It is very hard to have a charitable or Christian view of radical Islam. These people revel in the slaughter of anybody who does not share their "religious" beliefs. I have the utmost tolerance for the personal beliefs and practices of any religion as long as they have the same for mine. But this "religion" calls for my destruction. In my view, that is the point where a "religion" loses any right of tolerance, acceptance or deference. They assume the same status as any person, gang or country that states their intent to kill me, and proves they are serious by trying over and over.
They have shown us for hundreds of years that they will not negotiate. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin knew it. (Ever wonder where "the shores of Tripoli" in the Marine Hymn came from?) It's like having a football team that only plays our third string. We don't play by the same rules.
And I don't think it will get better until we change our rules. God forbid we offend anybody, but we better start taking this seriously.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I completely agree when you describe how it's impossible to have a charitable view of radical Islam. How can anyone tolerate a religion that practices 'death to the infidel'? And I agree when you say 'we don't play by the same rules'. That much is clear.
I disagree on what we should do about it. The US experience, some 200 years ago, with the Barbary Pirates (as they were called) showed that they don't play by the standard Western rules. They attack when their opponents are weak and run when they are strong. They murder innocents or take hostages and expect ransom payments. We think that's cowardly, but their goal is only to live and fight another day. Westerners mistakenly hope that the Arab world wants to create democratic republics just like we did.
The US early efforts to confront and punish the murders and thieves in North Africa didn't succeed, despite the implied myth of the Marine Corp Hymn. The rest of the European nations at the time had worked out that bribery worked much better. The French changed their policy in the Mediterranean, only when they decided to permanently occupy North Africa so they could oppose British domination of the Med, and made Algeria and Tunisia colonial possessions. After more than 100 years, that ultimately failed.
The British relearned that same lesson, slowly and painfully, with their nearly 100-year long experience in Afghanistan during the entire 19th century. They occupied Afghanistan to prevent Imperial Russia from expanding south and threatening their colony in India. Their Afghan experience was a bloody failure. Instead of direct military force, they later used puppet governments and bribery, it succeeded. (For a good account of that history, look for a book titled
'The Great Game' by Peter Hopkirk.)
I'm not sure we have learned that yet. Yes, we must keep their terrorism out of our home countries. But we should not ever believe that they long to become Westerners just like us. And we should not allow our reawakened Cold War fears of Russia to force us into military quagmires in the Middle East. If Russia is foolish enough to do that, let them. I wonder what they learned from their own 10-year disaster in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Most of all, we should be very careful who we arm to fight in the Middle East.
