…by playing in accord with his own rules. More precisely: we demand an apology from every Muslim cleric, every Muslim head of state, every Muslim legislator, editorialist, you name it, who has incited violence against the Pope, being as we see this as a direct attack on our civilization. And if the apology is refused…well, they know better than anyone the consequences. We can just choose at random one of the psychopathic placards from an equally randomly selected “protest” to determine the proper punishment.
The emerging question among those serious about our enemy (i.e., not liberals and leftists) is whether the view that we are fighting “extremists” who have “distorted” an otherwise “peaceful” or at least “reformable” religion remains sustainable, even as a polite fiction–or, are we simply at war with Islam? My view has been, and remains, that we should defer this question for as long as possible, and meanwhile craft policies which will be effective regardless of what the answer turns out to be; and policies that, furthermore, will supply us with data that will ultimately enable us to answer, when we have no choice. For this very reason we need to take actions that let us see whether your average Imam who screams “Death to America” every Friday does so because he knows there is no price to be paid and a cheaply won popularity to be gained, or whether he indeed wishes to “engage” us. We must begin to force the question, in other words, even as we continue to defer any definitive answer.
Scenic Politics
