So Colonel, is Islam part of the problem or not?

LTC Ralph Peters, a man whose writings on strategy and warfare I strongly admire, has penned a column in the NY Post in which he attacks so-called "Islam haters," a "rotten core" of American "right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism" "by insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbeliever's is the faith's primary agenda." Furthermore, he's

"... received no end of e-mails and letters seeking to "enlighten" me about the insidious nature of Islam. Convinced that I'm naive because I defend American Muslims and refuse to "see" that Islam is 100 percent evil, the writers warn that I'm a foolish "dhimmi," blind to the conspiratorial nature of Islam.

"Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence "proving" that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.

"We've been here before, folks. Bigotry is bigotry - even when disguised as patriotism. And, invariably, the haters fantasizing about a merciless Crusade never bothered to serve in our military (Hey, guys, there's still time to join. Lay your backsides on the line - and send your kids!).

"It's time for our own fanatics to look in the mirror. Hard. (And stop sending me your trash. I'll never sign up for your "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." You're just the Ku Klux Klan with higher-thread-count sheets.)

"As for the books and Web sites listing all those passages encouraging violence against the infidel, well, we could fill entire libraries with bloody-minded texts from the Christian past. And as a believing Christian, I must acknowledge that there's nothing in the Koran as merciless as God's behavior in the Book of Joshua."

As a side note, why on earth is he comparing the behavior of God to the behavior of radical Muslims? Last I checked, God is God, and Muslims are not God(s). While you ponder this odd and rather absurd comparison, let us see what Peters' has said about Islam in the past...

“But what about the issue of Islamic fundamentalism?

“I admire the perfect accuracy of Levi-Strauss’s description of Islam as a “barracks religion,” and I take a far less complacent view of Islamic fundamentalism than do colleagues for whom the only story of our time is the twilight of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, I see the future of these varied peoples united by a common name for God as condemned to eternal mediocrity. Islamic fundamentalism is an exclusively negative phenomenon…

“Only outside enemies, real or imagined, allow the Islamic world to display the odd, fleeting semblance of unity. The destruction of Israel in a nuclear exchange, for example, will be less likely to trigger Islamic unity than to utterly dissolve it. Unable to direct their frustrations at the Zionist devil, the Islamic nations of the Eurasian landmass would quickly rediscover the holy and delectable mission of slaughtering each other over trivia." *

*Peters, Ralph, The War in 2020, Pocket Books, New York, NY, 1991, pg. 604

Or how about something more recent? From "Allah's Butchers," an article published by him on FrontPageMag.com back in mid-2004:

"Religions are what men make of them. In the Arab heartlands of Islam, Muslims are making a gory mess of their faith. It’s time to end the politically correct baby-talk insisting that Islam isn’t the problem. In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem—because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions.

"The decapitation of yet another American civilian can’t be dismissed as an aberration from “true” Islam. The tradition of beheading unarmed prisoners dates to the earliest decades of the Muslim faith. The butchering of Paul Johnson, Nick Berg and others isn’t a new phenomenon—it’s revivalism, “that old-time religion” returning for a re-match with secular devils.

"Millions of Muslims find such atrocities inspiring. Millions more view such cruelty as just. It’s the vicarious revenge of the self-made failure. And for every rent-a-cleric the Saudi government pushes in front of a television camera to condemn such acts, thousands of other mullahs continue to preach anti-Western hatred--the brutal specificity of which would horrify even America’s leftists, if only they stopped apologizing to terrorists long enough to listen."

Another thing he said in his little NY Post rant was that “...there’s a Realpolitik reason not to insult all Muslims: In the serious world of strategy and the military, you don’t make unnecessary enemies… We’ve got our hands full in the Middle East. Why alienate the Muslims of Indonesia or West Africa (or California)?”

Yet, rule # 16 of his essay, “When Devils Walk the Earth” (2001), says: “Do not worry about alienating already hostile populations.” Rule # 24 says, “In dealing with Islamic apocalyptic terrorists, remember that their most cherished symbols are fewer and far more vulnerable than are the West’s. Ultimately, no potential target can be regarded off limits when the United States is threatened with mass casualties. Worry less about offending foreign sensibilities and more about protecting Americans.” Finally, at the end of the essay, he states, “Begin with the study of the classical world-specifically Rome, which is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable to their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire’s attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed.”

Would he utter such words today? Was not the annihilation of Carthage genocide?

Elsewhere in that essay, he makes the following comments about Islam:

- “Contrary to recommending that believers “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,”
Muslims expect Caesar to render unto their faith…”

- “The power of the Crusader myth in today’s Middle East has far more to do with the perception of collective failure and vulnerability than with reality—after all, the Islamic Ottomans conducted a centuries-long, much more successful crusade against Europe thereafter, and Islamic warriors threatened the marches of Europe well into the nineteenth century. Islamic invaders did far more damage to the Ukraine and Poland than the Crusaders did to Palestine. Those in the Middle East who cite the Crusader conquest of Jerusalem as an act of peerless historical viciousness might do well to remember Islam’s conquest of Constantinople and Budapest, and the Ottoman progress to the gates of Vienna. If the streets of Jerusalem ran with blood, so did the streets-and churches-of Constantinople.”

- “While well-intentioned Westerners have gone to great lengths to refute Samuel Huntington’s thesis of a “clash of civilizations,” the man in the street in the Islamic world believes, intuitively, that the clash has been going on for a very long time, and no argument will dissuade him from his delicious belief in Western malevolence.”

Unfortunately, it looks as if the Colonel has a bipolarity issue in regards to Islam. As a result, I must ask, "So, Colonel, what is it; is Islam part of the problem, or is it not?"

I really don’t feel like going any further. I used to be very impressed by Peters’ work, but it seems like ever since he got his regular column in the NY Post he has floundered intellectually. I am saddened by the fact that Peters has strayed from his old-ways to appease the politically correct. May he regain his senses, and soon. I feel horrible citing him in this manner, but on this I simply think he is wrong, and I think he knows he is, too.

NOTE: This is cross-posted at Lawrence Auster's blog, here and here. I am "Justin T."