternatively, if bombing during Ramadan following 9/11 is ok, but bombing Mecca following a nuclear attack on NYC or LA--what about one of the lower tier cities? Medina?
So if we're not allowed to kill a few hundred thousand innocents in this city over here, just because they're Moslems -- can't we please, please kill some other group of hundreds of thousands of innocents, just because they're Moslems?
Dude, how about this for a wild idea: how about attacking those who attacked us, and even those who specifically aided and abetted those attacks, and maybe even others who have committed other transnational terrorist attacks but were not specifically involved in this one... rather than some unrelated group of people who had nothing to do with the attack and probably don't even know who carried it out?
Why is it so dreadfully urgent to you to kill hundreds of thousands of unrelated people, innocent of the attack, simply because they share the attackers' religion?
Ok, we won't JUST bomb Mecca, we'll invade Saudi Arabia and Syria and Iran, etc etc--and bombing Mecca would be a strategic aspect of that military operation.
Oh, you'll get those darned Mecca-ites yet!
Why, Christopher, should we invade Saudi Arabia -- if we're attacked by some outlawed group based (against the government's will) in Indonesia, say, thousands of miles away?
In other words, other than the fact that people in Mecca believe in the same religion as the terrorists in Jamal Islamiya, what is your reason for targeting Mecca?
Dafydd
Posted by: | July 23, 2005 at 09:12 PM
I am weighing in on Dafydd's side here. Tancredo's remarks were about the stupidest thing a politician could say. I was tancredulous when I heard them. "Cement-headed" is too kind.
Muslims will quote his words for years to come.
Posted by: Patterico | July 23, 2005 at 09:14 PM
Dafydd et Amicos, this core concept has been under discussion at Belmont Club for quite some time now, as The Fourth Option (?).
Smart, informed people like Dafydd are beginning to realize and discuss the significance of nuclear arms in the possession of terrorists:
One of THEM may well nuke Mecca. Pick yr 'reasons'.
Or one cell among THEM may bomb Tampa, or London or Egypt...
I see Muslims as individuals, and respect that they're terrorized by thugs on the inside ("You support k'ffir, we'll KILL YOU, Deviant!") but if they don't stand against the evil among them, they empower the evil and suffer accordingly.
By the Muslim clergy's choice of believing Muslim clergy more than God's intermediary, The Glory of God, Muslims have called down on themselves years of suffering for their willful and unwitting support for martyring the Holy One sent by Jesus: May 23,1844 to July 9, 1850.
Posted by: Carridine | July 23, 2005 at 09:50 PM
Discuss update.
Posted by: baldilocks | July 23, 2005 at 09:54 PM
I see Muslims as individuals, and respect that they're terrorized by thugs on the inside ("You support k'ffir, we'll KILL YOU, Deviant!") but if they don't stand against the evil among them, they empower the evil and suffer accordingly.
This sounds a lot like the terrorists' justification for killing American civilians: if we don't stand against the evil of our government, we deserve to die.
How do you know the people in Mecca -- each and every one of them that the bombs would kill -- *haven't* stood against the terrorists?
Posted by: Patterico | July 23, 2005 at 10:02 PM
Dayffd, I'm back.
Why do you or anyone presume that anyone will be killed during a bombing attack on Mecca? Furthermore, who said anything about nukes? Tancredo never said that nuking was an option, nor I here.
Before we'd ever bomb Mecca, we'd give them a few days to evacuate Mecca, before we drop Da Bomb, or even a tub of lard. Why? Because we're not willing to kill people for the sake of killing. Granted, that lull before the storm would make it harder for us to execute the mission, but we can handle that. Besides, we don't have to necessarily destroy Mecca to 'defile' it.
You say Mecca is not the center of gravity? How so? Even Saddam knew that if he was going to be the new pan-arabian Saladin and the world's caliph, he would need to take Mecca.
My point is that Mecca is the spiritual center of gravity for both the radicals and the faithful, therefore it should be on the table as a potential target in the event of an attack on us by said radicals. It's all about deterance and failing that, following thru, as circumstances warrant.
To de-escalate that threat, we could take Mecca off the table on the condition that every islamic republic treat non-muslim residents with respect for their differing religions in word and deed. That they take concrete acts to marginalise the wahhabi radicals. That they grant sufferage to women and so on. Do that and Mecca will no longer be an option.
I don't know what's up with the canard about non-arabic muslims not knowing/speaking Arabic. It is a creed that to properly understand the koran, one must speak Arabic.
That Baghdad is the cradle of civilization is another canard vis a vis muslims. If it was deemed so important to the wahhabis, they would have ousted Saddam long ago.
Of all the world's major religion, islam is the only religion of war. Islam in the body-politic is transnational and again, gravitates towards Mecca, whether muslims be Indonesian or American. Do you recall Osama's original beef? That American boots had defiled islam simply by their prescence in SA.
We all know that islam is in need of a serious reformation, but talking nice and going to cut it. Nor will decapitating (en francais) stop the jihadiis. The problem with that is for every one we take out, others will take their place. And they will keep coming until all of earth is subdued -- whether it takes 10 years or 100.
They will be that relentless because they are on a misson from allah to kill the infidels. What part of 'kill all infidels' do you not understand?
This is no different than our war with Japan, in which they were prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child to defend their sun-god. Once we symbolically decapitated their sun-god, resistance became futile.
With islam, there is no single being like the pope or emperor. However, Mecca is their 'figurehead'. Decapitate that and the point of islam becomes meaningless.
In closing, should one million Americans get snuffed in a WMD attack on our 'sacred' ground, POTUS would have no choice but to unleash our full fury, be he/she republican or democratic. Or risk getting lynched by 200 million irate Americans.
It's going to be that ugly, that simple and that real.
If we don't want to see that -- I certainly don't -- then mecca has to be on the table upfront as a matter of MAD deterrance.
Posted by: AH·C | July 23, 2005 at 10:13 PM
Patterico, you mean muslims will distort his words for decades to come. It's not like they haven'tt been distorting and lying to themselves all these years.
I presume you've seen the cnn story on Mohammed Atta's father and his promise that they will crush us all if it takes them 50 years? If not, here's the link:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/atta.father.terror/index.html
Posted by: AH·C | July 23, 2005 at 10:18 PM
If it did, it would be a bad operational idea....and I don't recall a single case where we lost significant allies among the Moslem nations by doing so. They bitched about it, but it was pro-forma. Therefore, it's not a problem, and we should continue doing so.
Great, but you only get to this conclusion after the fact. Following the attacks of 9/11, taking such offense at bombing during Ramadan seemed...disproportionate.
A nuclear attack on NYC or LA would also present a different calculus. Don't it?
Yes. But it was wrong.
Why was it wrong? Because we only learned that it wasn't a "bad operational idea" after the fact.
But they themselves have never nuked Mecca.
Well, I haven't suggested nuking it. But you seem to be under the impression that NEVER SHALL YE TOUCH MECCA--and that's just naive. If Mecca were used as a staging ground for attacks/funding/general badness--THEN would you support attacking the city?
If not, you better come up with a real good reason why not. My argument is that Mecca MAY be the Islamist center of gravity. and if it is, it's naive to take it off the table as a target.
Spiritually? Or militarily? If the latter, it surely isn't Mecca, which is of negligible military value.
I didn't draw a spiritual/military distinction re: center of gravity on purpose. Since an opponents weakest point won't normally be his army. For the US, it's our popular will. Is that an physical location? No. But it is a target, and can be attacked.
If the sancity/inviolability of Mecca is their reason for fighting--depriving them of that is most certainly a strategic option.
So if we're not allowed to kill a few hundred thousand innocents in this city over here, just because they're Moslems -- can't we please, please kill some other group of hundreds of thousands of innocents, just because they're Moslems?
Not "just because they are Muslims" any more than "just because they are Japanese" or "just because they are German."
But I repeat my question which you didn't answer--if bombing during Ramadan is permissible because it's not that big a deal to Muslims; but bombing Mecca is too extreme--assuming that the Islamist center of gravity is in the sanctity of these holy places--which are legitimate targets and which are not?
Why is it so dreadfully urgent to you to kill hundreds of thousands of unrelated people, innocent of the attack, simply because they share the attackers' religion?
Have I expressed any urgency here? Have I been remotely close to frothing at the mouth and screaming "KILL DEM MOOOSLAMS!"
Have I made ANY claim that I simply want to go around bombing the shit out holy sites FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER?
No, I have not. It's an intellectually weak strawman argument for you to suggest as much. But please, don't let me stop you. Continue.
Oh, you'll get those darned Mecca-ites yet!
Again, you didn't answer my question--if as part of a larger operation, is Mecca a legitimate target?
If you don't have an answer, then well, we might be done here.
If the answer is no, then I await something better than the snarky tripe you've been shoveling.
Why, Christopher, should we invade Saudi Arabia -- if we're attacked by some outlawed group based (against the government's will) in Indonesia, say, thousands of miles away?
I don't know, why did we invade Iraq? Seriously, if you want to argue that Islamofascists are like snowflakes, no two the same and each wonderously unique, go ahead.
But then we're stuck to serving warrants and treating such acts as criminal matters. Effective strategy THAT is...
In other words, other than the fact that people in Mecca believe in the same religion as the terrorists in Jamal Islamiya, what is your reason for targeting Mecca?
That it is what the Islamists value the most. It is their center of gravity.
I mean, not like I've SAID it a half dozen times already or anything...
Posted by: Christopher Cross | July 23, 2005 at 10:29 PM
Bill O, please show me where Tancredo said anything about nuking Mecca. IIRC, it's only been the chicken littles and chickenhawks spreading that meme.
Talk about taking an inch and running with it for a mile.
For what it's worth I seem to remember a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over MAD w/CCCP and that there would be a nuclear winter.
Now there's the same distress over a nuclear bloodbath.
Posted by: AH·C | July 23, 2005 at 10:31 PM
Good work Christopher Cross!
Posted by: AH·C | July 23, 2005 at 10:34 PM
We need to mean what we say, and say what we mean. I'm sure that privately our diplomats have indicated that plenty is on the table, should one of our cities be destroyed. Whether Mecca was one of them can be a matter of debate.
After 9/11, we brought two governments down. I'm sure the middle-eastern and Asian governments noticed this.
And I have the impression that "our friends the Saudis" are feeling the pressure.
Bush is playing a powerful game. Unfortunately, what we see here in the U.S., Europe, and the Commonwealth countries is where he's weakest: selling his ideas to Americans and our allies (or, in some cases, "allies').
So I suspect that his messages are being heard more clearly in the "troubled" regions of the world.
My vote? Figure out which parties are most culpable, and hit them hard. But do not make this war explicitly religious in nature. Leave the "moderate" Muslims (both of them!--joking, joking) an escape route, rather than turn this into a Christians/Jews vs. Muslims holy war.
Always, always leave the path open for Muslims who don't want to return to the Middle Ages a way to join our side. Always.
Posted by: Attila Girl | July 24, 2005 at 12:51 AM
Here's a laugh, but it's no joke.
Osama Saeed, spokesman for the Muslim Association of Britain states:
"... Such actions and omissions fuel the suspicion that we are witnessing a war on Islam itself. If there is any thought that Muslims are fine but their religion can take a hike then Mr Blair should know that we will never be in the corner, in the spotlight, losing our religion.
By putting the onus on Muslims to defeat terror, the prime minister [sic] absolves himself of responsibility.
[SNIP]
It is not Muslims but Mr Blair who is in denial. He was advised that the war in Iraq would put us in more danger, not less. Silvio Berlusconi has admitted Italy is in danger because of his alliance with Bush; Mr Blair should do the same. ..."
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1534690,00.html
It doesn't matter if targeting Mecca is on the table or not, these muslims are convinced that we have "launched" a war on islam -- I might add, simply by existing.
Posted by: AH·C | July 24, 2005 at 11:32 AM
Everyone:
Hugh Hewitt has another great post on this exact subject, noting that Tancredo has now "doubled down" on his original off-the-cuff comment. Definitely worth reading.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | July 24, 2005 at 04:38 PM
Christopher Cross:
I don't have the time to answer each and every iteration of each and every question of yours, but I'll try to hit the highlights.
Great, but you only get to this conclusion [that it's all right for us to bomb during Ramadan] after the fact. Following the attacks of 9/11, taking such offense at bombing during Ramadan seemed...disproportionate.
No, actually I have been discussing this point in print since the mid-1990s.
If Mecca were used as a staging ground for attacks/funding/general badness--THEN would you support attacking the city?
[Emphasis added]
No. It's not 1944, and we no longer need to bomb an entire city flat to take out specific targets. If there is some major terrorist group that constitutes a threat to the United States and which operates out of Mecca, and if the Saudis refuse to do anything about it, then I would advocate we attack that specific group, but that we go to great lengths to avoid destroying the holiest sites of Islam -- for the very reasons I stated uptopic: because that would cause more harm than good to the global war on terrorism (GWOT, as many now abbreviate it).
And I would oppose bombing the population of Mecca for the obvious reason that we do not engage in collective punishment of an entire religion for what some significant portion of them believe -- when only a miniscule portion of those believers actually try to implement those beliefs. Such a course is ghoulish.
I didn't draw a spiritual/military distinction re: center of gravity on purpose.
Yes. And your purpose was precisely so that you could include Mecca as a target... which, based upon your repeated attempts to find some reason -- any reason -- to bomb Mecca, would appear to be your major goal: not to win the war, but to bomb Mecca, even if that damages the war effort.
But then we're stuck to serving warrants and treating such acts as criminal matters. Effective strategy THAT is...
Talk about your straw men. I have recently posted about five or six posts on Patterico's and on Captain's Quarters about the GWOT (maybe more; I'm not going to pull up the Movable Type page to count them) -- and in not one of them have I suggested that we should restrict ourselves to "serving warrants." In the very post of mine to which Baldilocks responds here in this thread, the post she links at the top, I specifically advocate a military response to militant Islamism.
So don't try to shoehorn me into that Kerry box, Christopher.
In other words, other than the fact that people in Mecca believe in the same religion as the terrorists in Jamal Islamiya, what is your reason for targeting Mecca?
That it is what the Islamists value the most. It is their center of gravity.
Christopher, it's also the center of gravity for hundreds of millions of Moslems who are not Islamists, militant or otherwise... innocent people, many of them American citizens, who we would turn into militant Islamists by the very act of retaliation you champion.
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of residents and peaceful religious pilgrims we would kill in the process.
That is why we should not threaten to bomb Mecca: it's foolish, immoral, and will make fighting the GWOT infinitely harder.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | July 24, 2005 at 05:02 PM
No. It's not 1944, and we no longer need to bomb an entire city flat to take out specific targets.
Well, by that token, 1944 wasn't even 1944 since the firebombing of Dresden could hardly have been said to be directed at "specific" targets.
If there is some major terrorist group that constitutes a threat to the United States and which operates out of Mecca, and if the Saudis refuse to do anything about it, then I would advocate we attack that specific group, but that we go to great lengths to avoid destroying the holiest sites of Islam
And if....oh I don't know...spitballin' here, members of that group happened to be hiding out IN those places you dare not tread? What then? Ask them politely to leave so they may be killed?
And I would oppose bombing the population of Mecca for the obvious reason that we do not engage in collective punishment of an entire religion for what some significant portion of them believe
Fine, don't target the population, target the city itself. The structures.
Mecca as Atlanta. Burn it to the ground. ""Make Mecca howl." Minimal loss of life. Maximum strategic effect of denying Islamists their most valued possession. How about then?
In such a scenario, you can't fall back on the "bUt u R teh raCist n wnna kiil moOslams!" line of "reasoning" that you've thus far employed.
Yes. And your purpose was precisely so that you could include Mecca as a target...
Cuz i M de raCist n h8 teh mOOSlams!
Meanwhile, back on earth....
hich, based upon your repeated attempts to find some reason -- any reason -- to bomb Mecca, would appear to be your major goal: not to win the war, but to bomb Mecca, even if that damages the war effort.
Amazingly enough, your consistently obstinate refusal to even CONSIDER Mecca as EVER being a legitimate target--including going so far as to invade EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST (though why THAT won't offend our allies remains to be explained)--suggests that your desire to win the war is second only to your desire to not cause offense while doing it.
Shall we just play Risk instead? Nobody gets hurt, you can always call a do-over, and nobody ever takes offense.
I specifically advocate a military response to militant Islamism.
Yes, one that advocates invading any country even tangentially related to a nuclear attack on the US--yet somehow THAT won't cause "offense."
You're being either incoherent or inconsistent, haven't yet decided.
So don't try to shoehorn me into that Kerry box, Christopher.
As soon as you drop the BS argument that those that consider Mecca a legitimate target in some circumstances as nothing more than racist loons.
Soon as you do that, we'll talk.
Christopher, it's also the center of gravity for hundreds of millions of Moslems who are not Islamists, militant or otherwise... innocent people, many of them American citizens, who we would turn into militant Islamists by the very act of retaliation you champion.
(1) The fact that you are that worried about what our "allies" will think of us following a real live mushroom cloud go boom say bye bye to NYC nuclear attack suggests you MIGHT have a rather skewed hierarchy of priorities...just maybe...
(2) I don't "champion" this cause, I merely consider it an option. And it's a viable option following a nuclear attack on the US.
That you so obstinately refuse to even entertain the notion that Mecca MIGHT be a legitimate target suggests that you ARE more concerned about passing some global test rather than actually striking at what Islamists value the most.
I don't have to shoehorn you into where you're so obviously willing to go.
That is why we should not threaten to bomb Mecca: it's foolish, immoral, and will make fighting the GWOT infinitely harder.
No. Refusing to attack the center of Islamist ideology following a nuclear attack on US soil is foolish, immoral, and makes winning the war infintely harder.
Posted by: Christopher Cross | July 24, 2005 at 06:16 PM
I agree with Baldilocks for all the reasons she stated already. Do we want to win the war against radical Islam? They are talking about and attempting to infiltrate us with nuclear weapons and have been since 9/11, if not before.
Better that they realize that American patience will not extend to the loss of an American city by a nuclear device.
Saudi Arabia is the sponsor of the madrasses (Sp?) which indoctrinate the populations with radical Islam -- who better to remind of the consequences of the hatred they have spread?
Why have we spent trillions of dollars for weapons, including nuclear, if we didn't intend to threaten the use of them if attacked?
Posted by: Margaret | July 24, 2005 at 06:58 PM
Paul Cella posted the following:
"To put it succinctly, their brand of Islam is the only thing in the world they can be threatened with. They could care less if Riyadh or Tehran were turned into seas of glass. On the other hand, the destruction of Mecca and their other irreplacable holy sites might be the only notion that would give a terrorist who is actually dedicated and cunning enough to successfully manage a nuclear detonation on U. S. soil pause for thought.
So, whem Tom Tancredo makes these remarks, and is widely condemned by people on both sides of the ideological spectrum, a strategic response is effectively removed from the table. This is horrible policy in Nuclear warfare - in which the only effective means of deterrence is convincing your enemy that no measure of response is so draconian that it will be removed from the table.
Now, you might very well know in your heart of heart that the United States never would or should bomb Mecca in response to multiple nuclear attacks. But in this poker game, where the stakes are measured in hundreds of thousands of lives, you dare not show that card to the world. "
http://machonachos.typepad.com/macho_nachosbra_tasty_tex/2005/07/tom_tancredo_an.html
I think given enough time to chew the matter over, most Americans (60+%) will come to see the wisdom of keeping mecca on the table. Only time and pursuasive arguments for it will tell.
Posted by: AH·C | July 24, 2005 at 08:20 PM
The simple fact is no-one knows what would or would not be 'on the table' in the aftermath of an Islamist nuclear attack on an American city. If and when things get to that point all bets are off, because everything would escalate. We are now in a period, should the worst happen, that could be seen as corresponding to the 'quiet war' period of the mid-thirties of the last century, a time just before things really got serious. Despite the designation War on Terror, we ain't seen nothing yet, at least not in comparison to what could still await. Wars--real, total wars--tend to get very ugly very fast. The more people who face up to that unpleasant fact, the more it is likely we can still find a way out.
Posted by: beaupeep | July 24, 2005 at 09:34 PM
Christopher Cross:
No. Refusing to attack the center of Islamist ideology following a nuclear attack on US soil is foolish, immoral, and makes winning the war infintely harder.
Adios, Christopher Cross.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | July 24, 2005 at 10:18 PM
Hey that was fun.
A suggestion, next time you feel like calling half the blogosphere drooling genocidal racists....don't.
Good times.
Posted by: Christopher Cross | July 24, 2005 at 10:41 PM
No. Refusing to attack the center of Islamist ideology following a nuclear attack on US soil is foolish, immoral, and makes winning the war infintely harder.
Chris:
For a national politician to discuss it makes winning the war infinitely harder.
Make no mistake, this will be remembered for years, just like Madeliene Albright's statement that 500,000 dead Iraqi children are worth it to maintain sanctions.
Posted by: Patterico | July 24, 2005 at 10:47 PM
Any military campaign aims at destroying the enemy's 'center of gravity.' Depending on the level being looked at (tactical, operational, strategic, grand strategic) and the nature of the enemy, this can be a wide variety of "things." In this case, at the grand strategic level - where nuclear deterrence policy exists and where an Islamist WMD attack on the US would be aiming - the nature of the enemy necessitates the inclusion of socio-cultural targets in the retaliatory mix.
Why is that, you ask? Islamists are, to a large degree, motivated by a very conservative view of their religion. Further, some of the nations that support them are organized as Islamic states (although others, like Syria, are garden variety dictatorships). Finally, the physical existence of the Ka'ba is, as I understand it, of critical importance to conservative Muslims due the necessity for devote Muslim to make the Hajj (I don't wish to paint with too broad a brush; I'm certain there are Muslims who never feel the need to make the hajj; however it is one of the Five Pillars of faith).
This, to me, makes Mecca a Muslim vulnerability. Those who try to compare this to the Vatican miss the importance of the Ka'ba to Islam. It is a central, physical manifestation of the divine. This makes it a weak spot, a target for deterrence and a retaliatory strike, if needed.
I don't think anyone advocating the inclusion of Mecca on a target list would leave out the wide variety of more traditional targets - military, economic and political. My assumption is that, at a minimum, we would act to disarm Iran, Pakistan and North Korea. I assume we also would begin a conventional/unconventional campaign to destroy the military potential of Iran and Syria. And, finally, I also assume the Israelis would respond to a WMD attack against us with a response against their foes around the region. They would do this not out of solidarity with the US; rather, they would probably see themselves as the next target and would act to prevent that. So, strikes against Syria, Iran, Saudi, Egypt and Libya, at least.
The reason to threaten a nuclear response is the finality such a strike would yield. It would be the equivalent of the Romans leveling Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War; a move that is not strictly necessary as far as the military might be concerned, but completely justified as far as the psychological effect it would have on the enemy. That said, one could not make a good case for a massive conventional attack that destroys the Ka'ba and the Haram mosque. While it would not have quite the visceral impact that a nuclear attack would have, it probably would accomplish the same goal.
Is there a potential downside? Of course. There are a number of them. But, if we are trying to create policies with no downside vis-à-vis Islam, then we should cut off aid to Israel, abandon Iraq, give Andalusia back to the Muslims, and create the Rightly Ordered Caliphate of North America.
The real question is: would the inclusion of Mecca on a retaliatory list increase or decrease the likelihood of a WMD attack on the United States? I believe the latter. The anger of more Muslims towards us is of secondary concern to preventing a nuclear or biological attack on the US.
Like any deterrence policy must be reasonable, hence the WMD threshold. And, it must be spelled out. The Russias generally knew what our limits were (rolling through the Fulda Gap, for example, was right off). And, the Islamists know that we are not going to just "nuke 'em" for a suicide bomb 9or even a 9/11). But, the use of WMD against us must be seen by the enemy as constituting a line they have not crossed yet and one that, if they do cross, will lead to a new set of retaliatory options on our part, options that will be designed to eliminate Islam as a viable civilization.
Anyway, just my opinion.
Posted by: Jeff Durkin | July 25, 2005 at 08:17 AM
But, the use of WMD against us must be seen by the enemy as constituting a line they have not crossed yet and one that, if they do cross, will lead to a new set of retaliatory options on our part, options that will be designed to eliminate Islam as a viable civilization.
That point hits the nail on the head Jeff. My earlier sarcasm outlines my bigger worldview: if you are dead serious about something, you owe it to yourself to act as if you are dead. You can't feel, you have to act. But we as a country have too many interests abroad currently to risk the financial impact of a Mecca retiliation. Too many people of different nationalities to risk the social impact here. I just the the great "division is our strength" mantra that some preach in America will be tested to the breaking point if we are nuked by terrorists and retaliate by nuking Mecca.
Posted by: T-Steel | July 25, 2005 at 08:44 AM
Patterico,
For a national politician to discuss it makes winning the war infinitely harder.
Tancredo is not Albright. A 2nd rate congressman's statement to a 3rd rate talk show is simply not on the same level as a Secretary of State.
And I disagree that it will be remembered for years by anyone other than the intended audience (the Islamists).
Posted by: Christopher Cross | July 25, 2005 at 08:56 AM
Jeff Durkin:
Any military campaign aims at destroying the enemy's 'center of gravity.'
Of course. But you beg the question of who is the enemy?
To include Mecca on the target list, you pretty much have to conclude -- as many here explicitly do -- that the enemy is all of Islam. Since the goal of war is typically to destroy the enemy, does that mean your goal, Jeff, is to destroy the entire religion of Islam?
This, to me, makes Mecca a Muslim vulnerability....
But, the use of WMD against us must be seen by the enemy as constituting a line they have not crossed yet and one that, if they do cross, will lead to a new set of retaliatory options on our part, options that will be designed to eliminate Islam as a viable civilization.
Called that one pretty well, didn't I?
The real question is: would the inclusion of Mecca on a retaliatory list increase or decrease the likelihood of a WMD attack on the United States? I believe the latter. The anger of more Muslims towards us is of secondary concern to preventing a nuclear or biological attack on the US.
Again, you beg the question: you think it will "decrease the liklihood of a WMD attack" because it would "prevent[] a nuclear or biological attack." That's just circular reasoning, Jeff... why do you think it would prevent such an attack? What is the mechanism?
There are literally thousands of Islamist terror groups, many of them "apocalyptic" in the sense that they desperately want to bring about the final battle, where Allah will come to Earth leading an army of the righteous to extend the ummah across the whole world. Maybe some would be deterred by the threat to Mecca, but perhaps others would actually be encouraged to bring about just such a destruction in order to unite the ummah against the Crusaders and Zionists.
Before taking such an irrevocable step as even threatening to nuke Mecca, we need to have one hell of a lot of hard evidence that every, single terrorist group is going to react the first way, not the second, to that threat.
Instead, all you offer is your confident belief that everything would work out all right. Pardon me if I don't swoon with relief.
This is not an argument; this is simply Jeff Durkin choosing up sides.
Dafydd
Posted by: Dafydd ab Hugh | July 25, 2005 at 03:03 PM
Dafydd and others, please read my post on this and help me turn this discussion into something more profitable.
Posted by: PlacidPundit | July 25, 2005 at 11:37 PM
And I disagree that it will be remembered for years by anyone other than the intended audience (the Islamists).
The Islamists and other Muslims. And they aren't rating the level of the Congressman or talk show. They will remember (and repeat) only that a U.S. official admits he wants to bomb Mecca.
Tancredo has handed our enemies an immense piece of propaganda. It was a foolish thing to say.
Posted by: Patterico | July 26, 2005 at 10:28 AM
One Muslim is exactly like another Muslim, simply because all Muslims are human, but not all humans are Muslim. Some humans live in the Satanic Land of the US and while they don't subscribe to the same beliefs as Muslim-Humans they can reason through the logic.
What the logic means is that Muslim psychology and actions can be predicted simply on the common denominator of them being human. And all humans subscribe to the Pavlovian Response from birth.
In fact, I would state that the better humans, the ones who are noble, have conquered this Pavlovian response and overridden it. Only Muslims still live in the instinctual world of Pavlovian cruelty and knee jerk reactions.
Therefore it isn't "collectivist" or any other LIbertarian ideological vocabulary that we are using to analyze and describe Muslims, 2 billion or 200 hundred. It is basic human nature. The human nature to do things that are pleasant to do, that give positive incentives and rewards. And human nature NOT to do things that are painful to do, and negative in result.
Here in the US, anyone who wants to kill a lot of civilians is thought of as insane. In the Middle East, anyone who wants to kill a lot of civilians is to be feared and respected, especially if they have the means to do.
The important point is not to confuse YOUR values with Muslim values. You value "rationality" and "moderation", Muslims DO NOT VALUE weakness, whether in moderation or in diplomacy.
It is not because they are Muslims and we are Americans that this is the case, rather it is because they are HUMANS and we are humans, and you are humans, and the entire freaking human race are humans.
Do not even think about trying to deny their humanity. Their humanity for ages uncounted have been about brutality, the strong lording it over the weak, giving people incentives to obey and decentives to become individuals.
They have so brainwashed the Muslim population, that Muslims understand intrinsically that obeying the dictates of Islam is more survival friendly than obeying the dictates of any other religion or belief system.
ONLY WHEN YOU change the equation in the Pavlovian response, to invert pain and pleasure, can you change a human's behavior.
Muslims have survived so far because they obey Islam. Anyone that doesn't obey like Americans, Jews, or Apostates, get their head cut off and their families "disappeared". Hey, guess what, a human being understands that in order to survive they must be reasonable and accept the world as it is.
Anti-Americanism is so popular precisely because it allows for humans to blame and shout and expunge their anger at being treated like lab dogs, without fear of negative consequences. They can't speak back to Islam, because they KNOW they will die instantly, so they speak out and foment hatred towards America. Theo Van Gogh.
Until you change the behavior of Muslims, and give them positive incentives to LOVE the US and negative incentives to HATE the US, on par with what Islam does, then you will face Islamic Terrorism for the rest of your country's life.
Currently, we are giving the Iraqis positive incentives to like and ally with us, while using the terroists' violence as a very big decentive not to piss off America.
We can't always rely on the terroists to blow up their own people, and terrorize them into allying with the US for survival. No, we have to replace the decentives of terrorism with the decentives of American hegemony.
If we show to the Muslim population that they will die a very natural death as human beings, in a way that Islam cannot match, if they disobey us, then they will become more cooperate.
In the end, Islam can't offer them as many incentives as we can. We offer them freedom, self-autonoym, self-respect, REAL honor, and prosperity. Islam offers "the right to beat and rape your wife and any other apostate". That's usually about it.
So, human beings, when faced with two courses of actions, which one will they take?
Will they support Islamic Fascism in return for being able to subjugate women as property, and therefore avoiding the decapitation of an unbeliever?
Or will they support the United States quest for peace and prosperity in this world, in return for shopping malls, Harry Potter, hox sexy women that you have to court, entertainment, economic prosperity, political freedom, and personal opportunities? As a way to avoid... American "insensitivity" to your religion? As a way to avoid being nuclearized into dust?
I'm a human, and if I was given a choice between Islam and America, and the decentive for disobeying Islam was my death and disobeying America was some lecture or surgical strikes, I'd go with Islam.
Humans know other humans, and we can figure out their motivations as well as they can, if not better.
Therefore if I knew America would smoke my ass and my entire race, if we don't accept their deal of political freedom and prosperity, then well I'd have to think REAL hard about it. After all, the terroists would kill me and my family... but the Americans will kill everyone I know, will ever know, and has ever known... And the Americans give me a lot of stuff I want... Islam isn't too... uh... entertaining.
Okay, if I'm human, I go with the Americans, BUT only if the Americans are willing to nuke us to death.
As a human, I'd like some human rights, but I'd also like to have a head attached to enjoy those human rights. So Islam gives me a deal I can't refuse, while I CAN refuse AMerica's deal.
And people think that American will to destroy Muslim civilians actually hinder collection of allies to our side?
Give me a break, please study human psychology 101 and not that PC Multicultural- Every society is different, crack.
Every society is not that different, because every society is made up of HUMANS. Libertarians need to reevaluate itself in this light that we are all humans beings, which they probably don't want to recognize since it is a point in favor of collectivism and making judgements based upon collective population vectors.
Human beings are so predictable, it is Allah damned ridiculous.
Posted by: Ymarsakar | August 15, 2005 at 01:01 PM