Over Christmas vacation I foolishly issued a challenge to someone in my family - if they would finish 'What Terrorists Want' I would read 'America Alone'.
Clearly, I underestimated him. 'What Terrorists Want' was finished in two days, and I picked up his copy of 'America Alone'. Why bother? The number one lesson I learned as a debater in high school was that you must understand all the arguments - even the ones you don't agree with. Especially the ones you don't agree with.
The best thing I can say for this book is that I didn't completely disagree with everything. Like many books with strong opinions, the language is a bit strident at times. If his hope was to convince people who didn't already agree with him, he might have been better off making it a bit less sarcastic. I certainly wouldn't have sat through the book if it weren't for this bet.
Essentially, this book is about demographics. His thesis is that since birth rates in Western countries are falling, and a good portion of the immigrants are coming from Muslim countries, the world has a problem. Islam, he contends, is a dangerous religious and political movement and that unless something is done, modern society will be absorbed by the radical Islamists' dream, the caliphate. To be fair to the author, Steyn doesn't say that all Muslims are terrorists, just that enough are.
Below are his arguments addressed in parts.
Steyn 1: We are facing a dangerous, insidious enemy in radical Islam and it's being underestimated.
"The difference between the old Indian territory and the new is this: no one had to worry about the Sioux riding down Fifth Avenue." (page xxi)
"That's the lesson of September 11: the dragons are no longer on the edge of the map. . .the biggest globalization success story of recent years is not McDonald's or Microsoft but Islamism: the Saudis took what was not so long ago a severe but peripheral strain of Islam practiced by Bedouins in the middle of a desert miles from anywhere and successfully exported it to Jakarta and Singapore and Alma-Ata and Grozny and Sarajevo and Lyons and Bergen and Manchester and Ottawa and Dearborn and Falls Church." (page 61)
The metaphor in the first quote makes me cringe a little - if he's hoping to convince the reader that it's moral to fight radical Islam, comparing it to the conquerors' shameful treatment of the Native Americans is hardly a good way to start. I have to concede the first part of his argument, however, the enemy in our current conflict is difficult to find and hard to fight. I'd disagree a little with the second part - I feel that the current administration has responded very strongly. In fact, since I can't bring my own water onto a plane, I'd say that in many ways the threat is taken seriously, even if the measures don't always make sense.
Steyn 2: America must be willing to use its imperial power to promote freedom - and fight radical Islam.
"When Osama bin Laden made his observation about people being attracted to the strong horse rather than the weak horse, it was partly a perception issue. You can be, technically, the strong horse - plenty of tanks and bombs and nukes and whatnot - but, if you're seen as too feeble ever to deploy them, you'll be kitted out for the weak-horse suit." (page xxii)
"U.S. guards at Gitmo are under instructions to handle copies of the Koran only when wearing gloves. The reason for this is that the detainees regard infidels are 'unclean'. But it's one thing for the Islamists to think infidels are unclean, quite another for the infidels to agree with them - and, by doing so, to validate their bigotry." (page xxviii)
"Al Qaeda thinks it's got America pegged - an effete, fleshy sultan sprawled langorously on overstuffed cushions, lost in sensual distractions. The choice for the United States is between those who believe America can take the lead in shaping the times and those who think the most powerful nation in human history can simply climb in the Suburban and go to the mall for its entire period of dominance. That's what the great Democratic Party all-purpose 'multi-lateral' cure-all for United States foreign policy boils down to. . .'Common values' and 'universal values' are not all that common and universal, and the willingness to defend those values is even rarer." (pg 175)
". . .power abhors a vacuum. If America won't export its values - self-reliance, decentralization - others will export theirs." (pg 173)
"Almost as soon as American troops entered Iraq, Senate Democrats demanded to know what the 'exit strategy' was. 'Exit strategy' is a phrase that might have been designed as a textbook definition of lack of will. Just say, whoa, we're the world's dominant power but we can't handle an unprecedentedly low level of casualties. . ." (page 169)
In principle, promoting freedom sounds like a good thing. The devil, as in most things, is in the details. If promoting freedom requires occupying countries, then there are very heavy costs to pay. Casualties certainly are one, though I would agree with him that American casualties in Iraq have been pretty low, taken in the context of other wars. However, the invasion in Iraq has resulted in a lot of civilian casualties (less or more than with the sanctions, it's hard to say). It's also tied the United States down in a way that commits the majority of our military in one conflict and prevents us from credibly threatening overwhelming force at the moment for other very real threats we are facing. As for the exit strategy, I see the Democrats' pleas a little bit differently.
I see it as a request to pin down exactly what our mission in Iraq is - in other words, how will we know when we're done? What exactly does victory mean in that conflict? At first it was about weapons of mass destruction, but then we find that there are none. Then it's about spreading democracy, a nice idea but hard to do when the United States breaks its own rules by torturing prisoners in secret prisons.
So, yes, spreading freedom and self-reliance is, in general, a good thing. But it's hard to do so militarily without a few side effects - many of which have come back to haunt us. And it's doubly hard to do so when we deny our own democratic traditions at home - like the laws that protect against warrantless wiretapping.
Steyn 3: Islam as a political and religious force justifies violence, doesn't include a strong history of social democracy, and doesn't facilitate assimilation with host countries.
"If a society chooses to outsource its breeding, who your suppliers are is not unimportant. 'I've heard those very silly remarks made about immigrants to this country since I was a child,' said Lyn Allison of the Australian Democrats, after a political opponent, Danna Vale, warned that the country could be swamped by Muslims. 'If it wasn't the Greeks, it was the Italians. . .or it was the Vietnamese.' But those are races or nationalities. Islam is a religion, and an explicitly political one - unlike the birthplace of your grandfather, it's not something you leave behind in the old country." (page 15)
"Non-muslim females in heavily Muslim neighborhoods in France now wear headscarves while out on the streets. Yes, yes, I know Islam is very varied, and Riyadh has a vibrant gay scene, and the Khartoum Feminist Publishing Collective now has so many members they've rented lavish new offices above the clitorectomy clinic. I don't pretend to have all the answers, except when I'm being interviewed live on TV. But that's better than pretending there aren't any questions." (page 16)
"Of course, not all Muslims are terrorists - though enough are hot for jihad to provide an impressive support network of mosques from Vienna to Stockholm to Toronto to Seattle. Of course, not all Muslims support terrorists - though enough of them share their basic objectives (the wish to live under Islamic law in Europe and North America) to function wittingly or otherwise as the 'good cop' end of Islamic good cop/bad cop routine. But, at the very minimum, this fast-moving demographic transformation provides a huge comfort zone to move around in." (page 33)
The fact that there isn't a strong history of social democracy in Muslim countries doesn't mean to me that Islam and democracy are incompatible. (Cue the hate mail. . .here) I've always seen religion as a double-edged sword - it's a very effective tool for social control. If the people in charge use that control to promote peace, love and understanding, it's all good. If not, bad things can happen. And have happened with most religions. I remember reading tsunami reports that neighbors assumed that the wave had taken out Hindu or Buddhist houses on purpose, depending on who you talked to. Christianity has been used to justify the crusades, slavery, wife beating, and was used as a political tool for violence in Ireland.
Islam is being used as the legitimizing ideology for a violent movement - this is true. But I don't think Islam is more susceptible to this than any other religion.
Much of what has been decried about sharia law is laws that have been built up around Islam - interpretations of Islam that have been championed by specific people or societies. Religion has mingled with misogyny and bigotry in many cultures - religions often reflect the societies they exist in - because religion is used as a way of enforcing social mores. Like this article here, which references the Bible as speaking against women's right to vote. How about this more recent article about how women shouldn't be pastors.
Christianity adjusted to a democratic society with women's rights - Islam can too. I believe that like most religions, it will adjust to the mores of the society around it when people demand it. And people are starting to demand it. (here and here are examples.)
I'd rather see people approaching the issue of women's rights as a human rights issue instead of digging through theology to justify something that we can prove moral simply through common sense. . .but it's a step forward anyway. :)
Steyn 4: Multiculturalism shouldn't be used to excuse the inflexibilities of Islam including limitations on women's rights and restrictions on personal liberty.
"Multiculturalism was conceived by the Western elites not to celebrate all cultures but to deny their own: it is, thus, the real suicide bomb." (page 194)
"General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: 'You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn women alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
Nothing should ever be used to justify violations of human rights - be that multiculturalism, religion, national security or any other cause you can name. To me, multiculturalism evokes the principal of non-interference. This is the basic principle that in a liberal democracy I can do what I like, provided the rights of everyone are respected.
The thesis of his argument is true enough here - but as I wrote above, I believe that Islam can be made to work within a liberal democracy.
Steyn 5: One of the main fixes for the demographics problem and for multiculturalism being taken too far and most other things is less government.
"New Hampshire has a high rate of firearms possession, which is why it has a low crime rate. You don't have to own a gun, and there are plenty of sissy. . .granola crunchers who don't. . .But they benefit from the fact that their. . .neighbors do." (page 46)
". . .those '40 million Americans without health insurance' would enjoy the benefit of a new government health care system and, like their 250 million neighbors, would discover the charms of the health care 'waiting list' - the one year, two years or more Britons and others wait in pain for even routine operations; the six, twelve, eighteen months Canadians wait for an MRI scan, there being more such scanners in the city of Philadelphia than the entire Great White North. They're now pioneering the ultimate expression of government health care: the ten month waiting list for the maternity ward." (page 51)
"The U.S. has the 'worst benefits for workers'? Maybe. But it also has the lowest unemployment rate - about half the rate in France and Germany, where it hovers permanently at around 10 percent." (page 104)
"And, if you're looking for 'root causes' of terrorism, why not start with the Euro-Canadian welfare systems? While it's not true that every immigrant on welfare is an Islamic terrorist, the vast majority of Islamic terrorists in Europe are on welfare, living in radicalized ghetto cultures with nothing to do but sit around plotting the jihad all day at taxpayers' expense." (page 83)
"That's been my basic rule of thumb since September 11: anything that shifts power from the individual judgment of free citizens to government is a bad thing, not just for the war on terror but for the national character in a more general sense." (page 187)
"In traditional rural societies, children were a necessary insurance for one's old age: by the time you were too stooped and worn to plough the field and hunt for dinner, Junior would do it for you. Today, when you're too stooped and worn (and, in fact, long before that point), the state steps in to take care of you." (page 190)
On this point, I can agree with him in parts. When government takes over too many things, it denies basic life choices to its citizens. And that, in general, a bad thing.
Too much gun control, and only the people willing to break the law have guns. Too little, and it's too easy to get guns that are too powerful. The trouble is finding the balance. At the risk of getting more hate mail. . .I agree with him that gov't providing health care for everyone in a single payer health care system is a bad idea. . .but that's a post for another day.
Those who advocate for expanding welfare and entitlement systems often discount the drag on the economy - which does leave more people unemployed with time on their hands to contemplate things. Without a radicalizing force, this would be less of a problem, but he is right to point out that the impediments to upward mobility are a problem for economic integration - and thus social integration.
The part where I disagree with him the most is that I don't believe less government would necessarily increase the birth rate. The problem for the modern woman is that she still bears most of the burden of parenthood. Even discounting the inequalities required by biology - women are less likely to be hired and more likely to earn less if they choose to work outside the home. Fathers get an economic advantage, they are more likely to be regarded as better employees, more likely to get promoted, and more likely to get raises.
If a woman chooses to stay and home and take care of her children, she is taking an entirely different sort of risk. Women who stay at home are vulnerable because the skills they use to manage the household and take care of the children aren't recognized by the job market - their time at home is regarded as an interruption in work. This is entirely unfair since taking care of small children is hard and demanding work - but there it is. That leaves the woman vulnerable to being stuck in a bad relationship - it is economically hard for her to leave. If the marriage doesn't last, she is dependent on the vagaries of the legal process for her future.
It is understandable that given the forces above, women are choosing more and more to delay childbirth, and some to not have children at all.
I don't know how you fix the problems above, I can't think of any government or private plans that would. Many of the suggestions are prone to backfiring - like mandatory paid leave for women after pregnancy - it's as likely to make employers less willing to hire women as to give them a boost.
But anyway, there's my .02. Overly large government is bad, but I'm not sure less or more government would fix the Steyn's demographic problem.
Steyn 6: More Christianity is needed to combat radical Islam.
"But in practice the lack of belief in divine presence is just as likely to lead to humans avoiding responsibility: if there's nothing other than the here and now, who needs to settle disputes at all? All you have to do is to manage to defer them till after you're dead. . .If there ever were a time for a strong voice from the heart of Christianity, this would be it." (page 98)
While on vacation once, I was the target of an evangelical conversion attempt - here's what I wish I had told the well-meaning person. I believe I am a moral, good individual. I won't go applying for sainthood or anything, but I pay my dues, I take care of myself and I care for my friends and family. I am polite and helpful to strangers when I can be. And I do all of this because I think it's right, not because I follow a religion that tells me too.
That isn't to say being religious makes one immoral. I know many good people who go to church, and I respect the choice that they make. But I'm still wary of the institution in general.
Religions are institutions that hold enormous power. This makes them tempting tools for both evil and good. Religions reflect the societies they inhabit, as much as they do the traditions they come from. There will always be conservatives who attempt to use religion to justify things as they are, moderates who attempt to use religion to reform things, and radicals who attempt to use religion to justify drastic changes.
What else can you expect when there is an institution that gives someone the chance to speak with the authority of absolute power? Alternatively, we could start with the idea of human rights - and respecting them. For everyone. And go from there.
Steyn 7: Muslims need to do more to combat radical Islam.
"It's not black (the bomber) and white (the rest of us); there's a lot of murky shades of gray in between: the terrorist bent on devastation and destruction prowls the streets, while around him are significant numbers of people urging him on, and around them a larger group of cocksure young male co-religionists gleefully celebrating mass murder, and around them a much larger group of 'moderates' who stand silent at the acts committed in their name, and around them a mesh of religious and community leaders openly inciting treason against the state, and around them another mesh of religious and community leaders who serve as apologists for the inciters. . .It's these insulating circles of gray - the imams, the lobby groups, media, bishops, politicians - that bulk up the loser death-cult and make it a potent force." (pages 196-197)
I'm honestly not sure I can make a judgment on this claim. I wouldn't even begin to know how to measure what is enough - and how to measure what was done before 9/11 and after. Since this book was written in 2001 - my judgment has been colored by the moderate Muslims that I've heard speak publicly since. What I will say for Steyn is that the suggestions he offers on pages 205-206 about what we can do to help are for the most part reasonable. Liberals might even agree with some of them.
Posted by catalan at February 20, 2008 09:07 PM