By Kevin D. Williamson
Sunday, May 28, 2017
Tim McVeigh was God’s gift to the Left, and the Left will
forever keep his memory alive, tending it like a kind of sacred flame.
Al-Qaeda attacks the United States on September 11, 2001?
Yes, but don’t forget about McVeigh. Omar Mateen lets loose an “Allahu akbar!”
before massacring 49 people at a gay bar in Orlando? Yes, but remember McVeigh.
Salman Abedi and his pack of “lone” wolves get a jump on Ramadan by
nail-bombing a bunch of little girls and their grandmothers at a concert in
Manchester? Terrible, of course, but let us not forget about the real threat:
right-wing terrorism on the McVeigh model.
The more you know about McVeigh, the less he fits the mold
of right-ring extremist. He was an agnostic who declared “science is my
religion,” who held views on U.S. foreign policy that fell somewhere between
those of Noam Chomsky and those of Oliver Stone, and who had a weakness for
adolescent Nietzschean posturing, whose final statement was William Ernest
Henley’s poem “Sol Invictus,” with its romantic conclusion: “I am the captain
of my soul.” But there was also the militia stuff and the Waco obsession and
other aspects of his worldview that had more than a whiff of right-wingery
about them. Jared Lee Loughner was obsessed with monetary policy, as was John
Salvi, who feared that the Vatican was planning to issue its own currency. Lots
of loons are sui generis.
But lots of them aren’t.
The Venn-diagram overlap between the world’s Muslims and
the world’s terrorists may be small, but it is not trivial, and the
confrontation between the Islamic world and the West puts a cold light on areas
of concern beyond political violence. In the Islamic world itself, we see a heritage
of high culture and great civilizational achievements, but a great deal of it
looks like Karachi at the high end and rural Yemen at the low end: violent,
backward, cruel, and uninterested in progress to the extent that “progress” is
synonymous with Westernization — which, multiculturalist pieties
notwithstanding, it is. Even if you set aside the propensity of certain Muslim
fanatics to bomb pizza shops and to name public plazas in celebration of
fanatics who bomb pizza shops, there’s still a lot of real life as lived in
Afghanistan or Egypt that just isn’t going to fly in Chicago. In places such as
Minneapolis, we have done a fairly poor job integrating the relatively small
number of Muslim immigrants we already have.
And that is of some intense concern in light of the
experiences of the many Western European metropolises that are today home to
large and poorly assimilated Muslim minority populations, immigrants and the
children and grandchildren of immigrants, a non-trivial number of whom are not
especially interested in becoming German, Dutch, Swedish, French, or British.
It is from among this population that international terrorist networks are able
to recruit their local boots on the ground, maladjusted misfits and losers (for
once, the president’s penchant for insults is appropriate) such as Omar Mateen
and Salman Abedi and the Tsarnaev brothers. It may very well be the case that
99 out of 100 members of Muslim immigrant communities reject jihadism and
Islamic supremacism, but the 100th man is Salman Abedi. If you happened to live
in a city that does not have a significant, poorly assimilated Muslim minority
population on the Malmö model, would you want one? Why? Maybe there is
invidious prejudice in that, but that is not all there is to it.
In the case of many terrorist incidents in the West,
immigration and travel to and from Islamist hot spots abroad is a part of the
equation: San Bernardino, Manchester, 9/11, Orlando, 7/7. The Trump
administration is trying, in its habitually incompetent way, to take that fact
into consideration, twice failing to impose travel restrictions that fall well within
the president’s statutory powers under U.S. immigration law. If anything, the
administration does not go far enough. Anti-terrorism considerations should be
a substantial part of our public policy not only where visitors’ visas and the
like are concerned, but especially in the matter of immigration. The
responsibility of the American government is to the American people, as
sympathetic as many of those Syrian refugees might be. We do not seem to have
much of a well-developed policy on them at the moment, but the most intelligent
and decent one would be seeing to it that they are reasonably well looked after
— in Syria, or in one of the bordering countries.
We were, impossible as it sounds to say it, in one sense
lucky to have al-Qaeda as our main terrorist threat in the years immediately
following September 11, 2001. Al-Qaeda was, as an ideological matter, focused
on spectacular attacks when it came to the West, desiring each to be more
dramatic than the last. Osama bin Laden et al. found 9/11 difficult to follow
up on, especially with U.S. forces hunting them down in their safe havens. The
Islamic State has no such ideological limitation, and it is happy to bomb a
concert here and behead a hostage there. The mullahs in Iran may dream of a
nuclear Armageddon, but the Islamic State would be perfectly satisfied with a
permanent intifada being fought in every Western city of any consequence.
No one wants to see the United States turned into a
police state — which almost certainly would mean, among other things,
subjecting our own Muslim communities and the U.S. citizens in them to an
extraordinary degree of surveillance and other invasive counterterrorism
measures. The most humane and effective policy consistent with our traditions
of constitutional government and civil liberty is to limit the pool of
potential Islamist allies in the United States, where Muslims make up only
about 1 percent of the population. The pretense that Islamist terrorism in the
West can be understood as a phenomenon separate from the Muslim immigration and
the character of Muslim immigrant communities serves no one very well — least
of all those Muslim immigrants in Minneapolis or the Bronx who thought they
were leaving this sort of trouble behind in Sana’a or Kismayo.
No comments:
Post a Comment