What Values?

Submitted by dds (Canada), Dec 27, 2005 at 16:51

Two points come up here. Firstly, Daniel is spot-on to say US leaders misled themselves in believing that the forces could get the same reception in Iraq that they got in France, or that the Canadians got in Holland after WW2. What they didn't seem to comprehend, though, is that since WW2, there had been 60 years of the US developing a reputation for storming into a country and "imposing its values on the people" or overthrowing governments it was opposed to. Tom Lehrer's song, "Send The Marines", comes to mind ("They've got to be protected/All their rights respected/Till someone we like can get elected"). The failure to examine this strongly has been the downfall of US foreign policy, and is a reason why any "exit strategy" from Iraq prior to the war seemed to stop at taking Baghdad and maybe grabbing Saddam.

That being said, history has shown that much of that US foreign policy has had a correct basis. The execution was poor (put another way, the foundation was solid, but the structure looks a lot like the Winchester House in San Jose), and that's why the American image takes such a butt-kicking.

Add to this the fact that, where religion is involved, it's far easier to manipulate public opinion, because the notion that "God is on our side" or that someone will get in His Good Books for doing something is far more effective than "do it for the country" or even, alas, "Remember 9/11". (I'm sorry even to observe this, but the memories, images and anger of 9/11 are already waning, while passion to please Allah is still red-hot.)

This leads to a comment Daniel makes near the end of the column: that the State Department should "assert the case for liberal, secular and humane values". The problem is -- and something too easily seized by Muslim clerics, I'm sure -- is that word "secular". "Secular values" are still subject to situational ethics and what "seems like a good idea" or "the nice thing to do". "Secular values" have led to Israeli politicians' bending their knees to the god of world opinion and handing back land taken when their country retaliated for being attacked in 1967. "Secular values" have led to acceptance -- at least on the political level -- of abortion, gay marriage, and drug use. All a Muslim cleric has to do is point to that, and the battle is lost.

This is not a secular struggle, and we have to stop trying to drag it onto that battlefield. This is a struggle which has its roots in the Book of Genesis, and I have long believed that the road to any true peace (and if you read the Bible, you'll find that "peace" reigns only when the will of God is allowed to take hold) has to begin with the recognition that this whole mess started when Abraham lost patience with God. God said at the time that the children of Ishmael would always be at war with everyone else. To my knowledge, there is no prophecy which indicates that the children of Ishmael and the children of Isaac would ever reconcile ... except through the meand God provided us to reconcile with Him -- and hence, with everyone else -- approximately 2008 years ago in Bethlehem.

Back in the 60's, some US diplomat was snickered-at for remarking that he hoped the Arabs and the Israelis could settle their differences "like true Christians". Sometimes, the most prophetic or profound remarks are couched in what seems to be foolishness.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".