New Sisyphus Blasts Anti-Danish Conservative Bloggers

Here's what theretired US State Department official has to say about commentators like Hugh Hewitt:

Some American conservatives and commentators have focused in on the need to denounce the cartoons themselves since the ensuing controversy is not helpful to America's over-all goals in the War on Terror. After all, these conservatives argue, this controversy has just made our soldier's and diplomat's lives much, much more difficult in Iraq and Afghanistan and has needlessly complicated our alliances with countries like Turkey and Pakistan.

While I have a great deal of sympathy for the impulses that have produced this reaction, it must be said that, helpful or not, the controversy now exists in objective reality and choices must be made. While undeniably true that the U.S. would be making its job in the Middle East and elsewhere more difficult on the ground should it stand for principle, it is equally undeniably true that the only other alternative is to send the very dangerous message to our enemies that our liberties are negotiable.

In any case, defense of speech should never be equated by defense of the message. Even if one believe the Danish cartoons are horrifically offensive (they are not), one must stand up for the offensive speaker's absolute right to engage in legitimate political speech without hindrance, and certainly without subjecting oneself to a Muslim veto.

It is in this sense that all the Blogosphere talk about "helpfulness" misses the point: the controversy throws up a bevy of options, none of which are ideal from a strictly strategic point of view. This does not eliminate the need for us to respond in some meaningful way.

On of the leading proponents for the "this is not about free speech" school of thought, Hugh Hewitt, asks us to answer the question: Are we at war with Islam? Do we wish such a war?

Taking the second question first: obviously not. In fact, I fear such a war. I would do anything to avoid it short of surrender to Islam's demands.

As to the first question, I don't think so, not exactly, but it is regrettably something close to that.

I think it is beyond doubt that there exists a pan-Islamic school of fascist thought that has declared war on the West and that support for this line is quite high among the Muslim masses. Since they have declared war, and since their rationale for this war is Islam, we are, in a sense, at war with Islam. To paraphrase Trotksy's famous saying on the dialectic, "you may not be interested in an Islamic war, but Islamic war is interested in you."

I frankly do not find the significance in Jim Geraghty's dispatches from Turkey that Hugh assigns to them. Speaking as someone who has lived abroad in an anti-American atmosphere, I am very aware that it is possible for a population to be deeply anti-American and yet, at the same time, the vast majority of people are apolitical, nice to Americans in restaurants and want American visas. I suspect if one could go back in time to 1938 Munich one would also find lots of smiling, friendly Germans willing to take in an American traveller with great hospitality. The conflict is bigger than individuals, and lone Americans aren't seen in the same light as America-with-a-capital-A. None of which changes the facts that our respecitive civilizations stand for very different things and that these things are now in armed conflict.