Greater Sins

Rep. Tom "Wild Stallion" Tancredo (R-CO) has written a guest commentary in the Denver Post expressing his belief, in fact, that an escalation of the war on terror is precisely what is needed in order to flush out extremism. Thus he defends his comments that America should be prepared to consider nuking Muslim holy sites such as Mecca and Medina as a deterrant in the war on terror.

Now, simply because I want to, I'm breaking down his commentary.

Bigger sins than offending
By Rep. Tom Tancredo
R-Colo.

By now, many people in America - and likely around the world - are familiar with my statements regarding a possible response to a nuclear attack on U.S. cities by fundamentalist Islamic terrorists.

[No doubt they are, Mr. Tancredo. Nothing better than a little bit of the controversial ultraviolence to propel your name recognition into the political stratosphere. PR stunt...?]

Without question, my comments have prompted strong reactions from many quarters, but they have also served to start a national dialogue about what options we have to deter al-Qaeda and other would-be Islamic terrorists.

Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed.

It seems that this logic is duplicitous, or at least simply misunderstood. Tancredo either ignores the fact or is not aware of the fact that the sensationalism of al Queda's abhorrant beheadings and the make-a-man-a-martyr tactic of using a suicide bomber.

Which we've learned this week historically has been used primarily for the purpose of political terrorism rather than religious extremism, making Tancredo's invocation even more complex. As a politically radical terroristic group uses religion as a motivator, such as al Queda had begun with their suicide bombings, the religious aspects of the act become more and more hollowed out and manipulative, and based more on religious fanaticism among those manipulable populations of potential bombers. Thus making Tancredo's call to flatten holy-sites more inflammatory- at this point, Tancredo has participated in the formation of the War on Terror into a Holy War as much as Osama bin Laden, rather than grasping the political intentions and desires of the enemy and working to defuse them.

Indeed, al Queda thrives on the sensationalism of their violence- the need America and the west to be inflamed against them through their disgusting acts, because this is the easiest recruitment and justification tool they have. The Offensiveness of the West is their quickest, cheapest, dirtiest, easiest tool with which draw attention to their causes.

Thus, as Tacredo attempts to discount being "offensive," he too seems to participate in this political game.

Few can argue that our current approach to this war has deterred fundamentalists from killing Westerners - nor has it prompted "moderate" Muslims and leaders of Muslim countries to do what is necessary to crack down on the extremists in their midst who perpetuate these grisly crimes.

That being the case, perhaps the civilized world must intensify its approach.

Does that mean the United States should be re-targeting its entire missile arsenal on Mecca today? Does it mean we ought to be sending Stealth bombers on runs over Medina? Clearly not.

But should we take any option or target off the table, regardless of the circumstances? Absolutely not, particularly if the mere discussion of an option or target may dissuade a fundamentalist Muslim extremist from strapping on a bomb-filled backpack, or if it might encourage "moderate" Muslims to do a better job cracking down on extremism in their ranks.

People have accused me of creating more terrorism by making these statements. Indeed, we often hear that Western governments bring these attacks on themselves. Just days after the London subway attacks two weeks ago, for example, Tariq Ali, a prominent British Muslim activist, was quick to suggest that London residents "paid the price" for British support in the Iraq campaign.

The argument is not that you simply "create more terrorism," Mr. Tancredo, but rather you overzealously participate in the manipulative game of the terrorists. The war in Iraq, I've heard today on NPR, does create extremism. Instead, it is a breeding ground for extremists.

How does it do that? It fits perfectly into the arguments that certain Islamofascists have made: that America and the west would invade an oil-rich Arab country unrelated otherwise to the War. Thus, in invading Iraq without just cause, the US fell into this prophecy with foolish ease. In being unable to make a determinate, democratic Iraqi state and leave the region to its own devices, and in being unable to quell the swelling tide of Insurgency, the war both fits into bin Laden's scheme of a small, loose faction holding off a superpower [such as the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against the Soviets] and allows ripe, on the job experience training for extremists. It is an al Queda propagandist's dream machine.

Likewise, this argument you're forming works similarly. Nobody believes your language is directly responsible for the formation of terroristic minds. No. In fact, what we're aware of, and you apparently are not, is that those terroristic minds have already been reached, or they will be soon. Our actions and the mixed successes of terrorism against the west has already built a sustained perception among terrorists that they can do this thing they've set out to [Of course, we know that these attempts will fail in the end, barring huge, catastrophic circumstances, like a nuclear attack; it will crumble because some of the necessary aspects will never be attained. Al Queda will not likely take over any country, as is one of their projected needs. To be discussed later...].

What you're being accused of is this: By making the argument that these options are available to you, and to the US government, which you represent, you participate once again in this game. You give them fuel for their purposes. Here's how it works:

1. They know that the US knows that the worst possible situation in the War on Terror would be for a ready, willing, and able group of terrorists to access and be prepared to use a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world, but particularly on western targets.
2. You tell them that if they have a nuclear warhead and are prepared to use it, the US will use a nuclear warhead on their most vital religious targets first [Preemptive strike, what a great policy. Thanks SO MUCH, Bush n Co, you really helped us out].
3. This gives them official soundbites that they then can use as a very real, urgent reason to escalate their attacks and, indeed, push for access to a nuclear warhead. All it takes is the fear that "The US says they're going to nuke Mecca!" and the perfect propaganda slogan for the Islamofascist cause is born.

Now, my favorite section of Tancredo's bizarre argument:

A professor in Lebanon, Dr. George Hajjar, went even further, proclaiming, "I hope that every patriotic and Islamic Arab will participate in this war, and will shift the war not only to America, but to ... wherever America may be." Hajjar went on to say that "there are no innocent people," and referred to the victims of the attack as "collateral casualties."

These are fairly "offensive" statements, to be sure, but the sentiments expressed by Ali and Hajjar are sadly commonplace in the "mainstream" Muslim world, where justification for terrorist attacks like the ones that rocked London, New York and Washington is never in short supply.

Fundamentalist Muslims have advocated the destruction of the West since long before the attacks of Sept. 11, long before the Madrid, London and Bali attacks, long before the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, long before the attack on the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC bombing.

In many respects, the decision of "moderate" Muslims to acquiesce to these actions and even provide tacit justification for them is just as damaging to global safety and security as the attacks themselves.

Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks and start repudiating and purging people like Ali and Hajjar from its ranks who do, this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.

Republican Tom Tancredo represents Colorado's 6th Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Tancredo bases the entirity of his argument on pulled quotes from ultraextremist voices in the Islamic world. These people have an extremist agenda for their quotes. What is interesting is that Tancredo, as well, once again, seemingly naively, fits into this exact struggle. While he is quoting from extremist voices of Islam, he becomes a voice of Western Extremism that is then regurgitated by these same voices in Islam.

So while Tancredo quotes extremists and their extreme agendas of hate, those same guys quote him.

Tancredo talks about enabling the moderate voices of Islam to stand up while refusing to quote the moderates. He also, instead of enabling the moderates by building an argument of support for them, simply discounts them entirely. This is part of Tancredo's anti-immagrant stance, his ethnic xenophobia at play. Because, you see, Tancredo doesn't really want to be part of helping Muslims help themselves on the world stage.

In Denver, CO, one Islam Center has just raised banners proclaiming, among other messages of love, that they strongly condemn these terrorist attacks and that the message of Islam is one of love and respect; that these attacks don't speak to the Islam they know and preach. This has been ignored by Tancredo.

Former Ambassador Gail Schoettler published a companion piece in today's Post alongside Tancredo's bizarre, cesspool logic. In her piece, titled "Misstep, then hubris are double offenses," she talks about Tancredo's escalating presidential hopes:

Congressman Tom Tancredo has plenty of political experience, but not much political savvy. He wants to strut on a big stage, but he talks like a novice, seeming not to understand that national politics is a vastly different platform from a backyard political fundraiser. Since the congressman has the hubris to think he's a credible presidential candidate, he'd be smart to figure that out, fast.

One hard-learned political lesson is taking personal responsibility for your mistakes, especially one as dim-witted as Tancredo's suggestion that the United States consider a retaliatory bombing of holy sites of a religion that isn't his and a country that is an ally (and, not incidentally, a major supplier of oil to the United States). But Tancredo hasn't reached that level of astuteness. He refuses to admit he said something remarkably foolish or to apologize for insulting 20 percent of humanity.

One thing we Americans hope for in our president is common sense. We don't expect a candidate to know everything required for the most important job in the world. But we do expect that person to meet a reasonable standard of knowledge and restraint. We don't want someone who, in a fit of arrogance and anger, pulls the wrong trigger and kills countless innocent people - and puts us at greater risk than necessary.

Rash commentary has no place in the Oval Office, nor in the remarks of a potential presidential candidate.

Just because there are fanatical Muslims willing to blow themselves up for some pathetic and demonic cause doesn't mean that all Muslims and their religion are evil. The suicide bombers no more represent Islam and Muslims than Eric Rudolph, a heartless killer, characterizes all Christians or all Americans. They simply show us that religious fanaticism is dangerous no matter what the religion.

Imagine how Christians would respond to a threat to "nuke" Bethlehem or Rome because some Christian fanatic somewhere committed a terrorist act. There would be widespread outrage, and we certainly would be no closer to a safer world.

She hits it on the head, in my opinion. Hubris and PR, with a foolish disregard for understanding what's really going on.

Some more interesting articles from various sources - done through a simple Google search:

Iranian Qaran News Agency • Bella Ciao • Al Bawaba • Boston Globe • Denver Post • Detroit Free Press • Arizona Republic • Seattle Times • The Ledger Online • Tancredo