By Victor Davis Hanson
Monday, December 14, 2015
‘Playing into the hands of ISIS” is the new Beltway
mantra. The finger-shaking by the administration and its supporters warns
Americans not to give in to their supposedly natural biases against Muslims.
Never mind that FBI statistics show that Jews in this
country are the objects of hate crimes at nearly four times the rate of
Muslims. It is mysteriously never reported who are the main perpetrators of
hate crimes against Jews. In any case, when the administration alleges
Islamophobia, it assumes that if it did not, ISIS might announce to Muslims
worldwide, “We told you so,” to confirm its suspicions of American prejudices
toward Islam.
But according to Obama’s own logic, his constant
suggestions that Americans are prejudiced against Islam would themselves
strengthen ISIS by providing them a rationale or justification for their
anti-American terrorism. Would they not think, “If President Obama himself is
constantly worried that his own people are anti-Muslim, then surely they must
be — even though statistics do not support that charge”?
Or are we to think that ISIS reasons along the following
lines: “Even after 9/11, Americans let in hundreds of thousands of Muslims, and
yet hate crimes against them are far rarer than against Jews. Therefore
Americans are our friends, and we will refrain from attacking them”?
When the president pontificates on the evils of
Guantánamo Bay, rather than worries over the subsequent careers of terrorists
who were released from the detention facility, does that encourage or
discourage ISIS? Do its members think that a resolute America is perfectly
willing to lock up a terrorist murderer for years and therefore understand that
the United States is a formidable foe, or do they conjecture that an
embarrassed nation is doing all it can to appear accommodating to grievances?
Sometimes we are also told that any suggestion of
suspending immigration from the Middle East, Syria in particular, until we can
properly vet arrivals is likewise a gift to ISIS. Yet ISIS has promised to
infiltrate so-called refugees with terrorist operatives. I suppose the
administration’s logic is something like the following: “ISIS promises to
infiltrate migrant arrivals from the Middle East; so if we suspend accepting
migrants, it may make ISIS terrorists even angrier, and they will try to
infiltrate even more.”
This same strange logic applies to bombing ISIS. Caution,
circumspection, and professions of reluctance to strike at ISIS supposedly will
win the hearts and minds of the potential ISIS recruiting pool. That way we can
lure them back from the dark side. ISIS must know that we already don’t target
the drivers of their fuel tankers, who are so integral to their cash income.
Did ISIS also hold back a bit on learning that Obama once suspended air strikes
in fear of the environmental damage? Did the ISIS green wing appreciate that?
Unfortunately, there is scant evidence from military
history in general to suggest that human nature operates in the manner that the
administration assumes, and in particular none at all that the administration’s
approach to ISIS has lost the terrorists support.
What exactly has been won in the Middle East over the
last seven years by the Obama apology tours, the Trotskyization of the
vocabulary of terrorism (“workplace violence,” “overseas contingency
operations,” “man-caused disasters,” etc.), the mythographic Cairo speech, the
embarrassing Al Arabiya interview, the surreal NASA mission statement about
Muslim outreach, the gratuitous slights to “high-horse” Christianity, the
“special relationship” with Recep Erdogan’s Islamist Turkey, the outreach to
the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the calibrated distancing from Israel, or the
dismissals of ISIS as “jayvee” and “contained” and of al-Qaeda as “on the run”?
After all that, U.S. popularity is still near rock bottom
in the Middle East. In the latest Pew Global Attitudes & Trends poll,
Turkey seems not to have appreciated its special friendship with Barack Obama
(58 percent unfavorable view of the U.S.). Nor did the recipients of massive
American aid such as the Palestinians (70 percent unfavorable) or Jordanians
(83 percent unfavorable) gravitate toward America after the Obama
administration’s distancing from Israel. Muslim Pakistan (62 percent
unfavorable) does not seem to appreciate annual U.S. aid or the president’s
deferential and politically correct pronunciation of Pakîstan, or his reminders
that his family has had a special affinity with Islam. Iran has never been more
ascendant or more contemptuous of the United States. We have alienated the Gulf
emirates. Old friends distrust us, and older enemies no longer worry much about
the U.S. How could all that be? Did not the Middle East street appreciate that
the Obama administration had been willing to blame a supposedly right-wing
video-maker for the killing of Americans in Benghazi rather than fault
al-Qaeda?
In short, the Obama administration has crafted a policy
toward ISIS that is contrary to unchanging human nature. Should we have
expected Mr. Farook and Ms. Malik to be so grateful that they had been allowed
to enter and leave the U.S. so easily, and so appreciative that Mr. Farook had
landed a nice job with the San Bernardino County health department, and that
his father and mother were welcomed into America, that they decided to
demonstrate their gratitude by not killing 14 Americans and wounding another
22? Did their bizarre and scarcely veiled behavior truly warrant not a peep
from either politically correct neighbors or somnolent authorities in the
anything-goes United States?
In contrast, what if the U.S. put a temporary suspension
on immigration not by religion but by region? If Ms. Malik had had to be vetted
and wait longer to enter the U.S., would she in her anger have killed 16
instead of 14? If the Tsarnaev brood had been denied asylum, would they, in
their petulance, have injured 300 rather than 250 at the Boston Marathon? If
the resident-alien father (and former Fulbright Scholarship winner) of
terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki had faced charges of aiding and abetting his son to
incite terrorism rather than being feted on American media to protest unfair
and Islamophobic treatment of his terrorist offspring, would Anwar have guided
even more terrorist killers?
In this regard, when Mrs. Tsarnaev, in disgust at America
for jailing her surviving murderous son, returned to her native Chechnya, was
she quickly dispatched by intolerant authorities in the manner she had assured
us would happen, had we not granted the visiting Tsarnaevs asylum in 2002? How
strange that nearly 70 percent of the migrants who have flooded Europe are
young males in fear of their lives — the logic being that the opponents of ISIS
do not need young, able-bodied males to mobilize at home, and that their
abandoned women and children in Syria and Iraq are better able to take care of
themselves than would have been their men who flocked to northern Europe.
If we suggested to the Middle East and its associated
areas that we wished a time-out from accepting more immigrants from that region
— given worries over terrorist infiltrations and the fact that the region has a
bad habit of accepting U.S. aid and then deriding us for our magnanimity — what
would be the result? Would frustrated wannabe immigrants to America feel
alienated and thus join ISIS, or would they direct their ire at ISIS for ruining
a relationship with America that had been singularly rewarding?
What if an invitation to America became a rare and valued
commodity, worth offering complete transparency and unquestioned loyalty in
order to earn it? And what might happen if potential beneficiaries of America’s
hospitality treasured such chances to emigrate enough to oppose any in their
midst who jeopardized any possibility of reaching the United States? What if
any resident-alien friends of Farook and Malik who had knowledge of their
terrorist planning were summarily deported — would that earn contempt? Or fear
of and respect for a sometimes unpredictable United States that could be quick
to anger?
In a war, is it advantageous to be seen as sober and
predictable, or instead as occasionally unpredictable, likely to repay
provocation with a disproportionate response? Do aggressive enemies mitigate
their belligerence when concessions and deference are accorded — or instead
when they are deterred by fears of suffering inordinate retaliation not worth
the risk of aggression?
Hitler was given everything he wanted at Munich. Why then
did he libel his appeasers as worms? Why did he declare that he hated
Chamberlain?
American policy toward ISIS is too predictably
loquacious. We talk, talk, and talk, assert our liberalism, and after each
terrorist act are quicker to damn supposedly Islamophobic Americans and gun
owners than radical Islamic killers.
What would happen if we kept quiet, bombed the ISIS
beheaders and incinerators more systematically, and summarily deported any
resident alien who had knowledge of terrorist planning and failed to report it?
If apologetics and appeasement have not contained ISIS or
relegated it to jayvee status, what might be the effect on it of a changeable,
mercurial, and unfathomable United States?
In this present war against radical Islam, entry into the
United States should become a rare prize that is earned, not a benefit
routinely bestowed. The rarity should be calibrated according to the degree to
which the Middle East rejects anti-Western terrorism, rather than tolerating it
or ignoring it. And ISIS might be confused rather than assured by American
pronouncements about what we might do next, convinced that on any given day, at
any given hour, Americans were capable of doing almost anything to keep their
country safe from terrorist attack. It would not be so much that President
Obama would take any option off the table, but rather that no one would have
any idea what options were there in the first place — or whether there was even
a table that could hold them all.
No comments:
Post a Comment