Shall we wage a war to destroy Islam?

David Yerushalmi of the Society of Americans for National Existence (that’s a name that resonates with the editor of amnation.com!), proposes a war against Islam. His strategy has many overlaps with the Separationist strategy to which I subscribe (for example, he calls for the total end of Muslim immigration), but is also different in one significant regard. He proposes that any sharia-based regime be destroyed, while I say that only regimes that actively threaten us should be destroyed. I want to contain and quarantine Islam where it cannot harm us or have any effect on us; Yerushalmi wants to eliminate it.

There is an interesting and I think fruitful disagreement opening up between those like Yerushalmi and Andrew McCarthy who seek an aggressive war against Islam, and those like myself who seek the active containment of Islam.

- end of initial entry -

David H. writes:

I believe that you are right, this could be a tremendously important discussion for those who recognize the face of the enemy (sadly, just one of the enemies) that menaces us. I admit that I am not yet convinced which idea is the better of the two—but I do know that the alternatives, the “democracy” experiment, or appeasement, would be disastrous (even criminally so). I see such a discussion as a vital step towards a resolute position that defies both the destructive neocon liberal fantasies and the sheer treason of the left. Such an important discussion reminds me of the proposals (such as island-hopping, unrestricted submarine warfare, invasion of the homeland) for defeating the Japanese. Those who will debate and discuss these two plans may not see eye-to-eye on the solution, but we agree that the enemy, Islam, must be defeated. Whether such a defeat means expulsion from the West and containment, or destruction of each Islamic state, is the problem that needs resolved. This will be a vital exercise for our side. We must determine the best solution and then with great resolve we must defend our conclusions.

LA replies:

Exactly right. The two sides are agreed that Islam is the adversary. This puts us apart from all the rest of the left, liberal, and “conservative” discussion today and in the realm of reality as concerns the nature of Islam. But once we’re in the realm of reality, what do we do? That’s the question.

In effect, Yerushalmi does not share one of my Separationist premises, that “Islam cannot be destroyed.” However, he has told me he is not seeking to destroy Islam. He and I will have a public discussion about this soon.

In the meantime, readers could check out “Should we be at war with radical Islam? A discussion with Andrew McCarthy,” which was posted here last month.

Charlton G. writes:

Lawrence, unprovoked total war against Islam would be folly for a variety of reasons. For one, it would isolate us diplomatically. All of our non-Muslim enemies would instantly take advantage of the situation on all fronts. The foreign relations damage would be palpable and fester for decades, perhaps even proving fatal to our country. Militarily we would be drained as our non-Muslim enemies funneled weapons to a whole battery of radicalized Muslim groups all over the world. It would be like trying to kill a swarm of hornets with a fly swatter. What damage the French could do us in Europe is mind boggling. And say goodbye to that “special relationship” with Britain. The only way we could wage all out, total war against Islam would be as a response to a nuclear attack on an American city, probably New York, which kills several hundred thousand people. Then and only then could I see this country galvanized for total war with a sympathetic non-Muslim world on our side. They would have to be on our side after such an attack because they would understand their own threat. But absent such an attack, no such sympathy is going to materialize and such talk as this is nonsense.

Your containment philosophy is the only workable solution in the world as we know it today. And even that is going to be a tough sell as long as liberals have any say.

Vivek G. writes:

This is regarding Charlton G’s comments: Why can’t substantial number of non-Muslim countries wage a collective war against Islam? (Say e.g. U.S., Australia, Israel, India, Japan etc.?) This would call for home-work on diplomatic front, and I think it is important to attempt it. To wait till we have a nuke attack on a U.S. city is strategically very dangerous. They will keep doing just about that or sufficiently less damage than that and we will keep waiting! What if they nuke Israel? Do we think that since it is not a U.S. city, we continue to wait?

To me it appears that the war (if not total war then the minimum necessary to achieve the separationist target of containment) can only be postponed and not avoided. So at the least we need to be prepared. And the least preparation seems to be to form a group of the willing.

LA writes:

From the start I’ve said that the full success of the separation/isolation strategy ultimately requires that all non-Muslim nations participate in it. This is not a call for some global military alliance, but rather for all non-Muslim countries to see the necessity of separation and do the same, and assist each other when called for.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 11, 2007 02:09 PM | Send