DiploMad at The DiploMad 2.0 ("Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved Republic, now in the hands of Morons who (mis)govern it, the DiploMad has returned to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.") takes us around the bases on the subject of Islam (for those who haven't been paying attention since 2001) (or 1998) (or 1993).
Money quote(s):
"We, however, must ask, is our commitment to freedom, to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights a suicide pact? What do we do when faced with powerful organizations here at home that don't believe in freedom? Organizations motivated by hatred precisely for those freedoms and the practice of tolerance? Organizations that openly seek to use our freedoms to destroy them?
During the Cold War we faced such a foe, Soviet Communism. We adopted common sense measures at home to limit the ability of Communists to undermine our nation. Communists, for example, could not hold certain sensitive jobs; they were denied security clearances; the CPUSA was treated as the agent of a hostile foreign power and was subject to penetration and surveillance by the FBI. Foreign Communists were ineligible for visas to the US or for citizenship. Did we infringe on the freedom of Communists? Yes, no doubt. Given, however, what we all should now know about the extent of Soviet espionage against the USA, and the role that the CPUSA played in efforts to undermine America, those measures seem eminently reasonable. We have had similar restrictions on Fascists, Nazis, and KKK members. All infringements, all justifiable."
This is one of those historically proven facts, well known in literate circles, that tends to cause cognitive dissonance among those indoctrinated to see no enemies on the Left, to believe Sen. McCarthy was a wrong-headed monster, to believe Alger Hiss (and the Rosenbergs) were innocent.
All of which was proven, again and again, to be counterfactual; i.e., lies and untruths.
Google "venona papers" or "mitrokhin archive" if these assertions trouble you.
"Those of us who have served in Muslim states know that when we go to those countries we must respect their culture -- OK, fine. But it turns out that when they come to our country, we also have to respect their culture -- or at least the Disney version they peddle. As I have said on many occasions, try to build a church or a synagogue in Saudi Arabia, not possible; try to prevent Muslims from building a mosque in your home town, not possible. We all, especially those of us in government, have to recite the mantra of "Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace.""
A long time ago, before becoming a diplomat, I had a very interesting interview with an officer and a gentleman whose task that day was to evaluate me for "a position of trust and responsibility with the U.S. Government." Actually, it wasn't anything to do with my security clearance (for those of you who recognize the phrasing) but everything to do with whether I was fit or suitable to lie, cheat, and steal for my country.
(As some of our special operators will tell you, "if you ain't cheatin', you ain't tryin'.)
To shorten an overlong story, I was able to convince the gentleman that, despite my Eagle Scout background, I was willing to do what was necessary on behalf of my country, to do very un-nice things to un-nice people.
Fast forwarding, I recently found myself getting into a semi-public debate about whether American diplomats should tell lies. One party (who was not a diplomat) assumed I was accusing a fellow diplomat, who was our mutual acquaintance, of being a liar. Au contraire.
The mutual acquaintance, a senior FSO for whom I have boundless admiration, is someone in whose word I would place great confidence. On the other hand, I also understand the truth in the saying "A diplomat is an honest man sent abroad to lie for his country."
Pres. Bush (#43) understood (even if he never articulated it particularly well), that getting into an existential struggle with a world civilization a la Huntington, wasn't a particularly good idea.
It's still not a very good idea, but it may be one which we are unable to finally avoid.
So I'm not all that troubled by having to say the mantra. (I'm more troubled by people who know me thinking I'm stupid enough to believe it.)
"We are at war with a totalitarianism as much as we were with Communism and Fascism. It's going to be a long, long war, one in which we have to inflict repeated defeats on the Islamists"
"The Soviet Empire in practice was a social, economic and human disaster by just about any measure you care to use. Islam, likewise, as it is practiced in the modern world has produced some of the most retrograde, repressive, and violent regimes and organizations in existence. Nearly all Muslims might not be terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims. And they draw their inspiration from somewhere." (Bold type added for emphasis, primarily because this can't be said too often. - CAA)
&
"Bottom line: Do we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves against a brutal and totalitarian ideology, or do we have to put up with it because it has the label "religion?""
