Lessons about Islam don’t get clearer than this; and commander of slaughtered CIA base was mother of three

Every day another unmistakable lesson about the nature of Islam, and about the folly of our admitting Muslims into our society, and about the folly of trying to “reform” Islam abroad, is thrown into our face. And every day we ignore it. The most recent lesson is the suicide murder of seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan by their top Afghan informer. From ABC:

The suicide bomber who killed at least six Central Intelligence Agency officers in a base along the Afghan-Pakistan border on Wednesday was a regular CIA informant who had visited the same base multiple times in the past, according to someone close to the base’s security director.

About which Mencius Moldbug writes:

Did you notice that the commander of the Afghan CIA base which got blown up is identified as “a mother of three?” As the commander, she is responsible for whatever policy allowed an unsearched Afghan to bring a bomb into a roomful of Americans.

Which probably means nothing at all. I’m sure her sex, and her presumed readiness to trust and embrace the picturesque native peoples of Upper Pashtoonistan, have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. However, I’m surprised to see you not connect the dots—or at least mention them. I mean, if you don’t, who will?

LA replies:

Thanks for pointing out the mother angle. A mother of three was a CIA commander stationed in the middle of the Afghan civil war? How old are her children? Perhaps one of them is a one year old with Down Syndrome, and another is a 17 year old girl who just got pregnant out of wedlock. After all, women—including women with small children with special needs—can do everything that men can do, right? A feminist axiom that since September 2008 “conservatives” now subscribe to and enforce on other conservatives.

See the angry feminist-style “I am Sarah Palin” YouTube produced by Michelle Malkin and other conservative women in September 2008 (and discussed at VFR), the operative line of which is “I will not be told that I cannot be a good mother and participate in politics.” Meaning: it is henceforth prohibited to suggest that there should be any limits on what a mother—including a mother with an infant baby with special needs—can do, including running a country, including running a CIA intelligence station in a Muslim country in the middle of a civil war.

Or perhaps the late CIA base commander’s children are grown. Either way, your question is valid.

However, even without the female angle, the slaughter of CIA agents by an Afghan Muslim CIA informant is emblematical of a larger point: we should have nothing to do with Muslims. We cannot trust Muslims. Muslims are commanded by their god not to be friends with us, but to make war on us by open or covert means until they have subdued us. And we have no way of telling whether a Muslim who seems to be friendly really is friendly. What could prove this better than the suicide murder of U.S. operatives by an Afghan informer who had already been informing for them for some time and whom they therefore had reason to trust?

Muslims should not be in our countries, and we should not be involved in the internal affairs of their countries. Any close involvement between us and Muslims only weakens us and confuses us.

But, given our own religion (I don’t mean Christianity, but universalist liberalism), it is impossible for us to take in these facts about Islam. The unchangeable reality of that religion—a religion commanded by its god to wage eternal war against all other religions—cannot be acknowledged by us, because it would force us to give up our religion.

* * *

On the psychological confusions we impose on ourselves by believing that there are moderate Muslims who are our allies, see this passage from Part II my article, “The Search for Moderate Islam,” where I describe the search for moderate Islam as the cultural equivalent of the Israel-Palestinian “peace” process:

Similarly, if we embrace the idea that moderate Islam is the cure for extremist Islam, we will have to carry out a cultural peace process, in which we strive to build up the “moderate” Muslims (whether in our own country or in the Mideast) and turn them into leaders of the Islamic community. The path is filled with punji traps. In light of [Daniel] Pipes’s desolating observation that we often cannot even tell a moderate from a radical, our efforts to raise the influence of “moderate” Muslims—many of whom will turn out not to be moderate—will simply mean giving Muslims qua Muslims more cache and power in our society, with their demands and perhaps their threats ever increasing, while we get more and more entangled in the process of instructing, exhorting, bribing, and (maybe) changing them, even as we keep desperately assuring ourselves that moderate Muslim solution will work in the long run.

Because the search for moderate Muslims requires us not to see the other side as it really is, we must replace truthful speech with politically correct slogans that demoralize us and encourage our enemies. For example, almost every time Pipes criticizes radical Muslims, he must—in order to prove that he’s not a bigot and that he still believes in an ecumenic resolution—assure his audience that “moderate Islam is the answer.” Varieties of this double message, repeated constantly by the government and the intelligentsia, create deep confusion and ambivalence in the public mind. On one hand we’re being told that radical Muslims are a remorseless wicked enemy; on the other hand, we’re being told that almost all Muslims are moderate and harmless, and that we are bigoted if we think otherwise. The net effect of these two contradictory statements is to establish the unassailable legitimacy of Islam in our country. But, since there is no moderate Islam, the Islam that gets legitimized will, inevitably, be radical Islam.

The cultural peace process would distract and weaken us in other ways. Instead of spending our energy building up our own society and culture, which is within our power to do, we would be attempting to build up the Muslims’ society and culture, which is not within our power to do. We would be gambling our freedom and survival on the chance that we can bring something into existence that has never existed. We would be making our safety contingent on whether the moderate Muslims can be what we want them to be. We would keep gazing expectantly at each Muslim as a potential moderate, and averting our eyes when he turned out not to be one—just as the leaders of Israel and the U.S. kept closing their eyes to the real nature of the Palestinians for all those years and are closing them still. We would have to keep refusing to acknowledge failure, because that would wreck our fantasy of an ecumenic and peaceful world. Regardless of all disappointments, we will still keep telling ourselves that some wonderful “moderates” are just around the corner and that we have to reach out to them.

In the end, our refusal to face the truth about Muslims, our flattery of non-moderate Moslems as “moderates,” will convince them that we are saps lacking the wit and will to defend ourselves, which will increase their aggression against us. Like the Marxist dream with its 150 years on the road to nowhere, our dream of a moderate Islam will inevitably collapse one day, and the price might be nearly as high.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

With regard to the CIA “mother of three”, I observed in the 1990s that the CIA appeared to make a strenuous effort to hire women. All the women I personally knew who got hired (roughly ten people) were typically whiny, lazy, incompetent, and unprofessional young American females. That policy is now bearing bitter fruit. Without a doubt, the bad guys sent the bomber there to gain their trust, probably feeding them some good information, just to set them up for the suicide blast, and they were too dumb to see it coming.

LA replies:

But if U.S. intelligence and military personnel working in a Muslim country cannot trust locals with whom they have long-established, close relationships and who have even (apparently) risked their lives on behalf of the Americans (such as this long-time CIA informant turned suicide bomber), then how can the Americans trust ANYONE in these countries?

Answer: they CAN’T.

Ergo, the lesson of this event is that the U.S. should end all close involvement in civil wars, nation building, or ANYTHING in Muslim countries.

Ferg writes:

… the commander of the Afghan CIA base which got blown up is identified as “a mother of three?”

Good Grief! I am sorry, I agree with your position on Islam itself completely, but this is TOO MUCH!

GOOD GRIEF!

LA replies:

I guess you mean: WE are so screwed up that it almost surpasses the Islam problem.

But there’s no contradiction there. OF course it is the case that our embrace of blatant untruth has helped empower Islam.

Ferg replies:

I just didn’t want my thoughts on the matter of the mother of three to detract from the general message on the need to distance ourselves from Islam and Muslims. It doesn’t change things at all, it is an independent issue.

I have to admit it took me by surprise.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 03, 2010 07:39 PM | Send