Spengler’s Spenglerian thoughts about Islam

In a column last December 16, Spengler argues that the world financial crisis is wreaking havoc on the Muslim world, and that “Pakistan is about to become a failed state, and Iran and Turkey will be close behind.”

The West at present is unable to cope with a failed state like Somalia, with less than a tenth as many military age men as Pakistan, but which nonetheless constitutes a threat to world shipping and a likely source of funding for terrorism. How can the West cope with the humiliation of Pakistan’s pro-American president and the inability of its duly-constituted government to suppress Islamist elements in its army and intelligence services? For the moment, Washington will do its best to prop up its creature, Zardari, but to no avail. The alternatives will require the West to add several zeros to whatever the prevailing ceiling might be for acceptable collateral damage.

I wish writers would state their meaning clearly instead of making allusive, impressionistic remarks the meaning of which the reader must guess at. But it looks as though Spengler is saying that Pakistan is about to become so dangerous that America will have to attack it militarily and kill a vast number of civilians. How many? Let’s say America’s current ceiling for acceptable collateral damage when attacking a Muslim country is 1,000 civilians. Adding “several” zeroes to that—i.e., at least three zeroes—raises 1,000 to 1,000,000; adding four zeroes raises it to 10,000,000. Does Spengler seriously mean that America will face such a catastrophic threat from Pakistan that it will need to kill up to ten million Pakistani civilians? What would be the nature of such a threat, and what would be the means by which he visualizes the U.S. carrying out such mass killing? Carpet bombing Pakistan with nuclear bombs? Or is Spengler engaging in his usual portentous overreaching, trying to impress readers with his profundity? Or is he merely indulging in sloppy writing, like a an e-mail correspondent who dashes something off without thinking about it? That’s why I don’t like impressionistic writing. It allows a writer to throw statements around without taking responsibility for what he’s saying.

Spengler also makes this disturbing point about the Mumbai assault:

A final note: several readers have asked me to comment on the terror attack on Mumbai in November. I will do so with great caution, given the absence of accurate information. I have good reason to believe that the Indian authorities lied about the attack. India claimed that 10 shooters were involved, because nine were killed and one captured. The actual number is closer to 30, I am reliably informed, not counting support personnel in Mumbai who arranged safe houses with extra ammunition and explosives months in advance of the attack. It was not a suicide attack at all, but a new kind of urban terror assault, in which the participants had a reasonable expectation of survival, and the majority did in fact survive. That is an important wrinkle, for a better class of combatant can be recruited for missions in which survival is at least possible.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 29, 2009 04:14 PM | Send