Letters to the Editor
-
The article is excellent, but its message doesn't seem to carry
Andrew O'Hehir summarizes Peter Beinart's argument by saying "The problem seems to be that we're all so shit-scared of being blown up at the mall that we'll sign up for any level of homegrown fascism that promises a remedy." If the discussion in this forum is any indication, that is an accurate diagnostic. Among some more thoughtful letters, there are many motivated by Fear of the Other.
It's part of human nature to fear the Other. But for this basic survival instinct to have any practical survival value, the Other has to be usefully defined. What use can it serve - other than perpetuating the Bush-Cheney regime out of fear - to demonize 20% of the world's population and declare these people an enemy? What use can blacklisting a major world religion serve? You might as well decide that young unmarried men with low incomes are the Enemy. The generalization would hardly be worse.
There was a time when the United States was so much admired around the world that its many transgressions were forgiven by most. Now, mired in fear, corruption, incompetence, and an awful lack of interest in dealing with its internal problems, the U.S. as a whole offers an easy target for derision and becomes feared itself. Individual Americans, communities, cities and state legislatures still do great things and still inspire the rest of the world. The greatness is not gone, but it is getting harder to find behind the clouds of fear and loathing.
-
I love these self-appointed experts on Islam
"Much of Islam *does* loathe western society near inherently"
Oh really? I guess you've gone out and done surveys of all the different cultures in 60 Muslim countries around the world to back up this piece of idiocy? And I'm sure you've surveyed all the Muslim communities in the west? All the American Muslims (millions of whom include African-Americans) who've lived here for generations quite peacefully -- you've surveyed them too I suppose? 1.5 billion people all over the globe -- by virtue of their religion -- live in daily fuming seething hatred of everything western; they're all out to destroy you, me and mom and apple pie. Why? Just because. They're wired that way.
Another idiot poster refers to an essay by Theodore Dalrymple. Well, then, that just proves it! An essay by Dalrymple, end of discussion!
Muslims have been living peacefully in the US since almost the founding of the republic. Still no sign of a rebellion to create a caliphate here. They've been living in Latin America peacefully for the same amount of time. Still no sign yet of a Latin Islamic theocracy.
There is NO threat of a coherent, global totalitarian ideology taking over the western world from Muslims. Zilch. Nada.
There are instead small groups and individuals who are ready to commit acts of murder and mayhem. And who should never ever ever be allowed to get anywhere near nukes or any other weapons of war.
Beinart's stupid thesis still presumes the legitimacy of using military force against terrorism. This has historically been proven to be useless -- and also the cause of a great deal of destruction, atrocities, and the growth of MORE terrorism. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue. It is also urgent that the nations of the world finally get around to dealing seriously with the nuclear issue, and not with hypocrisy. Instead, the west insists on wielding the weapon of hypocrisy on who is allowed to have nukes. What Beinart should be demanding is that the western world delegitimize nukes as an option PERIOD -- the western world should wage a campaign to dismantle every single nuke, period. Way before 9/11, after the break-up of the USSR, the issue of the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal just hanging around in the midst of a crumbling, corrupt, chaotic state was being covered by some journalists, academics and some folks at the UN. THAT'S an issue to organize around, to demand changes from our governments. Not going around the world invading countries, kidnapping supposed suspects and detaining and torturing them forever, destroying whole cities and towns, and making the terrorists extremely happy by doing exactly what they want us to do.
-
free write
I feel quite justified in fearing both the totalitarian, fundamentalist Muslims and the totalitarian, fundamentalist Christians. I guess I’m a pampered, shithead American but I take comfort in the fact Bush and his cohorts are elected officials. They are stoppable by the people in theory. Fundamentalist Muslims, who by the way have been fighting their good fight for almost half a century, aren’t really quite stoppable.
I find it amusing that people will honestly blame the Bush Administration and the United States for everything. I mean, I know I’m pampered and ignorant, but I was under the impression that people thought for themselves and politicians the world over have their own motives for things. True America has used other nations as pawns to reach our goals, but so too have other nations played us. I can say that I don’t think its plausible that either the Mossad or Iraq were responsible for 9/11. I like to operate under the KISS principal and if Al Queda (sp) said they did it, then who am I to doubt them?
A note to Salon writers: I think inserting words like “ass-backwards” into non-satirical or non-comedic or non-literary, etc, pieces is pathetic. Are you really that talent-less?
-
Liberals/Democrats are wusses
The title of my post is the meme that Beinart's book intends to combat, and I think that Beinart is correct that liberals must come up with a way to fight it. If we are to have any chance of rolling back the increasingly repressive forces at home, we must address the meme that we are weak in defending ourselves abroad.
There is no doubt that Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose itself on the West. One only need to look to the cartoon fiasco in Denmark and recent demonstrations in the UK and elsewhere to support this (not to mention terrorist attacks in Europe and tourist areas frequented by westerners). While Muslims comprise only a small (but growing) population in these countries, they have already succeeded in getting these countries to restrict freedoms (e.g., speech) that we hold dear; their success will only embolden them to continue to attempt to do so.
In America, Democrats have been defeated in recent elections because of perceived weakness in protecting the U.S. Although I agree that the Iraq war was a misguided venture from the outset, this fact is now completely irrelevant. The issue is what will be done going forward: how will we fight to protect ourselves and the West against a real threat, and how will we stabilize Iraq to the point where we can go. It is, of course, an overstatement to compare the threat of radical Islam to that of the Soviet Union, which had the ability to start a nuclear war that would have ended civilization as we know it. It is not an overstatement to recognize that there is a growing population of Islamists who seek to impose their draconian religious edicts upon the world. At present, their ability to do so is relatively weak, and the response by our government the wrong one in countless ways: the war in Iraq, suspension of rules preventing torture, the treatment of 'enemy combatants,' the vast expansion of surveillance of Americans in the absence of judicial oversight, etc.
As people who oppose these things, we face a serious problem: we are utterly powerless to stop them unless we gain political power, and we will be unable to gain that power unless we gain credibility on the issue of national security. Right now, no pacifist will succeed politically except in the most liberal of enclaves; what is needed is an approach that can succeed more broadly. Beinart's ideas might be misguided, but his thesis is correct: until liberals can be seen as strong in defending America, we will remain impotent. The longer that this goes on, the worse things will be at home.