A Difficult Recipe

How will the world (mainly the U.S., Russia, China and India) suppress the radical Muslim movement before it becomes too large to deal with within their criminal justice systems? Whatever the answer, I don't believe it will be accomplished with "containment" and half measures. The brutality being displayed by these jihadis will need to be matched and even exceeded by the rest of the world to cause this existential evil to be squashed. This will not be pretty. It will cause outrage and gnashing of teeth within the pacifist class ... those naive ones who choose to believe that they could not be touched by this metastasizing menace.

I can't predict exactly what measures might be required to  effect this ultimate victory over the caliphatists ... but, be assured that, if it were here known, it might turn the stomachs of the squeamish. Just as the incredible brutality of the last days of the Second World War finally humbled the Axis aggressors, such mayhem will realistically need to be repeated or even exceeded to triumph over these radical Muslims. I would wish this need not happen, but the flaming fanaticism now being displayed by the jihad movement does not give me much optimism.

Can all this bloodshed be avoided? Yes, I believe that it might ... but only through a radical reformation of Islam ... one equivalent to what occurred in Christianity in the 1500's. This would require the zealots within the jihadi movement to adopt modernity from a world that is itself rotting from within ... rife with sinfulness, self-indulgence and sloth.

This is a  very difficult recipe with lots of bitter herbs.

Afterward: Russia's Putin has already suggested using atomic weapons against ISIS ... see: UK Express Story. I realize it is uncomfortable to discuss or even think about such solutions to this Islamic extremism ... but when Iran goes nuclear or if the crazies take over in Pakistan, then the apocalyptic desires of the jihadis need to be reckoned with realistically. Then the Putin solution may be the only answer.

He Ain’t Heavy …

He’s my Brotherhood.  The Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton’s, John Kerry’s, and Chuck Hagel’s assent, has been a much too ardent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, that extremist group that almost sunk Egyptian “democracy” in the name of democracy… and has been behind much of the bloody fulmination of the Arab Spring.  From the day Obama was first inaugurated he has shown a tilt toward this dangerous sharia-law, caliphate-driven Islamist organization. 

Now that the Egyptian military has realized the danger of Morsi and the Brotherhood running things and managed to reverse the tide … yes, unfortunately, at the cost of much blood … our Islamist-sympathizing President has chosen, in the slimy-secret way that is his wont, to cut off aid to the Egyptian military (see: The Daily Beast Story).  This fortunately will be of little consequence because Saudi Arabia, UAE, and other Gulf States have stepped up with monetary offers that dwarf our puny leverage … see: NY Times Story.

It is clear why the twenty-two million Egyptian rioters, who presaged this military takeover, felt that the U.S. and the Obama administration had betrayed them … we had.  Now we are trying to twist the knife.  Rather than standing on that phony shibboleth of “democracy” which meant nothing to the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. foreign policy should propound modernity and freedom from the chains of a theocracy.  We certainly support the notion of separation of church and state here at home … why not for the Arab world?  And it seems that even some mush-brained Republicans such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham are supporting Obama’s wrong-headedness.  This is unfortunate ... for it gives Obama cover for his perfidy.

The U.S. foreign policy is on the wrong track in many ways, but especially because of our support for the Muslim Brotherhood and, by proxy, for the Islamists.  The irony of this posture is that, even though we may be alienating much of the more moderate Middle East, the consequences of this bull-headed support of Islamists might be the continued undermining of Muslim theocracies and wanna-bes around the region (Iran, Turkey, etc.).  Egypt’s near-death experience has been an object lesson for these countries and I pray they may take it to heart.

TRADITIONAL TRADITIONS

“In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking, now heavens knows, anything goes.” (Cole Porter)

Recently I wrote a blog on another site (Dartmouth Traditions) about college traditions, their plusses and minuses. This has caused me in turn to think about much of today’s social and political conflicts in these same terms – the push and pull between modernity and traditions. To be specific:

Gay Marriage – a main argument against gay marriage is that it changes the definition of “traditional” marriage (one man, one woman). Therefore, the “modern” view is pro gay marriage. However, I find it most ironic that gay couples often wrap themselves in the age-old marital traditions (a walk down the aisle, a wedding cake, exchanging rings, etc.). This has just a touch of pathos to it.

Radical Islam – it seems that much of bin Laden’s hatred of the West has to do with the creeping modernity with which we seem to have infected the world. Sex, drugs and rock-and-roll would clearly vanish under traditional Sharia rule (the ultimate world goal for Al Qaeda). Women (and I suspect many minorities) would lose centuries of emancipation. And whole populations would resemble Afghanistan ere its recent liberation: one-eye burkas (see BeliefNet), brutal stoning-to-death executions, destruction of centuries old art works, etc. “Civilizations” would clearly become a lot less civil.

Journalism – Ernie Pyle exemplified journalism in the Second World War. David Gregory exemplifies it today. There is a rift between these two styles of reporting as wide as the seas. Is the traditional journalism mold better than the “modern” one? I’ll let you be the judge.

Rap Music – Does anyone really think that out-year reunions of today’s youth will nostalgically involve Gangsta Rap? Modernity is not always indisputably better.

Old Europe – Without traditional garb, food, architecture, etc. Rick Steves would have to find another line of business. The charm of traveling through France, Germany, Spain, etc. is experiencing these delights first hand. Usually, however such vacations do not include a sampling of the local politics … which is far from traditional.

Art Movements – Impressionism, Cubism, Abstract Impressionism, Pop Art, Op Art, etc. Art movements come in quick succession like waves sucking on a money-strewn beach. Which of these movements are “traditional”? Time alone can make this ultimate judgment. But please give me just one opinion … Andy Warhol has done more to trash the progress of art in the twentieth century than the Taliban ever could have.

The lesson here is that everything old is not necessarily good and everything new isn’t necessarily bad. However, once a tradition is establishes, it has an inertia that should not be fooled with carelessly. But changing circumstances can devalue a tradition as well as make a good innovation poisonous. It is only mindless insistence on a style of behavior that seems truly dangerous.