October 1, 2010



Submitted by JR Nyquist on Fri, 1 Oct 2010
The leading hit song in 1973 was Carly Simon's You're So Vain. It's about disappointed love, and contains the following line at the heart of the song:  "I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee...." Last month the Center for Security Policy presented the political equivalent of Simon's song to the national security establishment, titled Shariah, the Threat to America; An Exercise in Competitive Analysis, report of Team 'B' II, which touches many a cloud in our national coffee.

The Team B Report doesn't walk into the party as if onto a yacht, with its hat strategically dipped below one eye; and there isn't an apricot scarf. In fact, there's no concern for fashion of any kind. The vanities of political correctness, multiculturalism, and the lingua franca of self-abnegating tolerance do not appear. We are in a war for our existence, says Team B. We are fighting a subversive and well-organized subset of Muslims. "In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, [we need to] extend bans currently in effect that bar members of hate groups ... from holding positions of trust in [government]."

But the national security establishment couldn't possibly agree with this. For them, it is unacceptable to identify America's enemies or to deny Muslims coveted posts. Opinion leaders like journalist Fareed Zakaria, as well as President Barack Obama, would rather talk about tolerance and inclusion. After all, if we don't embrace Muslims we will offend them. In that event, the next terrorist attack really will be our fault. And besides, a xenophobic display would damage our position overseas. Here is the main and immediate objection to Team B.  As Zakaria explained in The Post-American World: America lacks legitimacy, unlike the rock singer Bono who excels because he is able to "capture the intellectual and moral high ground."

Instead of bogus national power based on military capabilities, we can found our security on the moral high ground, on vanity. Who needs to think of enemies, or the kind of vigilance required in preparing for war? We can do what Denmark, Luxembourg and the Baltic States did in 1940. And to do this all-the-better, we must follow Zakaria's suggestions. We must avoid publicly naming our enemies since this will only serve to unite them into a more compact mass. "Stop cowering in fear," warned Zakaria. Fear is the enemy. There is nothing to fear but fear itself, said FDR. There is nothing to fear because, as President Barack Obama recently told Bob Woodward, "We can absorb [another] terrorist attack...." If thousands die, if skyscrapers fall, if the Pentagon burns -- absorb it! Get over it!  Grow up! America's strength is found in its tolerance, not in its ability to strike back.

But before Zakaria and Obama can fly off to Nova Scotia for a total eclipse of the sun, we should consider Team B's comeback. First, the issue at hand is not a matter of a few thousand dead or a few tumbled skyscrapers. It is a matter of life and death for an entire nation; because the United States is in a struggle for its existence. The enemy adheres to an "all encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as shariah" which aims at global Islamic supremacy. Of course, a large number of Muslims don't follow the directives of shariah. On the other hand, a large number agree that they ought to.  This nuance shouldn't be passed over in silence. Furthermore, as Muslims flood into the United States to live and work, we find ourselves unable to distinguish the moderates from the radicals. According to Team B: "the most difficult attack to defend against is the one that comes from inside the defensive perimeter...." The Report continues, "That is the situation of America today. We have an enemy inside our perimeter." Millions of Muslims live and work in America today. Which of these are enemies, and which are friends? The President says it doesn't matter because we can absorb an attack. Zakaria says it doesn't matter, because our best defense is to let everyone in (and include everyone). But is this really a defense? Or is it clouds in our coffee?
Defectors from the Muslim Brotherhood have already attempted to warn the American people that the Brotherhood seeks to destroy the United States Constitution and replace it with shariah. "These brave men," says the Team B report, "are helping to define the enemy." But the American establishment doesn't want to listen. They do not want definitions. They want inclusion, tolerance, and a blurring of every line of demarcation. They don't want to identify Islam with the cause of the enemy. They don't want to address the issue of forced marriages, honor killings, female genital mutilation, polygamy and domestic abuse. The Team B report says, "Evidence of the extent to which shariah is being insinuated into the fabric of American society abounds, if one is willing to see it."

Does Team B exaggerate the Islamic threat? If you read the Report you'll find that it discusses long-term Islamic subversion, stretching to the end of the present century. The main issues are cultural rather than military. The Report discusses our "national lack of moral certitude." It suggests that a failure to side with one's own society, customs and folkways is tantamount to taking the "other" side in a long-term struggle over values (theirs versus ours). Diversity, under these circumstances, is not automatically good. "Under sway of the multicultural credo, notions of the superiority of Western culture are heretical, an imminent threat to the leveling arrangement that makes the European Union's so-called 'meeting of different civilizations' possible."
But are such things truly possible? In real life, as opposed to childish dreams about life, you have to stand up for yourself. This doesn't mean that you have to be a bully. It means that if you aren't for yourself, then who is? In place of this sort of advice, our president gives the counsel of vanity, attempting to win approval overseas. Should we reconcile ourselves to absorbing a massive terrorist assault for the sake of maintaining what Zakaria calls "legitimacy" (which otherwise belongs to rock stars, and to Luxembourg)? Is national survival and persistence our goal, or do we crave international applause? Should America take a rock star as its model? Or should we sing the words set down by Carly Simon?