“The Perils of Hatred”

Kristi and I marvel at the circumstances surrounding the nine-year anniversary of 9-11. Each year since 2001, in early September, there are many releases of new documentary programs on the subject of 9-11. Generally speaking, the latest documentaries shed a bit of new light on radical Islam. However, many simply rehash all the warnings signs during the years, months, and days leading up to that fateful day.

Since shortly after 9-11, the tone of the debate on what to do about radical Islam headed down an illogical path. And while we long for the return of basic logic and intellectual honesty in the political discourse of our country, we become ever more irritated when we encounter openly partisan editorials on the subject of radical Islam. For many of these carelessly worded commentaries, are, in reality, merely thinly veiled pieces of partisan propaganda. The use silly semantics games to question the dangers posed by radical Islam are shameless. And often this sort of propaganda attempts to convince the reader that the movement of radical Islam, which is based on the advocating of mass murder, should not be the greatest security concern of the entire world. It is an inescapable fact that the masses in Palestine and in most Islamic countries “celebrated” the events of 9-11. And it is also inescapable that all the murderers involved in 9-11 were practitioners of radical Islam.

Osama Bin Laden

From a tactical standpoint, President Obama and his advisors have two basic military options for radical Islam. First, the administration can simply remove U.S. troops from the Middle East. Second, the U.S. can continue to engage the forces of radical Islam, particularly in Afghanistan. As time passes it is becoming clear that the interpretation of intelligence on radical Islam that is being received in the Oval Office of the Obama White House is very similar to the interpretations made by the Bush White House. Hence we see an escalation of the troop involvement in Afghanistan to take the fight directly to the headquarters of radical Islam. All Americans should recognize that even if there was no more U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, there would still be a very difficult problem to solve where radical Islam is concerned.

What should be done by civilized countries all around the world about the worldwide threat of radical Islam? It is our hope that at some point the quality of the discourse on this most pressing problem will move beyond the visceral blind and partisan-obsessed “hatred” of warring domestic political opponents. Hatred prevents any realistic discussions of the various merits and drawbacks of various longer term solutions to the threat of radical Islam. The evidence that hatred for George W. Bush retarded the process of problem-solving with radical Islam has become obvious. Often it has been suggested by Bush-haters that the nasty problem with radical Islam was simply all Bush’s fault. In fact, even when Bush-hating partisans were reminded of the weight of the long history of evidence on radical Islam, which includes; mass murders at the Olympics at Munich in 1972, hostage taking at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, the murder of 250 peace-keeping U.S. Marines in Beirut during the 1980’s, mass murder over Lockerbie, Scotland, countless hijack killings, the deadly World Trade Center bombing of 1993, the U.S.S. Cole bombing, the deadly nightclub explosion in Bali, train bombings in London and then again in Spain in 2005, the most recent murder plot foiled by Scotland Yard on August 10, 2006 (which hoped to blow up as many as ten loaded passenger jets leaving London with liquid explosives), and of course the nearly 3,000 murders on 9-11, a Bush-hating partisan could still somehow, remain relatively comfortable in denying that there actually was an overwhelming threat to world peace that is posed by radical Islam.

The first step to gaining a feel for why it was so difficult for Bush-haters to concede the reality of the “external threat” is because real external threats have always had a strengthening effect on incumbent leaders throughout history. And politically speaking, it is an undeniable truth that in a philosophically divided nation, George W. Bush derived virtually all of his resurgence of political support amongst independents immediately AFTER radical Islam attacked America on 9-11. There can be little doubt that this horrible “external threat” posed by radical Islam helped Bush more than any other single factor, to become a two-term president. With this psychological backdrop in mind, it is easier to understand why for the Bush-hating partisans, 9-11 is particularly painful “political event.” And accordingly, for Bush-haters to actually admit that 9-11 is still the defining moment of 21st century history would require a concession that America actually had a real enemy that Bush had to fight. Reluctantly one must conclude that even the basic “premise” that radical Islam is a threat, created an idea pathway that no Bush-hating partisan wanted to start down.

President Bush 2005 Inaugural Parade

Fast-forwarding to the present, with President Obama as Commander and Chief, the “communications interception tactics,” (like those used by Scotland Yard to thwart the plane bombings in London four years ago) have continued. And they have continued with far less objections from the ACLU and other Bush-haters. This is good news for national security. Earlier this week President Obama said he admired President Bush for reminding people of who America’s "real enemy" is (al Queada - radical Islam). Unfortunately a few distractions to clarity remain. All of the hoopla about the Ground Zero Mosque and the idiot pastor that wants to burn Qurans, is not good news for moving the threat of radical Islam beyond the partisan realm.

President Obama and General David Petraeus

At some point, and regardless of political leanings, all citizens must face the reality that radical Islam is like an inoperable cancer that still grows on the body we call the human race. There is no question that the acts of organized hatred that radical Islam is sworn to perpetuate, are dangerous to the freedoms of all civilized societies. And so it is on the 9th anniversary of 9-11 that we reach the conclusion that the very process of engaging in “hatred,” whether it is partisan, religious, or some other form, will always cloud the judgments of any human being. Citizens who swear allegiance to best practices and never support dumb ideas or engage in illogical denials of facts based on party considerations are a precious commodity.

“The Perils of Hatred”