Terrorism In France Proves Foreign Policy Is Not Why Muslims Attack The West

Were the idea true that the hostility Islam harbors against the West could be mollified with greater efforts on the part of the civilized to compensate for the “historical grievances” and “suffering” of Muslims at the hands of supposed Western “Imperialism”, France would be the one of the greatest beneficiaries of such leniency.

Almost every suggestion Muslim apologists have wished Western states adopt to appease the Arab Street has long been the consensus policy of France.  Since Suez the French have been calling on Israel to concede ever more territory, with the most recent expression of this Arabist sentiment coming in their vote for the recent UN resolution; they have strenuously warned against moves to halt Iran’s nuclear program; and they famously joined with Germany and Russia to oppose the Iraq War in 2003.  Only with the intervention in Libya did France join a policy that might have offended Arab opinion, but even this was done with humanitarian intentions of saving Muslim lives.

But a reward for their consistent Arabism is nowhere to be found; Arabism that the West’s anti-American Muslim apologists assured everyone would lead to Muslim goodwill.

Quite the opposite has occurred – France has become one of the prime targets of Islamic terrorism while its society, long suffering decades from cultural divisions between natives and unassimilable Muslim immigrants, boils steadily towards civil war.

The lesson for America to take from the failure of nation building in the Middle East is not to placate the often ludicrous expectations of the Islamic world but to ignore their concerns and impose Carthaginian terms on the Muslim people whenever the United States feels appropriate – whether those terms are imposed through a suitable proxy dictator or directly by armed force.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Terrorism In France Proves Foreign Policy Is Not Why Muslims Attack The West”

  1. Exactly.

    A systematic analysis of Islamic theology, the example of the prophet, the four “righteously guided’ Caliphs and Islamic history of over a thousand years, would have revealed this foolish claim on part of France — if we assume certain axioms. (If we assume different axioms, then the actions of France and the West takes on an entirely different, far darker, dimension. )

    Suggestion: How would Hamiton deal with the Islamic Problem? Clearly, he would take some kind of realist approach. I have given this matter considerable thought, but it would be interesting to see how you come out on this.

    Suggestion. Let’s suppose we had Hamilton in the White House when 9/11 occurred. How would he have responded? What would the grand strategy be? What about proximate objectives? What would he do (or someone with Hamiltonian principles) with Bin Laden?

    Like

  2. How would Hamiton deal with the Islamic Problem? Clearly, he would take some kind of realist approach. I have given this matter considerable thought, but it would be interesting to see how you come out on this.

    My preferred strategic approach – and what I dare to say Hamilton’s approach would resemble – would be something like Larry Auster’s containment strategy: At a minimum no further Muslim immigration to the West, allying with at least sane Muslim dictators like Al-Sisi, no democratic nation building in Muslim countries since democracy there usually means a dictator worse than the one we overthrow is voted into power, and restricting military interventions to periodic attacks on nuclear or other WMD programs.

    For more strategic discussion of the Middle East, and when I see American military intervention as appropriate and when not, see these two articles –

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2016/11/18/trump-and-irans-nuclear-program-the-hamiltonian-perspective/

    https://pragmaticallydistributed.wordpress.com/2016/12/28/syria-policy-neverassad-alwaysassad/

    Like

Comments are closed.