It’s Official: Anger in the Muslim World Should Drive Our Policies
posted at 6:53 pm on September 9, 2010 by J.E. Dyer
President Obama, General Petraeus, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf are all agreed. If Americans burn the Koran or decline to accept the Park 51 mosque, there could be an explosion of anger in the Muslim world and people could get hurt. It’s a matter, says, Rauf, of “national security.” Obama, by implication, agrees with him.
The choices in question are separate and unrelated, in spite of Terry Jones’ drive-by implication today that there’s a link. Burning the Koran is inherently distasteful and pointless; whether there should be a mosque on Park near Ground Zero is a topic reasonable people of goodwill can disagree on.
But in the space of 24 hours, the paroxysm of identical themes from multiple sources – “the anger of the Muslim world should constrain our actions” – has risen to a crescendo.
The timing is interesting. Rauf made his comments the evening of 8 September, after Petraeus’ concerns had flooded the infosphere. He would have known what Petraeus said, and therefore knew he was only paraphrasing and repurposing the concern expressed by America’s most respected military leader.
I believe Obama, for his part, was expressing his own reaction on Good Morning America. He probably wasn’t even aware of what Rauf had said. He simply regards Petraeus’ objection as the paramount concern. People will have different opinions as to why he does; I attribute it to his very conventional intellectual bent, which always leads people reflexively to the most defensive posture.
But what’s interesting is that everyone – US authorities and Muslim cleric alike – reverted to the same theme. Resisting this reaction, if you’re a civil-liberties, consensual-governance constitutional republican, requires active effort. Mere passive pragmatism will lead you to, well, dhimmitude.
Some critics have really pounded Petraeus for voicing his concern, some of them implying he shouldn’t even have it. I agree Petraeus should have voiced the concern through his chain of command, but not to the press. It was, however, his duty to voice it to his seniors.
It’s the president who has to do the right thing in a situation like this. No one else can snatch the brand from burning. It’s not Petraeus’ job to express what the highest principle is for America. And only the president can commit us as a people – troops or civilians – to facing the consequences of Muslim anger in upholding that principle. The latter is what he should have done in the case of the planned Koran-burning. It’s what he should do in the case of Rauf’s veiled threat. He shouldn’t do it belligerently; he doesn’t have to. He should just do it.
Cross-posted at The Optimistic Conservative.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
IMO, anger with the rop type here should not drive our nation or our policies. This anger is in their ever doing away with the U.S. and Isreal. They, those who will go to the streets on anything they don’t like, will never be happy till WE ALL are like them. With this bho and team it seems everything they are doing is to see to it we ‘submit’. Well, this bho, team, and the rop type you need to rethink about American citizens. My country, since it was establised, was founded on ‘WE the people’. You are not our we the people! This koran, mosque thing at 9/11 is not giving all American’s a warm and fuzzy feeling for you who want to make us in you image. Most here in American love our country. Has all this happened before the elections? Are you rop type thinking this bho will help you? We will see how comes out ahead. This bho or the American citizens!
L
letget on September 9, 2010 at 7:19 PM
It’s the dictatorship of the perpetually aggrieved.
Steven Den Beste on September 9, 2010 at 7:43 PM
No, Dyer, you’ve of course got it wrong.
is not what’s being said. acting deliberately in a distasteful, coarse and needless manner, demonstrating that we can be every bit as small and hateful as the Iranians who ritualistically shout “Death to America and Israel” and burn theflags of those countries is only designed to cause that anger.
since when does saying that acting hatefully in order to increase hatred will result in needless hatred and we need less of that, rather than more, translate into anything other than the constraint imposed by thoughtful, ethical, adult action?
since when does not acting as louts translate something craven?
audiculous on September 9, 2010 at 8:29 PM
Seems as if BarryO got himself upstaged and/or backed into an easily repeated talking point by Petraeus’ public remarks. Kind of reminiscent of a former Af/Pak commander giving an interview to Rolling Stone and getting canned. Maybe Petraeus thought he was helping, who knows. But as you stated, he should have voiced this up the chain and focused more on field strategy. I have trouble imagining our troops being in more danger than the danger they’re in now; so do the Taliban shoot more bullets, plant bigger IED’s in reaction to the yet-to-be-determined Koran BBQ?
Seems to me the talking points should be similar to your post of earlier regarding BarryO giving a full-court press conference along with a diplomatic outreach to reasonable Muslim leaders amongst others to reiterate the principles of freedom and liberty that the knuckleheads in Florida are enjoying, encouraging those same leaders and journalists to gild their hearts with what a somewhat VAST majority of Americans really do with their freedoms.
Robert17 on September 9, 2010 at 8:54 PM
Robert17 — this thing is developing fast and weird, and honestly, although I know a lot of people think the off-base pastor should have just been ignored, in my judgment the best thing to do would be for Obama to get in front of this with some moral leadership. That’s a way of stating basically what you’ve said.
The ugly prospect is developing that the rumored Rauf-Jones meeting will produce an emotional announcement of an interfaith “accord,” one that ends up being a watershed and binds the rest of America to the Park 51 mosque in precisely the wrong way.
I have never been unalterably opposed to the mosque myself; I believe Rauf has the right to build it given that the authorities have approved it, and that the people who object to it have the right to object without being called Islamophobes, and to dissuade him if they can. I don’t like the implication of triumphalism in the choice of site or name, but neither do I think those symbols rule reality. Civilization won’t crumble with a mosque near Ground Zero; indeed, a resurgence of positive activism and community outreach by Christians and Jews would make its existence unimportant.
That said, America does not owe Rauf or the Muslim world this mosque. The implication that we do is exactly what’s likely to come out of this absurd meeting. Poor Terry Jones is not a representative of any majority in the US, and nothing he and Rauf decide on ought to have concrete consequences for others. The possibility is strong, however, that it will. And that would be farcically wrong.
Obama ought to take charge of this rhetorically and make our luck for us, as much as he can. He ought to enunciate the outcome of maturity, responsibility, and grace that he expects from everyone. With the most positive and uplifting language, he should give everyone a lecture and make clear what’s important in this situation. Unfortunately, he’s just not the guy for the job.
J.E. Dyer on September 9, 2010 at 10:14 PM
++
YehuditTX on September 9, 2010 at 10:23 PM
J.E. Dyer
but you will say that America owes Rauf an equal right to build whatever house of worship he will on property he’s bought or leased, won’t you?
audiculous on September 10, 2010 at 12:54 AM
This is long, forgive me.
Burn baby burn!
I, for one, am not a subject of Islam and don’t want my government to be – either expressly or as it is now, de facto, a subject of Islam.
The American Government reaction to the proposed Koran burning has proven that we are losing the war against terrorism/Islam. Remember after 9/11 all that claims of “if we do X, the terrorists have won”? Well, if our highest elected leaders feel it is necessary to grovel in front of the world to appease Muslims and avoid offending Muslims, then the terrorist have indeed won. Their violent acts have cowed America to the point that our president will drop everything and beg an unknown pastor, of a tiny church, with few followers, to refrain from engaging in the exercise of his 1st amendment rights. And, at the same time, this same president will support building a victory mosque at ground zero.
How can we claim that the terrorists have not won? We are fast sliding into dhimmnitude. The facts are the facts. No one can rationally deny that we are doing everything in our power to appease Muslims in every facet of our lives. No other group, religion, or ideology gets such treatment from the government.
People can make the claims of “we shouldn’t needlessly provoke” Muslims, or that book burning is inherently wrong – but those are merely rationalizations. When it was simply some private citizens voicing such concerns to other private citizens I agreed with it. When it becomes government policy – and they have leaned heavily on this pastor (FBI visits, calls, public statements) – it goes too far by half.
First, burning books is not inherently bad. If a gov’t burns books, it is censorship, and is bad. When a person burns books belonging to someone else, it is theft or destruction of property and is bad. When a person burns a book in a physically dangerous way, such that they may start some other fire it is bad.
But when a person burns their own book in a safe way, it is not inherently wrong. It does not censor anything, it hurts no one, and the book – thanks to the ease and cheapness of publishing – is not in danger of disappearing. Instead it is simply symbolic and has meaning only to those who give it meaning.
Second, provocation has a long tradition in this and other countries. Muslims provoke everyone throughout the world. They threaten violence constantly. They burn and destroy other religions’ symbols as policy (Saudi Arabia, and other countries). They refuse religious freedom in their own countries and kill apostates in other countries. They commit terrorist acts. They refuse to assimilate (taxi cab drivers refusing to take people with bottles of alcohol or guide dogs). They provoke in many other ways (ground zero mosque).
Other religions and ideologies are constantly provoked in America (Piss Christ anyone?). Conservatives cannot state an opinion without a leftist calling them fascists. Is that not unreasonable provocation? There are disgusting attack ads in politics – remember the Texas murder dragging ad that implied Bush was in favor of such things?
To claim that we should refrain in this one instance – to protect the fragile egos of Muslims, reeks of appeasement and servitude.
To claim that we should refrain in order to avoid violence is the worst kind of appeasement. We are giving them power to further their agenda by doing what they want based on their threats of violence. Isn’t this why U.S. policy is allegedly never to negotiate with terrorists? Won’t they simply commit more violence once they realize how well their tactics are working?
It is repugnant that a U.S. General would lay blame for U.S. deaths at the feet of someone burning the Koran when they would never do the same to the NY Times printing classified materials, or the left having protests against the war and telling troops to kill their officers or go AWOL.
It is repugnant that a President would get involved with a private citizen exercising his 1st amendment rights in front of the world, when he would not do the same to protect any other religion or group from insult.
Muslims also don’t like homosexuality, women uncovered, being another religion, or Jews and the state of Israel. Should we prohibit all of these things to avoid giving Muslims offense? Where is this line drawn? What other special rights do Muslims get in this country that you and I are not worthy of?
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM
I’ll just go ahead and answer that for him and say ‘Of course’. I can do this because even the most strident critics around here have always said they have the legal right to do this.
That we have to keep coming back to this is a little eye-roll inducing, almost as if you or CK or any other of the proponents think they’re going to strike argument-gold and get one of us to say we don’t believe in the 1st ammendment.
Heralder on September 10, 2010 at 9:50 AM
I agree
The would-be Koran burners have just as much right to offend as the GZM proponents.
As for the perenially inflamed islamists, they only rage because it works,like a child who tantrums keeps it up if the results are to its liking. We should stand up to the rage now rather than wait for it to fester and the demands grow to include covering women, removing jews from public office, and sharia law.
When islamists and leftists stop burning the flags and symbols of other religions and cultures, when they practice the tolerance they demand for their views and cults, then maybe I will see their side. Right now, no. Put the shoe on the other foot and expose them for the monsters they are. Let the world see the savages as savages.
We used to be able to remove undesireable aliens from the country, now we cater and cosset and apologize. This has to stop. If immigrants threaten violence, out they go. If homeborn jihadi lovers do the same, to jail with them. If you “reward” threats with air time and compliance, they will continue. If you give them a good smack down and ridicule them, they will stop. Rewarded behavior is repeated behavior.
clnurnberg on September 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM
Speaking of eye-roll inducing, all this hyperventilating about how we’re all dhimmies and tomorrow is the last day of our lives as non-Muslims has been done to death.
No, we are not doing everything in our power to appease Muslims. That someone could say we are when we’re in two theatres of war in Muslim countries is ridiculous.
This isn’t to say we don’t need to be vigilant, because I think we do. There are plenty of cases where Muslims may think they can strongarm everyone else into letting them get their way, but it’s not going to happen.
Also, please, don’t post me links or books I must read, I’ve not lived in a cave, I’m just processing the same information differently.
Heralder on September 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM
Nobody should be able to strongarm anyone to give up their freedoms. If someone in a dark alley puts a gun to your head and says “your money or your life”, it makes sense to comply, but as a national policy it is suicide.
I have heard of no anger management program, no child rearing program, that says “cave in to little demands as that will stop large ones”.
Precious muslim sensibilities have to grow up and adapt to the freedom to disagree. If they make terroristic threat, punish them. There are laws against threatening violence in this country. If they are acting out abroad, saturate the with petty outrage material and show them we just don’t care if they want to tantrum.
clnurnberg on September 10, 2010 at 10:22 AM
The constant tightly-coiled outrage and doomsaying is very, very wearying all the same. It’s not even that I fundamentally disagree with many of the points, or I somehow don’t get it (the content of my previous arguments speaks for itself), I just feel it’s gone up over the top.
I believe that’s my signal to take a break for a long time on reading the comments and commenting.
Heralder on September 10, 2010 at 11:06 AM
Are you claiming that there are instances other than appeasing muslims where a U.S. General has called out a private citizen; where a president has called out a private citizen, etc? Are you claiming that Islam is not given differential treatment by the U.S. gov’t?
You may not agree that it is a problem, but no matter how hard you shut your eyes, you cannot deny the facts. You can roll your eyes all you like, it won’t change the facts.
And enough with the straw men arguemnts. I did not say our lives would end tomorrow or that we would all be muslims tomorrow. I’m pointing out some very real and disturbing official policies and actions of, you know, our actual government.
Fine, they don’t trouble you. And that is sad.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Have you seen the rules of engagement in those countries? In one country, Iraq, we set up a government based on Sharia law.
these things are steps toward an end. It is ridiculous that you can see the facts and ignore them. Again, cite me where the U.S. President sent the FBI to stop some artist from creating another “piss christ” or stopped the jehova’s witnesses from calling the pope the anti-christ? Please cite me where a U.S. general told some lefty they were going to be guilty for troop deaths if they kept at their various protests.
You can’t. Ignoring facts is not an argument and calling names is not an argument. You do need to take a break frmo these boards and come back when you are willing to argue from facts rather than emotion.
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2010 at 11:14 AM
Again,
I was not outraged by the original koran burning, nor was I outraged that some private citizens spoke out against it.
I am outraged that our gov’t has groveled in front of the world to appease islam. And, if it is not appeasement, what is it? By their own admission, they are doing it (the grovellnig) to “stop violence” that muslims might commit in response. How is that not appeasement?
If an army threatens to invade, and we give them a big chunck of land to avoid the invasion – is that not appeasement. How is giving in to demands to not do “x” in order to allegedly stop the violence (or make them “like us”) not appeasement. Particularly when the act being stopped is of the nature performed hundreds of times a week againt other beliefs?
Monkeytoe on September 10, 2010 at 11:18 AM
The only “tightly-coiled” outrage I see is from islamists. They use it to prevent cartoons, satire on TV and other forms of speech. Those who threaten should be punished, period. Not rewarded. Every time a silly TV show self censors out of fear we are diminished. Now, we have bulit up to the point where a general, sundry pundits and a president who would have no problem with trampling our flag (Bill Ayers)have spoken against the exercise of political speech. This is not inconsequential.
clnurnberg on September 10, 2010 at 11:22 AM
Heralder–
proponents?
hope you don’t think that I give a crap for or against some mosque.
I’m a proponent of not letting mobs over there or over here dictate how NYC goes about its business.
audiculous on September 10, 2010 at 6:40 PM
Given that it is a Book of Hate and a deadly serious instruction manual for Muslims on bringing subjugation, death and Lord of the Flies Hell to the world, it is in very good taste and if done after reading aloud some of it’s passages, it very much has a point.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Luka on September 11, 2010 at 4:23 AM
I believe this may be the best and most principled comment I have ever seen on Hotair. It should be repeated on all Submit to Islam inclined threads. The Founding Fathers would be given renewed hope that maybe they did not labor and sacrifice in vain afterall.
Luka on September 11, 2010 at 4:32 AM
Monkeytoe @9:48 AM.
That was outstanding. Hope you don’t mind if I use some of that.
Alabama Infidel on September 11, 2010 at 10:12 AM