"Oh, What A Lovely War . . ."

Another Decade Of Endless, Fruitless Foreign Wars


Three years gone, thousands of lives lost, tens of billions in debt-funded spending, and we’re right back where we started, with a permanent entanglement in the longest war in U.S. history.

Bonnie Kristian
The Federalist


President Trump plans to pull about 4,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan early in 2020, officials in his administration reported in mid-December, a partial withdrawal that would put American force levels in our longest war exactly where they were when Trump entered office. Three years gone, thousands of American and Afghan lives lost, tens of billions in debt-funded spending, and we’re right back where we started, with an apparently permanent entanglement in the longest war in U.S. history.

That futility and strategic failure has been a defining feature of the foreign policy of the 2010s. A decade ago, we were nine years into the War in Afghanistan and seven years on in Iraq. Both wars were increasingly unpopular: Public opinion had turned against the invasion of Iraq several years prior, and although support for the initial invasion of Afghanistan remained a little longer in the black, perspectives on the war in general were also pessimistic.

President Obama was just two years into his first term, following a campaign in which he’d promised to repudiate the foreign policy mistakes of his predecessor. Instead he built on them, and, after a similarly critical candidacy, President Trump has done the same. Both presidents insisted on their opposition to “endless wars,” but both escalated U.S. military intervention more often than they restrained it.

The war in Afghanistan, the rotting heart of U.S. foreign policy, is exemplary here, but not unique.

The Radical Left's Poisoned Chalice

War Crime?

We reproduce in full a guest post which has been published in Kiwiblog.  It analyses and comments upon the NZ SAS action in Afghanistan--which is at present the subject of a public inquiry.  Critics have alleged war crimes were committed by NZ forces as a part of this action.

This is an important matter.  Hence, our reproducing Kiwiblog's guest post in full.

Guest Post: Operation Burnham

Kiwiblog

A guest post by a reader who wants to balance the reporting on the Operation Burnham inquiry:

On 03 August, 2010, Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell was killed by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), at the age of 27. The IED detonated under his Humvee vehicle as part of a complex ambush, with Taleban forces utilising Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs) and other small arms weapons.  This was the first serious attack on NZ forces in Bamyan province.

From local and coalition intelligence, it quickly became apparent that the enemy forces who attacked the NZ patrol were located in the village of Tirgiran, which was in the Area of Operations (AO) allocated to a Hungarian Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT). This AO was the neighbouring AO to the one allocated to NZ forces, and the NZ PRT was therefore unable to conduct any operations in this village. The Hungarians had previously been ineffective in denying Taleban control of this village. The result of this was that these Taleban forces had grown more confident and capable of targeting both NZ and Hungarian forces.

On 21-22 August 2010, the NZ SAS forces who were then stationed in Kabul launched an operation alongside US and Afghan forces, called Operation Burnham. Burnham is the name of the camp south of Christchurch where Tim was posted to. The purpose of Operation Burnham was to kill or capture the Taleban forces who were posing a serious threat to both NZ and Hungarian PRTs. It has been labelled as a revenge operation by some in the media – not only are revenge raids against NZ Rules of Engagement (ROE), but they are also a particularly poor method of conducting counter-insurgency warfare. The correct way to describe this raid is that it was a perfectly legal and reasonable response to kill or capture enemy forces who were intent on targeting NZ forces, and re-imposing Taleban rule on Afghanistan.

There Can Be Honour In Defeat?

Afghanistan Remains Unconquered

President Trump Should End The Failed Afghanistan War And Bring The Troops Home

The war in Afghanistan is over. If our aim was to reshape Afghanistan as a modern civilized liberal democracy, we lost.

Sumantra Maitra
The Federalist




Ten thousand Pashtun tribals launched an attack at the present Pakistan-Afghanistan border on Sept. 12, 1897, in a now mostly forgotten battle with a relatively small but determined regiment of Sikh troops fighting for the Imperal British Indian army. Often regarded as one of the greatest last stands in military history, the Sikh soldiers called the British troops for backup, but the reinforcements were a couple of days late.

The Sikhs, meanwhile, decided that they would fight to the last man and bullet, and defended the Saragarhi fort until they were overrun. No one knows if all 21 men died for a cause they believed in — spreading human rights and Anglo-Saxon law and order in a land that has remained tribal for centuries. Before the fort fell, the Sikhs managed to kill 600 Islamist fighters, and wounded a few thousand more with artillery fire.

Some 120 years later, in 2018, Major Brent Taylor, the mayor of North Ogden, Utah, was killed in Afghanistan in America’s longest “war.” He leaves behind a wife, seven kids, and a failed cause that has so far cost more than $1 trillion and thousands of lives, and with just a few handpicked military outposts in the wilderness to show for it. All this in a country mostly covered by poppy seeds, where the Taliban control more territory than they did at any time in 2001.

The word “war” is within quotes, because it doesn’t look like a war anymore.

And Now--Some Good News

Current Events / Mark Howard

The Story of Iran’s Church in Two Sentences

July 30, 2016

• 28 Comments
• 115K

Everyone loves a good story. As Christians, we especially love stories that tell us how, when all seems lost, God makes a way.

One such story is about the church in Iran—and it’s one of the greatest stories in the world today. 

It’s a simple story that can be summarized in just two sentences: Persecution threatened to wipe out Iran’s tiny church. Instead, the church in Iran has become the fastest growing in the world, and it is influencing the region for Christ.

As simple as it is, such an amazing story is worth examining deeper.

Growth Amid Persecution

The Iranian revolution of 1979 established a hard-line Islamic regime. Over the next two decades, Christians faced increasing opposition and persecution: All missionaries were kicked out, evangelism was outlawed, Bibles in Persian were banned and soon became scarce, and several pastors were killed. The church came under tremendous pressure. Many feared the small Iranian church would soon wither away and die.

But the exact opposite has happened. Despite continued hostility from the late 1970s until now, Iranians have become the Muslim people most open to the gospel in the Middle East.

Despite continued hostility from the late 1970s until now, Iranians have become the Muslim people most open to the gospel in the Middle East.

How did this happen? Two factors have contributed to this openness. First, violence in the name of Islam has caused widespread disillusionment with the regime and led many Iranians to question their beliefs. Second, many Iranian Christians have continued to boldly and faithfully tell others about Christ, in the face of persecution. 

As a result, more Iranians have become Christians in the last 20 years than in the previous 13 centuries put together since Islam came to Iran. In 1979, there were an estimated 500 Christians from a Muslim background in Iran. Today, there are hundreds of thousands—some say more than 1 million. Whatever the exact number, many Iranians are turning to Jesus as Lord and Savior.

More Iranians have become Christians in the last 20 years than in the previous 13 centuries put together.

In fact, last year the mission research organization Operation World named Iran as having the fastest-growing evangelical church in the world. According to the same organization, the second-fastest growing church is in Afghanistan—and Afghans are being reached in part by Iranians, since their languages are similar.

Three Changed Lives

The testimonies of Iranian men and women who’ve come to Christ are powerful.

Kamran was a violent man who used to sell drugs and weapons. One day, a friend gave him a New Testament. After reading for five consecutive days, Kamran gave his life to Jesus. When his family and friends saw his transformed life over the ensuing months, many of them also came to faith. A church now meets in Kamran’s house. 

Reza was a mullah (a Muslim scholar) who hoped to become an ayatollah (a Shiite leader). One day, while studying at an Islamic seminary in Iran, he found a New Testament that had been boldly left in the library. Out of curiosity, he picked it up and was deeply shaken. Over time, he fell in love with Jesus. Today Reza is a trained church planter serving in the Iran region.

Fatemah’s earliest memories were of being raped by her brothers. At age 11, she was sold in marriage to a young drug addict who abused her and then divorced her when she was 17. Upon returning home she was raped again, until she decided to leave. On the streets she heard the gospel preached, and she trusted Jesus. In time, she married a Christian man. As they were receiving training in evangelism and church planting, Fatemah felt called to go back home and witness to her family. Her entire family repented and gave their lives to the Lord. The first church Fatemah and her husband planted was in her childhood home. 

Fatemah felt called to go back home and witness to her family. Her entire family repented and gave their lives to the Lord.

I’ve had the privilege of hearing Kamran, Reza, and Fatemah share their stories. I’ve heard countless other testimonies that are equally remarkable. Each one is a painful and yet marvelous celebration of the gospel’s beauty. Each one is a powerful reminder that despite trials and persecution—perhaps because of the suffering—the gospel of Jesus shines and the church of Jesus grows. 

Story God Is Writing

We’re living in a time when many Christians are suffering for their faith, particularly in Islamic contexts. People often react by preaching fear and hatred of the Muslim world. Yet the apostle Paul reminds us that we are to “rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer” (Rom. 12:12). This is our call. 

And the story God is writing for Iran reminds us that we have every reason to rejoice and remain confident in our sovereign Lord and the power of his gospel. Jesus will build his church. It’s a promise (Matt. 16:18).

I ask that you would keep the people and nation of Iran in your prayers. Please pray for:

• Many more Iranians to give their lives to Christ.
• Endurance and joy for Iranian Christians suffering in prison for their ministry—many have testified to sensing the prayers of the global church while imprisoned.
• More trained leaders to serve as evangelists, church planters, and pastors to disciple the many new Iranian believers.

Persecution threatened to wipe out Iran’s tiny church. Instead, by God’s mighty hand, his church is growing rapidly. Praise him!

---

Editors’ note: In light of the growth of the Iranian church, TGC has recently launched this Farsi-language micro site including translations of sermons and books by Mark Dever, Kevin DeYoung, John Piper, David Platt, R. C. Sproul and others. Help spread these resources to Farsi-speaking believers you know.

Mark Howard works with Elam Ministries, an organization founded in 1990 by Iranian church leaders with a mission to strengthen and expand the church in the Iran region and beyond. Mark also serves on the advisory board of Rooted and has a chapter in Gospel-Centered Youth Ministry (Crossway, 2016).

NZ War Crime Allegations

Mr Sanctimonious Called Out

In New Zealand we are in the midst of a brouhaha over allegations made by one Nicky Hager. These allegations are that NZ soldiers committed war crimes in Afghanistan.  In the interview below,  Matthew Hooten throws down a challenge to Hager. We anticipate being treated to the unseemly sight of Mr Hager running for the hills, somewhere in the Hindu Kush, seeking a cave in which to hide.

It will be Osama Bin Laden, Part II.

It's put up, or shut up time.



HT: Whaleoil

Strange Things In An Odd World

And Your Problem Is . . . What, Exactly?

Public bread and butter in New Zealand has been covered with a thick, oozing dollop of sanctimony these last few days.  Nicky Hager has been going full tilt offering the benefit of his investigation into the killing of innocent non-combatants by NZ SAS soldiers in Afghanistan.

Over the years we have learned to treat everything Nicky says with a lashings of cynical scepticism.  Nicky, for his part, is always sure he is right.  Self-critical he ain't.  But then again, one never gets headlines if one mumbles or appears in public as two handed: that is, "one the one hand . . . " and "on the other hand . . . "  Nicky has always been blessed with truckloads of self-certitude.  He is a thorough "one-handed" man, you may say.

Nicky is infallibly certain that the secretive SAS has been guilty of a massive cover-up where "in retaliation" against the death of one of its soldiers, shot innocent Afghan villagers in a "revenge" attack.  Maybe.  It's possible.  But note right off the "framing" of the incident.  "Retaliation".  "Revenge".  Note the high moral dudgeon, the self-righteous sanctimony on display.

The first thing that we find odd is Nicky's display of an infallible righteous code which seems to project from every part of his being.  In our modern world, this does appear a bit strange.  A bit antediluvian.  It's one thing for a Christian to hold to standards and ethics which have stood since the Garden of Eden.  It's one thing for a Christian to tremble before a holy God and the interdictions of His Word commanding the Church to be perfect, even as He is perfect.  But a Modern?  An Unbeliever?  It seems so alien coming from the mouth of an Unbeliever--this righteous indignation against an alleged war-crime.

An Ancient Curse Still Holds Afghanistan In Its Thrall

Healing in His Wings

When Christian missionaries first came to New Zealand in the early eighteen hundreds they were confronted by the Maori inhabitants who were sunk into gross sin--the sin of cannibalism.  The first Maori cleric, Matiu Taupaki specifically mentioned this curse upon the land when he spoke at a memorial service for one of the early missionaries, Henry Williams in 1876: 

"In an attempt to preserve the good, and disinter it from the bones, around 900 Maori from all parts of the country gathered at Paihia on the 11th January, 1876, having raised 200 pounds to erect a memorial to the late Henry Williams.  Reverend Matiu Taupaki--the first Maori to be ordained--delivered the oration at the unveiling of the memorial for Williams before the assembled Maori representatives.

Think of the wickedness of our island.  The exceeding heavy stone which weighed us down was cannibalism, but that did not deter him.  He forsook his own country and people, parents and relatives.  He arrived here in 1823.  He landed at Paihia, and there built his first fortress, the church standing before you.  It was in that fortress he forged the weapons of war wherewith to overthrow the strongholds of the earth." [ContraCelsum.  Emphasis, ours.]

Sometimes a gross sin is so insinuated into a culture that it becomes a damning blight that only the power of the risen Son of God can remove.  In the words of Matiu Taupaki, the curse gets to the point where it "is an exceeding heavy stone" which weighs the culture and people down.  In pre-missionary New Zealand it was cannibalism.  In Afghanistan it is the homosexual rape and sexual slavery of young boys.

Letter From America (About US Military-Sanctioned-Child Rape)

The Afghan Military’s Child Rape

By Michelle Malkin
National Review Online

American soldiers are being punished for blowing the whistle on the systematic rape and enslavement of young boys at the hands of brutal Afghan Muslim military officers. Honorable men in uniform have risked their careers and lives to stop the abuse. Yet, the White House — which was busy tweeting about its new feminism-pandering “It’s on Us” campaign against an alleged college rape crisis based on debunked statistics — is AWOL on the actual pedophilia epidemic known as “bacha bazi.” On Thursday, Obama-administration flacks went out of their way to downplay Afghan child rape as “abhorrent,” but “fundamentally” a local “law-enforcement matter.”

This is the price the innocents pay for blind multiculturalism.

A New York Times report on the Afghan Muslim practice this week garnered attention and outrage on Capitol Hill — and prompted a river of denials from Obama Defense Department brass, who insisted that our troops were not ordered to look the other way.  But the subjugation and sexual assault of these children — by Afghan military personnel working alongside our troops — is not new.

Afghan journalist Najibullah Quraishi’s wrenching documentary on The Dancing Boys of Afghanistan aired in Britain and the U.S. in 2010.

Religion and Afghani Culture

The Fruit Tells the Tree's Story

The media has picked up on the story of an Afghan girl, believed 10, who was forced by her family into becoming a suicide bomber.  Oftentimes news reports on events of this kind are untrustworthy, but at present it appears fairly well corroborated--and there are other reported instances besides.

Here is a report of the incident, with cross references to other news media as well.

Afghan Girl Believed to Be 10 Was Detained With Suicide Vest…but That’s Not the Saddest Part of the Story

Jan. 7, 2014 8:14am
Sharona Schwartz
The Blaze

An Afghan girl believed to be 10-years-old says that her brother and his friend forced her to wear a suicide vest and carry out an attack on police.  The BBC reported that the girl, named Spogmai, could be as young as eight and is the sister of a prominent Taliban commander known as Zahir.

Prophecies

Nothing Beside Remains

Violence between Muslims is exploding again across the Middle East--adding to the internecine destruction already taking place in Syria.  Welcome to the Arab Spring.  Hail the wonderful new beginning--at least as announced by useful idiots in the West, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom should have known better.  Ah, well--at least it generated a couple of headlines and photo ops. 

The most likely prognosis in Syria these days is that it is shaping up to devolve into three separate regions run by warlords who will (literally) snipe at each other in perpetuity.  The regions will be, respectively, one run by Assad and his Alawite and Shi'ite supporters; the second will be a territory controlled by the Islamist rebels, supported by Sunni nations; the third will be a region controlled by Kurds. 

The smartest thing the West has done in this conflict in Syria is not to get involved militarily (something for which we have Russia to thank).

. . . But Not As We Know It, Jim

 A Strange Kind of Nation Building

It was going to take over twenty-five years, we were told.  But Afghanistan would be a different kind of war.  Sure, there would be the usual conflict with insurgents, campaigns against the Taliban and those seeking to overthrow the corrupt government in Kabul.  But, more importantly, it would be a war with a human face, a face moulded around an idealist, even utopian belief in human rights. 

This war would be unlike dirty wars, fought over filthy lucre and oil.  This was to be a pure war.  A war worth fighting.  This war would lead to better things.  Out of it all, over the long term, over a quarter of a century's ministrations by the idealistic humanitarianism of the West, a new nation would emerge.

Consequently, President Obama grandiloquently intoned, it was the war we had to have.

Unnecessary Sacrifice

A Spot of Nation Building

The NZ Army is finally returning from Afghanistan.  Ten soldiers died over that time.  They deserve to be remembered, although it is a very long bow to relate their effort to our own national security.  Essentially, the NZ effort was part of the US/UN inspired global war for democracy, peace and justice. It has had nothing to do with defending New Zealand and its citizens from armed aggression.

Consequently, the politicians have lauded the socio-economic contribution of the NZ Army to Bamiyan province in Afghanistan where it served.  Hamid Karzai, the Afghan President lauded the NZ Army effort, we are told, in terms of its contribution to nation building and to genuine assistance of the Afghan people.  Our Minister of Defence took a similar tack:

Letter From Australia (About Afghanistan)

It's OK, We're Winning

Candidate Obama infamously declared that "Afghanistan is the war we have to fight".  Ever since it has been dubbed 'Obama's war'.  All the carefully orchestrated and choreographed reports from the war theatre tell us how well the war is going.  Eerie shades of Orwell's 1984.

The reality?  Much different.  Here is one reality check--published in Australia, via the Sydney Morning Herald.

Letter From the UK

Get the Cabinet to Patrol the Roads of Afghanistan

Peter Hitchens
Mail Online

If The Prime Minister and his colleagues think it is so important to have a British presence in Afghanistan, and they claim to, then they are the only people in the country who know why that is. So I suggest that they are given driving lessons in Warrior vehicles, or backpacks for foot patrols, and sent out into the roads and fields of Helmand Province, allowing soldiers, who are much more valuable than politicians, better-trained, smarter and immeasurably more honest, to go home.

We have been through so many idiotic justifications for this war that I thought the government had run out of them.  We all remember Dr Comrade Baron John Reid’s claim (at the start of this witless deployment) that our soldiers were going there as a sort of social work brigade and would leave without a shot being fired, which has ever since served to show that these people’s heads are as empty as their salaries are big.

Just and Unjust Wars

Darth Vader Flies Again

As the weeks pass it is more increasingly obvious that the US-led attempt to "build" a nation in Afghanistan is failing and is all but over.  The US will withdraw as soon as it is politically less damaging to do so--sometime after the elections this November. 

At this blog we have consistently opposed the war since it morphed into Obama's "War we Really Need to be Fighting" (as opposed to the war in Iraq).  That was just a cynical election ploy to convince the electoral middle that he was not nearly as anti-war and radical as his opponents were alleging.  He was just a regular American imperialist.  But Obama could not bring himself to think of war as it must be thought of: legitimate and just only when it is exclusively focused upon defence of  citizens against armed aggression.  Obama had to morph the war into progressive political ideology by other means: Afghanistan must enjoy "nation building" at the hands of the US army.

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

Clouds of Nuance and Ineptitude

Culture and Politics - Politics
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, 29 February 2012

I have been asked about my passing comment the other day that I thought military action in Afghanistan was justified, and probably in Iraq. This was coupled with my observations on the constitutional procedures for going to war -- Congress should declare war. Those who believe all the DC-lawyer-talk need to be asked what circumstances would have to pertain in order for Congress to declare war. Surely that provision of the Constitution means something. What does it mean nowadays? What does it mean in the 21st century? What countries would we have to declare war on before commencing hostilities? And why them, and not Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya?

Thus it is that I said we have had military actions that could have been justly pursued, but they weren't because the rule of constitutional law was by-passed.

But then  was asked about the justification for the fighting itself, not the constitutional procedures. My questioner said that he was assuming that I agreed that military action on our part was only justified in cases of self-defense. Close, and almost.

Afghanistan Stocktake

So, How's It Working Out, Then?

Readers of this blog will know that we oppose the war in Afghanistan as an ill-considered utopian debacle, without ethical foundation.

To say this is not to deny the courage or skill or tenacity or application of the combatants on both sides.  But it is to say that whilst the US fight in Afghanistan began as a defensive invasion to defend the US against Al Qaeda--a perfectly legitimate moral and just action--it soon morphed into "nation building", which is unethical and imperialistic.  It is a classic example of the adage that little wars grow into big wars and big wars suck out all your blood. 

But, we really could not expect anything else, given the US's maniacal utopian vision of bestowing the West's peculiar, secular "human rights" doctrine on the rest of humanity.

Chris Carter, on His Merits

The Opportunities are Breathtaking

At this blog, as our readers know, we are anti-UN.  It is a hopeless, thoroughly compromised institution--as any grand Babelesque edifice erected to the praise of Man will inevitably be--but every now and again we have to acknowledge, the UN shows some smarts, and gets things right.  Praise where it is due, and all that.

Former Labour MP (and government minister) Chris Carter is off to Kabul, Afghanistan to fight corruption.  This, from the NZ Herald:

A Worth-While Spinoff

What Are We Doing Here, Again?

What on earth is Nato, the US, and minnows like Australia and New Zealand doing in Afghanistan? With the death--nay, execution--of Bin Laden maybe the question will now be faced honestly.

In George Orwell's 1884, the state is engaged in perpetual war--a war without purpose or meaning. Afghanistan is now the United States's longest war and is shaping up like Orwell's vision. We have documented over the years the stupidly inane "mission creep" from executing Bin Laden and bloodying the nose of the complicit Taliban to "nation building". This latter inanity is the liberal war of choice. It is a way where humanitarianism is the ultimate ethic and highest value. It makes the war feel good to naive idealists.

We know that a majority of American voters now oppose Obama's war in Afghanistan. We know that the war is not winnable in any military sense. We know that the Karzai regime is hopelessly corrupt. We know that centuries old tribalism is the most powerful driver of Afghani politics. We know that "nation building" is a self-congratulatory, fatuous farce. So, when will military, political, and common-sense reality hit home to Obama, the governing elites, NATO and everyone else supportive of this useless national self-indulgence?

Charles Krauthamer is a cheer-leader for the cause of American global military supremacy. He is a "making the world safe for democracy" kind of chap. He is reported to have reflected thusly on the execution of Bin Laden:

In the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden, I found myself agreeing with Charles Krauthammer that this was a global game-changer for American greatness. It was a gutsy and courageous decision by President Obama, brilliantly executed by the Navy SEALs and all the intelligence and support behind them.

As Krauthammer put it, after the tough slogs in Iraq and Afghanistan, this amounts to the restoration of unquestioned U.S. military dominance. America has not slipped, nor has our military reach and power.

Puleeez. The author of this particular piece is Larry Kudlow--a self-professed "hawk" and "American exceptionalism" drum major. But now Kudlow is asking the question--the right question. Why is the US continuing in Afghanistan? What are we doing here, again?

Thus far, nearly 1,600 U.S. troops have been killed in action in Afghanistan. To me this is the most tragic part. Of course, I wholeheartedly support our troops. But is this blood really necessary? Are the projected future costs really necessary?

Again, I ask myself: All this to support Karzai? Isn’t this the sort of nation-building that the late William F. Buckley Jr. opposed? Are American national-security interests really tied up in Afghanistan? Is now not the time to contemplate a much more rapid troop withdrawal from Afghanistan?

He concludes with the following:

Going forward, what exactly is our real mission in Afghanistan? That’s the basis of my concern. Are we as Americans and conservatives really convinced that the continued mission is worth the lost blood and treasure? Is now not the time to leave?

What exactly are we doing in Afghanistan? And how do we get out of it?

When the Amerolotrous right wing start to ask such questions it is a good day.  Now if we can only get Sarah Palin to stop being a chippy cheerleader for this inane war we will be seeing real progress.  We have the hunch that if a Republican candidate for president were to make the case for immediate withdrawal strongly and rationally it would likely make him or her a clear front runner, and an almost certain shoe-in to the Oval Office in 2012. 

If withdrawal from Afghanistan were the only tangible outcome of the execution of Bin Laden that alone would be a great boon. 

Douglas Wilson's Letter From America

In Burkas in No Time

Culture and Politics - A Second Battle of Tours
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, April 04, 2011

We are now seeing another round of international silliness, in which we can clearly see (if we are looking straight at it) just how social justification works. A Florida pastor with a whopping two dozen parishioners recently burned a Koran, which set off a round of riots in Afghanistan. These riots ended with with some U.N. workers getting murdered, and senators calling for an investigation of Koran-burning. Lindsey Graham says, "Freedom of speech is a great idea, but we are in a war." It is great to have such a thundering defense of our freedoms from the Republicans.

When this sort of thing happens, social justification means you start pushing in terms of it. And when you do, you push in one of two directions. You either push in the direction you want to go, or you push whomever you believe to be pushable, with the hope of refining the questions about steerage later.

For example, nobody says about the rioters in Afghanistan that they should chill, because we have lots of unstable pastors over here, and if they don't stop beheading people over there, we might have some more Koran burnings over here. No, that's not the direction we push.

When the Danish cartoon fiasco broke, there were plenty of liberals who wouldn't stand with the cartoonists (i.e. wouldn't publish the cartoons), but the transparent motive in this back-away move was fear. Nobody called the cartoonists goons, or dopes, or any of the other things that we might with impunity call the Florida pastor. No, the cartoonists were noble and courageous, and perhaps a bit too zealous for freedom. This distinction was made because editorial cartoonists still have a significant amount of social justification, albeit still behind rampaging Muslims looking for a random innocent bystander to behead. For those keeping score, Pentecostal pastors in Florida who burn Korans have no capital in the social justification bank.

But tell me, all ye who pontificate within the Beltway, why is drawing Mohammad as a bombhead an act of noble free speech courage, while burning a Koran is the work of an irresponsible bigot? Is it because one happened on an editorial page, which is your church, and the other happened in an actual church, which isn't?

And this is why Graham's statement is so ridiculous. If we really were in a war, we wouldn't be handling airport security the way we do -- we would actively and openly profile the passengers. If we were in a war, as in the Second Big One, we wouldn't have made the troops in Europe speak respectfully of Mein Kampf, or wear swastika arm bands, to keep from offending the locals. If we were at war with Hitler again, and some twerp with personal problems in west Texas burned Hitler in effigy, nothing bad would have happened to him because nobody would ever have heard of it.

We are not at war with radical Islam. We are at war with American liberties in the name of fighting radical Islam. This is not said, as some on the libertarian right might do, because I believe radical Islam is not a real threat. It is a real threat, and ought to be fought. But it has to be said that the general gang of Republicans in support of the "war on terror" are about as serious in that endeavor as they have been in their efforts to reduce the deficit. And if Republicans fight radical Islam the same way they have fought overspending, we should have all our wives in burkas in no time.