Melanie Phillips’s incoherent call for war
Melanie Phillips continues to wage war against Britain’s refusal to wage war against jihadist Islam. Unfortunately, because she herself hasn’t the slightest idea of what such a war would consist of, her position is as incoherent as that of the British government (and the American government) that she criticizes. She starts a column in USA Today with the words: “Britain is now fighting a war it dares not name.” What she actually means is that the people she calls “Islamists,” i.e., radical Muslims, are fighting a war against Britain, and that Britain is not fighting back, but is retreating and even refusing to name the enemy. Then she says that the real problem is that
the British government is pandering to the refusal by most British Muslims to acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is rooted in their religion and that this is a problem with which they must themselves deal.Let’s analyze this:
So, if war does not mean asking other people to do something for you, especially when the thing you’re asking them to do is something that they have no will to do, and that would not be in their power to do even if they had the will to do it, what then would a real war against radical Islam mean? A real war by Britain against radical Islam would mean that the British defend themselves from radical Islam, not depend on British Muslims to do it for them. At a minimum (I won’t insist on Khudayr Taher’s extreme proposal that the West remove all Muslims from the West), such a war would consist of: shutting down all pro-radical mosques; ending all further Muslim immigration into Britain; and removing from Britain all Muslims who support radical Islam, regardless of their citizenship status. How the British are to determine which Muslims support radical Islam, and how large a percentage of the Muslim community such supporters would add up to (opinion polls indicate the percentage is quite large), are details that we do not need to address at the moment. What I am providing here is the outline of an actual war by Britain against radical Islam. If Phillips is not willing to call for at least this much, then she should have the honesty to stop advocating “war” and instead speak of her fond desire that the Muslims in Britain reform themselves, even as the radical Muslims, with the passive or active support of a large percentage of the British Muslim population, continue to wage war on Britain.
Jeff in England forwarded the above article to Melanie Phillips, and, amazingly, he received the honor of a reply:
I have no intention of entering into any “debate” with this man.Ben W. writes:
You write:Steven Warshawsky writes:
Must say, excellent analysis of Melanie Phillips’ latest piece. Your critical skills strike me as positively “Marxian” in their sophistication and insight!LA replies:
I hope that’s a compliment. :-)Mr. Warshawky replies:
In my estimation, former Marxists seem to have the finest honed analytical skills, which I assume is a product of their “dialectical” training and their insistence that surface images mask hidden meanings. At least this is true for areas of society and culture. (I say former, because not until they are freed from their own ideological blinders does their true analytical ability show.) I think free market economists and public choice theorists have the stronger grasp on economic and politics. As for Marx, based on my altogether too frequent encounters with him in college, I’d say he is widely recognized as an extremely trenchant critic of other thinkers’ writings.LA replies:
I’ve never been a Marxist, never been on the left, except in a vague sort of way very briefly in college years. The notion of Marxian dialectics is alien to me, as it leads people not to look at the truth of things, but only to see them as a stage in some dialectical process. My analytical approach doesn’t come from an ideological view that one must unmask hidden meanings, but simply from the desire to understand what people are saying. And key to this is the attempt to understand what the real tendency of an argument is. What are its unstated premises? And where, if the argument were followed consistently, would it ultimately lead? Writers, particularly liberals, do not make their assumptions and their ends clear. (That’s why I like someone like Sayyid Qutb, though he is an enemy; he tells you exactly where’s he’s coming from and where he’s heading.) Also, the great majority of readers accept nice-sounding slogans without asking where these slogans are heading.Ari H. writes:
The West isn’t doing a good job defending and explaining its core values. The Muslims perceive us as either stupid (Bush) or secular hedonists and that is part of the problem. The government funded BBC doesn’t exactly help either with their anti-West approach.LA replies:
You’re coming from a completely different set of perceptions and assumptions than I am. You think the integration of Muslims in our society is possible. You base it on one neighborhood. You don’t see the larger picture of what Islam is. I can’t reiterate for you arguments that I and others have been making at great length for several years. If you don’t agree with those who see Islam as fundamentally incompatible with and dangerous to the West, then you don’t agree. If you don’t see the reality of what Islam is, then you don’t see it. Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 12, 2007 02:45 PM | Send Email entry |