New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | June 27, 2006

David Weigel reviews the state of the art in Islamocalyptic literature, and is afraid.

Comments

The Owner's Manual|6.27.06 @ 5:15PM|#

Weigel says, "we can count on many years of paranoia about terrorism and militant Islam."

I thought paranoia was wrongly imagining they are out to get you. Does David have some sort of personal exemption from an enemy sworn to kill the rest of us?

|6.27.06 @ 5:37PM|#

If I may offer a definition, courtesy of Merriam-Webster and dictionary.com : "2 - a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive [my emphasis] or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others."

And seriously - The Ezekiel Option might be the stupidest novel title ever...

|6.27.06 @ 5:46PM|#

Exactly. Crafting a novel where Islamist lunatics carry out another 9/11-scale attack or even detonate a suitcase nuke isn't on its face the work of a fever swamp imagination. A novel in which they turn New York or San Francisco into Riyadh West is something else altogether.

|6.27.06 @ 5:48PM|#

Hey Timmy, it's just a storybook.

|6.27.06 @ 5:50PM|#

Owner's Manual,

I think Weigel's contention is not that militant Islamists are not "out to get us", but rather that they are woefully incapable of doing significant harm. Acknowledging the existence of a threat is not paranoia, but overestimating it can be.

|6.27.06 @ 6:03PM|#

It's interesting -- I was reading an article in the Economist last night, describing the hook-up occuring in Europe between the moonbat Left and the (mostly) nonviolent, politically-active islamofascists there.

I think that we sometimes forget the lesson of history, that all great cultures of the world eventually fall. Just like a teenager who thinks that death is for other people, our custure things that it's somehow immune from crumbling into history.

Do I think that a crew of ragged jihadis could bring us down? No, though it's worth noting the widespread and pervasive damage that a couple dozen crazies have done to our culture already.

When the islamofascists are forming coalition gov'ts in Europe a few years from now, let's have this discussion again, mkay?

Jennifer|6.27.06 @ 6:05PM|#

Do I think that a crew of ragged jihadis could bring us down? No, though it's worth noting the widespread and pervasive damage that a couple dozen crazies have done to our culture already.

It's not the islamofascists that will bring us down, but our reaction to them. You know--"the patient did not die of the disease, but of complications from it."

|6.27.06 @ 6:10PM|#

Sheesh. Fat fingers this afternoon... "custure things" s/b "culture thinks."

|6.27.06 @ 6:30PM|#

I think that we sometimes forget the lesson of history, that all great cultures of the world eventually fall.

Well, this culture has some advantages that no others did. The great cultures you refer to had far more in common with hunter-gatherers than they do with our modern technical-scientific culture.

Mind you, I have no problem with our civilization falling per se. Historically, the occasional dark age has tended to act as a filter keeping the bullshit of the old civilization from contaminating the new. But I doubt that our civilization will fall without taking the rest of the planet with it.

|6.27.06 @ 6:31PM|#

Ultimately, Jennifer, couldn't that be said of most causes of death? After all, it's usually not the presence of a virus in the human body that causes death, but rather the immune system's response to it. It's not the fractured skull that kills, but the hematoma.

Regardless, absent the external factor of the islamofascist's war on Western culture, I doubt that even the most feverish of gov't's boosters would have gotten very far with most of the provisions of PATRIOT, nor would the now-infamous surveilance activities of the administration have been justified.

But, here we are, under threat and attack by an enemy whose ultimate goal is to replace our secular, and liberty-oriented society with a theocracy. No, I don't think that they'll succeed completely in that goal, but that's not to say that they couldn't make a pretty good hash out of what we have today in the attempt.

|6.27.06 @ 6:36PM|#

Also, it seems unlikely that a triumphant radical Islamic "new world order" would be able to survive long without a bogeyman to rail against. Either the new culture would soften up and adopt ideas from the old culture (as the historical Islamic empire did from the Byzantines, Persians, etc), or it would fall apart.

|6.27.06 @ 6:41PM|#

Clean Hands,

So what exactly is your point? If you think the danger of militant Islam is that we may overreact to it, why are you inviting such overreaction by predicting that Islamists will be running Europe in a few years?

|6.27.06 @ 6:52PM|#

I guess what I'm saying, crimethink, is that we need to very carefully steer a path between overreacting and playing ostrich.

Claiming that there's no risk that the islamofascists could prevail in their war against us does not seem to me to be a completely responsible position.

|6.27.06 @ 7:09PM|#

I don't get my nose bent out of shape over novels with ridiculous premises. Hell, ridiculous novels can be entertaining. But when supposedly serious pundits start claiming that these novels with ridiculous premises are cautionary tales of what could very easily befall us, well, that's just crazy talk.

It could be that an over-reaction to Islamic terrorism will be our downfall. That doesn't mean that Islamic fundamentalists would be the newly dominant civilization of the world, or even the rulers of what remains of our civilization. Some other civilization (e.g. China) could take our place. Or the world could go through a long and potentially ugly (or potentially quite peaceful, who knows?) period with no dominant power, but rather a multi-polar phase.

Anyway, I seriously doubt that Islamofascists will conquer us. They may cause us to implode, but they will not conquer us. There's a big difference.

|6.27.06 @ 7:28PM|#

"Does David have some sort of personal exemption from an enemy sworn to kill the rest of us?"

Explain to me again why I should fear a bunch of illiterate hicks from the backwoods of Afghanistan?

For fuck's sake, they can't even shoot straight.

|6.27.06 @ 7:31PM|#

Inevetiably someone is going to bring up Richard Reid or John Walker Lynn.

They're mouthbreathing idiots, too.


I'm sorry, but Al Qaida gives every indication of being an utterly clown shoes operation. That they were able to pull off 9|11 in the first place is, quite frankly, shocking.

|6.27.06 @ 7:49PM|#

I think I'll polish up one of my old chestnuts, and roll it across the table.

A handful of stone- age religious fanatics hiding in caves in Afghanistan could never, in a million years, destroy this country; but a handful of atomic- age religious fanatics in the Oval Office? Maybe.

With responses like the Patriot Act, and massive domestic data- mining programs (not to mention crippling levels of government expenditure), it seems to me that the White House Mob is doing a lot of the heavy lifting for A Q bin Laden. If they hate us for our freedom, we should seek more freedom, not less. Just to show 'em what's what, and who's on first.

|6.27.06 @ 7:56PM|#

I have no problem with our civilization falling per se.

I've got to pretty vehemently disagree with you here, crimethink.

I have no illusions about the current state of our free society -- I recently visited Washington, DC, and was struck by the degree to which our gov't rules, rather than serves us -- but I am still fiercely committed to it as the first and only nation ever deliberately established on a basis of liberty.

People sometimes underestimate how unique our nation's foundation is in history. Where most countries come into being primarily on the basis of geographical accidents and human migrations, ours was carefully, (mostly) rationally debated,thought out and defined.

I'm not a religious man, but it's hard to call the deliberate creation of the United States of America anything but a miracle.

I most emphatically do have a problem with this nation's prospective collapse, completely apart from the disruption of my own comfortable and joyful lifestyle.

Millenia hence, I don't doubt that the destruction, by whatever agency, of this country will be marked as one of the great tragedies of history.

|6.27.06 @ 8:03PM|#

This thread leaves me profoundly sad.

|6.27.06 @ 8:28PM|#

When the islamofascists are forming coalition gov'ts in Europe a few years from now

Considering as how they haven't had much luck on their home turf in seizing power, where the populations might be a bit more sympathetic to their religious views, I have a hard time imagining this outcome.

Maybe they have a secret plan like Nixon.

|6.27.06 @ 8:39PM|#

Clean Hands,

People mourned the collapse of Rome for centuries afterward, but that doesn't mean things would have been better had it survived. The late empire fell prey to the dysfunctions inherent in its system of govt, and I fear we're seeing some of the banes of democracy starting to play out in our own times.

That's not to disparage the marvel that our nation once was, but as the song goes, every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.

|6.27.06 @ 8:49PM|#

I guess what I'm saying, crimethink, is that we need to very carefully steer a path between overreacting and playing ostrich.

Well, no duh. That holds true for every one of the gazillion problems we face in the world today. But when you're talking about a threat that has done very little direct damage to us (ie, excluding the self-inflicted damage caused by our reaction to it), and shows little potential for doing more in the future, the risks of overreacting far outweigh the risks of sticking one's head in the sand.

|6.27.06 @ 9:26PM|#

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Michael Savage's favorite book...

|6.27.06 @ 9:34PM|#

Of cours CAMP OF THE SAINTS is about our FUTURE, come read my BLOG called SINGLE PSYCHO, before the HORDES drown us in SWARTHINESS.

|6.27.06 @ 10:09PM|#

Clean Hands writes: "Millenia hence, I don't doubt that the destruction, by whatever agency, of this country will be marked as one of the great tragedies of history."

I think you're mixing up several things.

Roman civilization encompasses both the Republic AND the dictatorships. The US "civilization" would continue even if we devolved into an undemocratic authoritarian kleptocracy with the same name, because most people would see little or no change in their day-to-day lives and the cheap consumer products would continue to be available at Wal-Mart.

Furthermore, whatever our civilization is, it also contains Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, and the rest of stuffy Old Europe (to greater or lesser extents). The principles that guided our founding may have been unique in 1776, but they're pretty widespread now.

If everyone in the US were rapture'd away tonight, and the empty territory were colonized by Old Europe, and a new nation set up, it would be essentially the same civilization as exists now in the US, only with different accents.

Although, I'll grant that if Old Europe were doing that today, there'd be a fair chance that they'd send their unwanted immigrants over instead. Kinda like the first time around, actually.

|6.27.06 @ 10:11PM|#

Clean Hands,

Just like a teenager who thinks that death is for other people, our custure things that it's somehow immune from crumbling into history.

Unfortunately that's not true at all. You need to listen closer to what the Democratic party has to say about impending environmental disaster. Then, listen to what the Republican party has to say about the impending disaster of us loosing our religion.

Lots of people don't think we're going to get very far. Seems to be part of human nature since the dawn of recorded history.

|6.27.06 @ 10:31PM|#

A (largely uneducated) subset of the Republican party thinks Islamic lunatics are going to do us in.

A (unspecified educational level) subset of the Libertarian party thinks that this Republican lunatic subset is what's really going to do us in.

Meanwhile, a (largely educated) subset of the Democratic party thinks that environmental collapse is just around the corner, waiting to do us in.

A (unspecified educational level) subset of the Libertarian party thinks that this Democratic lunatic subset is what's really going to do us in.

[editor's note: of course the libertarians are right and everybody else is stupid, but we can't save the world if we can't get elected -- how tragic]




The environment isn't going to collapse tommorrow, and the Islamo-nuts aren't going to conquer us. But the laws we've passed in response to both fears are doing serious damage. Examples: the Patriot Act, and the Lead Free Solder movement (this is more damaging than most people seem to realize and I'm still surprised at how little air time it's gotten from the MSM).

As Machiavelli said, never attribute to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetence and stupidity.

Note from the above that education by itself won't save you. It is entirely possible to be a highly educated (even science educated) lunatic. We have, in fact, a large number of home growns.


I predict that in 2040, Islamo-Nuts will be a wildly popular sugar coated breakfast cereal for kids. It will contain little marshmellow figures of suicide bombers, and little bombed out buildings made of sugar coated deep fried wheat.

And I predict that in fact, massive over indulgence in Islamo-Nuts during childhood will lead to a health crisis that will actually be the thing that does us in as a nation. Everyone in America will have a massive heart attack at the age of 19.

|6.27.06 @ 10:34PM|#

So there.

|6.27.06 @ 11:01PM|#

"As Machiavelli said, never attribute to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetence and stupidity."

Yes, exactly- I don't fear grandiose, complex conspiracies; I fear entropy and decay. The slow corrosion of what is good by incompetent, self- dealing imbeciles whose sole interest is position and power. Idiot savants whose one true demonstrable area of expertise is winning elections. Even worse are the ones who want to "save" me: as my grandfather used to say, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Tim Cavanaugh|6.27.06 @ 11:06PM|#

Your grandfather: Was that Foster Brooks?

|6.27.06 @ 11:12PM|#

Um, no.

Douglas Westerman|6.27.06 @ 11:21PM|#

One danger of over estimating the Muslim Jihad terrorist threat, is that we turn a blind eye to activites of more competent groups. In today's climate, with the FBI, CIA and the NSA fixated on Muslims, the Russians or the Chinese could probably carry out substantial terrorist attacks against the U.S. easily enough, while framing Muslims. MOSSAD is excellent at this sort of thing. Please read "We're Spying on the Wrong People" at vitaltruths.blogsource.com

|6.27.06 @ 11:30PM|#

One danger of over estimating the Muslim Jihad terrorist threat, is that we turn a blind eye to activites of more competent groups.

Yeah. Like the future makers of Islam-O-Nuts. We should slam them with an anti-trust suit asap. And a Surgeon General's condemnation. And an EPA restriction. And a charge of slandering true faith. Plus a civil suit for discriminating against females (contains mostly male suicide bombers you know).

And, of course, an allegation that those marshmellows just might contain something that makes you just a little bit high around the edges. We knew it when they said: "Islam-O-Nuts. They're not just for breakfast anymore."

|6.27.06 @ 11:37PM|#

with the FBI, CIA and the NSA fixated on Muslims, the Russians or the Chinese could probably carry out

In all seriousness, you're right. One result of the war on terror is that we're re-tooling our whole freaking military to fight little piss ants.

Ten years from now we could be singing the old song about "the generals are always fighting the last war". In this case, the war that wasn't a war. Or maybe the war that shouldn't have been a war. Or maybe it's a Zen War (to be at war without going to war).

As it said in some Reason article once, if the terrorists were serious about doing us in they'd be hitting us with small numbers of casualties on a regular basis. Basically, even if they're disorginized you can't stop them if they really are determined.

|6.27.06 @ 11:59PM|#

As it said in some Reason article once, if the terrorists were serious about doing us in they'd be hitting us with small numbers of casualties on a regular basis.

Exactly. It wouldn't be terribly difficult to set off improvised explosive devices around the country on a weekly basis if they had numbers. IEDs are easy enough for illiterate third world militia fighters around the world to make. Planting them in suburbia wouldn't be terribly difficult. Just leave them in restaurants, coffee houses, stores, libraries, movie theaters, gas stations, malls, etc. The attacks would require very little communication, rendering wiretaps useless. The materials are apparently easy to obtain, and could be obtained with cash (rendering data mining useless). The planning and execution wouldn't be terribly time-consuming, so a terrorist could do it while holding a day job and generally blending in. Scoping out locations would mostly involve hanging out in malls and coffee shops, not the sort of activity that would be suspicious.

Cash purchases, IEDs, car bombs in used cars bought with fake ID, soft civilian targets. Indiscriminate and draconian measures would fall flat. The only way to stop it would be to track down the leadership and find out who reports to them. In the mean time, people would be absolutely terrified, and would probably surrender every shred of freedom. Ironically, the loss of freedom would probably only exacerbate the attacks, if it meant that resources were diverted to costly, indiscriminate, and ineffective measures.

Fortunately, America seems to do a good job of assimilating immigrants. And hopefully our intelligence services still have some people who prefer intelligent and focused efforts to blunt and indiscriminant efforts.

|6.28.06 @ 12:35AM|#

Stealing al-Qai'da's Playbook: "The jihadi movement had been unsuccessful in the past because the superpowers propped up ... proxy governments and convinced the masses through the media that they were invincible. The solution, Naji says, is to provoke a superpower into invading the Middle East directly. This will result in a great propaganda victory for the jihadis because the people will 1) be impressed that the jihadis are directly fighting a superpower, 2) be outraged over the invasion of a foreign power, 3) be disabused of the notion that the superpower is invincible the longer the war goes on, and, 4) be angry at the proxy governments allied with the invading superpower. Moreover, he argues, it will bleed the superpower�s economy and military. This will lead to social unrest at home and the ultimate defeat of the superpower."

|6.28.06 @ 12:46AM|#

The only way to win the "War on Terror" is not to fight it. The only reason Bin Laden could attract recuits was because of our forces in Saudi Arabia, the Holy Land of Mecca. Bring home ALL U.S. troops from All foriegn countries (South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, et.al.). Then no one can have a beef with us and it's cheap too.

|6.28.06 @ 1:45AM|#

I thihnk this makes a far bigger mockery of Atwoods "A handmaids tale" then it does of red dawn or man of the high castle.

Red dawn and high castle or more of a what if the enemey won/attacked scenerios while "a handmaids tale" presumes some insane actions by middle america...like intentially give up all secular thought simply becouse pollution lowers infertility rates (even more asmusing as it turns out that we are lower our fertility rates all on our own)

|6.28.06 @ 1:48AM|#

It's not the islamofascists that will bring us down, but our reaction to them. You know--"the patient did not die of the disease, but of complications from it."

That is funny becouse that is the same argument that bush used to invade iraq

|6.28.06 @ 2:09AM|#

Just like a teenager who thinks that death is for other people, our custure things that it's somehow immune from crumbling into history.

Unfortunately that's not true at all. You need to listen closer to what the Democratic party has to say about impending environmental disaster. Then, listen to what the Republican party has to say about the impending disaster of us loosing our religion.

Paradoxically, both attitudes seem to hold. People ignore history and context and attempt to keep us fearful at all times. It's rather twisted and I don't know an eloquent way to explain it. One feeds the other.

Basically, the state and others have an autoimmune disorder, terrible allergies and amnesia.

|6.28.06 @ 3:04AM|#

Bring home ALL U.S. troops from All foriegn countries (South Korea, Okinawa, Germany, et.al.). Then no one can have a beef with us and it's cheap too.

Someone would find a reason to have a beef with us anyway.

I agree that minimizing over seas military ventures is generally smart policy.

OTOH, right now having US forces in Japan, S Korea, and Taiwan is mighty handy for dealing with N Korea. It lets us put first wave missile defenses right where they need to be.

Staying out of other people's business is one thing. Never stationing the US military over seas is another matter entirely, and a philosophy I can't agree with. There are times when the N Koreas of the world need to be dealt with.

The problem is, our military either is or isn't over there, and it's not easy deciding exactly when the "is" and "isn't" step functions should occur.

Point being, the matter of having US military over seas is not a clean cut issue, and it's not smart to catagorically decide they never will be over seas. Right now we need over seas bases, at least to station radar so we can watch N Korea and Iran.

Now, if only Bush had matured missile defense technology, instead of rushing it into the field for political expediency, we might be cooking with gas here. It would be grand if we were sure we could knock N Korea's ICBM test shot out of the air.

But political expediency is going to rule the day in a democracy some fraction of the time no matter what.

Which is getting slightly off thread, but details. It never stopped anybody before.

|6.28.06 @ 6:22AM|#

It's revolting that the evil, immoral Libertarians are once again trying to cover up for their jihadist friends. Whether it is their Nazi war against Israel or their attempted destruction of America. Islam cannot take over America? It's a mistake to underestimate my enemies (I say my enemies because the enemies of America are probably the Libertarians' friends). I thought that the Ernst Rhoem like Libertarian perverts had finally turned a corner and realized the reality of Islam because of the cartoon riots -- but I was wrong. When I heard the Libertarians condemn the Arab riots over the cartoons, I thought that maybe the Libertarians would see reason and reality on the Islamic menace because the Arabs attacked the only people who would vote Libertarian -- cartoon characters! If the cartoon characters were alive, instead of just drawings, the Libertarian party would finally get some votes; however, Cartman, goofy, pluto, Mickey Mouse; etc. are not alive so practically no one votes for child molesting/Ernst Rhoem like (homosexual Nazi) Libertarian Party. As no one votes for the Libertarian party, maybe the rage of the Islamics toward this country is matched by the Libertarian, Ernst Rhoem wannabes.

|6.28.06 @ 9:11AM|#

Whhhoooaa Stevie!

Chillax. Deep breath.

Hands up who's bored talking about Islam? (My hand goes up)

Who'd rather talk about World Cup football??!! (My hand goes up)

YEAH! Spain suck! Once again, the curse of madrid sees spain go out without passing the quater finals.

COME ON ENGLAND!!!

|6.28.06 @ 10:01AM|#

Speaking of threats to Our American Way of Life...

Round balls are to be hit with sticks, or manually projected through openings. Not "dribbled" through the grass by means of a stumbling motion. Kicking activities should be reserved for the opponent. When he's down.

|6.28.06 @ 10:40AM|#

If only homosexuals voted for the libertarian party, wouldn't libertarian candidates be getting at least 5% of the vote.

We can't even engage our perverted base!!!

|6.29.06 @ 10:41AM|#

When the islamofascists are forming coalition gov'ts in Europe a few years from now, let's have this discussion again, mkay?

Comment by: Clean Hands


Clean, if in the next ten years no avowedly Islamic party* is part of a coalition government in any current EU member state**, will you give $100 to the gun control charity of my choice? I'll give $100 to the Libertarian Party as soon as an Islamic party gets into a governing coalition in the current EU.

If you think ten years isn't long enough (though you did say "next few years"), let's go to 15.

Or 20. I'm game.

I wonder which country it will be? Ireland, perhaps. I hear that Fine Gael is considering the imposition of the veil. Or perhaps Denmark - that 5% of the population is a potent voting bloc. Or Italy! They could run on a "Mullahs- not Mafiosi" slogan!

(*I don't just mean a party that has some Muslim members, or even politicians. I mean a party that actually describes itself as Islamic. I reckon that's the sine qua non of an "islamofascist".)
(**Note "current"; Turkey doesn't count.)

|6.29.06 @ 2:43PM|#

....never attribute to malice what can be explained by sheer incompetence and stupidity.

Genghis, you misattributed reply to this