Sunday, February 19, 2006
Asymmetrical retaliation
This is a picture of a burning Christian church in Pakistan. The caption, from Agence-France Presse, reads as follows:
Flames raise from a church set on fire by a mob in Sukkur about 480 kilometres (300 miles) north of the capital Islamabad. Hundreds of angry Muslims attacked two churches in southern Pakistan Sunday after allegations that a Christian boy had desecrated the Koran, a government official said.
So let me get this straight: Muslims hear a rumor that a Christian boy has desecrated the Koran and "hundreds" of them decide that the best response is to burn down two churches? Even if a child did desecrate a Koran and even if that is deeply offensive to many Muslims, what twisted sense of justice -- justice is, by the way, supposed to be Islam's strong suit -- concludes that the appropriate redress is to burn down two Christian churches?
I confess that since September 11 I have been struggling with my own hostility toward Islam. My heart has been angry, but my head has kept it calm. I must say, though, that the events of recent weeks have made me wonder whether my heart wasn't right all along. Is it indeed possible that this religion teaches mob violence in response to every conceivable offensive gesture, whether or not verified, whether or not intentional, whether or not protected under law? Or is it that these angry mobs are disobeying the religious law they purport to want to live under? Which answer is it?
Earlier today I wrote that the West cannot reconcile Muslim intolerance with its own tolerance. There is, though, a second asymmetry in this crisis: Muslim activists -- whether they are "extremists" or mainstream remains to be established -- clearly believe in asymmetrical retaliation. Just as they believe that they must be tolerated but they do not have to show tolerance themselves, they also believe that the retaliation for any perceived offense against Muslims should be far out of proportion to the offense itself.
Asymmetrical retaliation is working well for Muslim activists so far -- they are accomplishing their objective, which is to make Westerners very afraid of them. Also, they believe that this strategy comes with no risks, because they know from experience that the West will not retaliate disproportionately in return.
Perhaps we need to change their experience.
10 Comments:
By 
pst314, at
Sun Feb 19, 10:02:00 PM:
And where do these rumors keep coming from? The Religion of Peace (TM) which must do everything it can to "keep the infidels in their place." There is more than a small resemblance between Islam and the Ku Klux Klan.
By Chip, at
Sun Feb 19, 11:27:00 PM:
This is part of an interesting topic I've been meaning to blog myself: Islam's advantages in a clash of civilizations ("modernity v. medieval").
Islam can rally hundreds of irregular fighters to almost any location in the world. They use modern communications and weapons, but medieval everything else, from motivation to justifications. We can pretend it's "protest" but it's really guerilla warfare. There are body counts to prove it.
This brings one, mentally, to your last sentence. Modernity does not prepare us for this situation. So we pray our police and military forces are not hamstrung by bought-and-paid-for politicians.
But look around. Silver lining: at least it's non-partisan rampant corruption.
By 
, at
Mon Feb 20, 02:02:00 AM:
Yes it's modernity vs. Medievalism (or really traditional pre-Classical tribalism). And when the gloves are on then yes, they have an asymmetrical advantage.
But that won't last forever. A new set of 9/11 style atrocities etc. changes the rules.
In THAT dynamic, well the ability to mobilize massive amounts of technology to kill with the greatest efficiency and deadly scale matters. Think "Highway of Death" when it comes to it.
Muslims think tribalistic violence and terror is their magic sword. They'll push it too far and see what happens. Iran believes it can and will destroy 8-9 American cities. The US can destroy not only all of Iran but indeed if it chose, ALL 1 plus billion Muslims. That's an awesome power.
By Final Historian, at
Mon Feb 20, 02:29:00 AM:
Iran's desire for a nuclear arsenal may include plans to use it on the US or Israel, but only in the long term.
Their short/medium term goals are different, but just as sinister.
By , at
Mon Feb 20, 03:17:00 AM:
"I confess that since September 11 I have been struggling with my own hostility toward Islam."
From what I have seen, radical islamists seem to be running most of the Muslim world. Maybe there are Muslim moderates somewhere, but for the most part, their mouths are shut. For good reason. They would probably be killed or suffer retribution.
For starters, let's stop all immigration of Muslims. Expell all Muslims who advocate violence to America or any of its allies. Stop all foreign aid to Muslim countries. Let them know that if ANY nuclear device is detonated in America, the FIRST target that will get a nuclear response is MECCA.
By TigerHawk, at
Mon Feb 20, 06:44:00 AM:
The idea of threatening to nuke Mecca is a bad one. It is no more immoral than our Cold War policy of massive retaliation against the Soviet Union, but that threat would guarantee an exceedingly long and bloody war with most of the Muslim world. I believe that there is still a chance that we can avoid that war and preserve our civilization, all at the same time.
For the sake of my children I hope so.
By Fausta, at
Mon Feb 20, 08:04:00 AM:
I find it interesting how the AFP headline says "churches ransacked", when they were actually burned down, not just ransacked.
By , at
Mon Feb 20, 10:18:00 AM:
The problem with threatening to bomb Mecca is that Islamic doctrine holds that Mecca cannot be destroyed by man. Muslim's with particularly literal interpretations of the Koran (like the radicals in power), therefore, would find the threat to bomb Mecca no threat at all, because the city is invincible. They'd realize their error when they see the Kabba glowing green, but that doesn't do us any good.
By , at
Mon Feb 20, 01:27:00 PM:
Tigerhawk-
When the Islamofascists detonate a dirty nuclear bomb in an American city, what should the response be?
By , at
Mon Feb 20, 03:01:00 PM:
Re: Britney @ 1:27 pm:
To quote Clint Eastwood, from "The Eiger Sanction",
"Something massive."
But let's not start whistling up the apocalypse anytime soon. Who knows? The horse may learn to sing.
-David
