Wretchard wrote a brilliant piece, in part on the subject we touched on the other day, the West’s secular Crusade. Let his words set the stage:

Although today it is fashionable to think of Appeasement as the political embodiment of cowardice it was coldly calculated to bring the Dictators into conflict and — so Chamberlain hoped — into annihilating each other. By selling out Austria in the Anchluss, the Czechs in the Sudetendland and nearly betraying Poland over the Danzig corridor Chamberlain was tempting Hitler ever further east into what he hoped would be an eventual clash with the other monster, Joseph Stalin. He did not reckon that evil, while coarse, is surpassingly cunning. The announcement of the Molotov-Ribbentrop nonagression pact on August 23, 1939, just a week before Poland was finally invaded by both Hitler and Stalin, made plain to Chamberlain that he had been outwitted. If Britain intended to drive Hitler East, Stalin had instead turned Hitler West. Nothing remained to Chamberlain and Britain’s enervated armed forces but to gather up the tatters of their strategy and huddle behind the army of France. Having staked everything on diplomatically containing Hitler while neglecting Britain’s defense — not provoking Hitler was a deemed essential for diplomacy to succeed — Chamberlain had no Plan B. He had wagered all and lost. Churchill assumed the Prime Ministership the day Hitler raced his armies across France. Every catastrophe he had warned against had come to pass. And he was finally handed the reins in haste by the very men who had taken Britain to the edge of precipice, its armies trapped on the continent, its allies smashed, its air force outnumbered; desperate and alone.

It is an old and familiar story which bears repeating because it illustrates how far leaders can be trapped by webs of their own making. Like the politicians of the 1930s the leaders of the West after September 11 each made their own calculation. In America’s case it took the shape of thinking that it could make common cause with the most enlightened elements of Islamic civilization against fundamentalist extremists who were vying for Islam’s soul. The strategy for achieving this goal, though reviled as simplistic, was anything but: America would not pick a fight with Islam itself. Rather it would make itself Islam’s friend, ally with its most moderate elements, overthrow its worst oppressors and enlist the aid of the Muslim everyman against the Osama Bin Ladens of the world. In practice it would build a web of relationships with intelligence services, soldiers, intellectuals and politicians in Islamic countries who would provide the information and in cases the manpower to hunt down fundamentalist villains. The War on Terror would be to wars what Smart Bombs were to bombs. It would destroy the miscreants while leaving the surrounding structure untouched. It may be that Europe’s calculation was more cynical. But it was equally sophisticated. It would pursue a policy of Appeasement which like Chamberlain’s was calculated to drive one nuisance against another, pitting America against Islamic fundamentalism in the hopes that one would wear the other out. And the key to Europe’s establishing its bona fides with Islamic countries was to make nice at every opportunity; avoid giving offense; be lavish with aid; open to immigration and obstructive to America at every turn. Like the appeasers of the 1930s it paid for its diplomatic strategy by systematically weakening itself.

We think that the US has had a pretty good strategy in attempting to triangulate the issue of Islam; for that matter, we don’t resent Europe’s appeasement-to-buy-time-and-hope strategy. It just hasn’t worked any better now than it did almost two decades ago. Seventeen years ago the West had the opportunity to draw a line in the sand, when Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing the Satanic Verses. Here’s how the NYT reported the story on February 15, 1989:

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran declared today that the author and publishers of a novel deemed offensive to Islam had been ”sentenced to death.” The novelist, Salman Rushdie, author of ”The Satanic Verses,” said he was taking the threat seriously. The Teheran radio quoted Ayatollah Khomeini as asking ”all the Muslims to execute them,” referring to Mr. Rushdie, who lives in London, and the publishers of the book, Viking Penguin, ”wherever they find them.” He said that anyone killed carrying out his order would be considered a martyr.

Wednesday was declared a day of mourning in Iran to protest the novel. It has prompted violent protests by Islamic fundamentalists over the author’s projection of Islamic myths and Koranic motifs in contemporary and futuristic settings, which many contend is blasphemous. ”The author of the ‘Satanic Verses’ book, which is against Islam, the Prophet and the Koran, and all those involved in its publication who were aware of its content, are sentenced to death,” said Ayatollah Khomeini, whose word is considered law by millions of Shiite Muslims. ”If someone knows them but is unable to kill them, he should hand them over to the people for punishment.”

A couple of days later, Rushdie explained in the Times, in an open letter to the Prime Minister of India, which had banned the book, that there had been a terrible misunderstanding, but pleading his case did not get the death sentence withdrawn:

Let us try to distinguish truth from falsehood in this matter. Like my zealous opponents, you will probably not have read ”The Satanic Verses.” So let me explain a few simple things. I am accused of having ”admitted” that the book is a direct attack on Islam. I have admitted no such thing, and deny it strongly. The section of the book in question (and let’s remember that the book isn’t actually about Islam, but about migration, metamorphosis, divided selves, love, death, London and Bombay) deals with a prophet – who is not called Mohammed – living in a highly fantastical city made of sand (it dissolves when water falls upon it).

He is surrounded by fictional followers, one of whom happens to bear my own first name. Moreover, this entire sequence happens in a dream, the fictional dream of a fictional character, an Indian movie star, and one who is losing his mind, at that. How much further from history could one get? In this dream sequence I have tried to offer my view of the phenomenon of revelation and the birth of a great world religion; my view is that of a secular man for whom Islamic culture has been of central importance all his life.

Some people say that rioting over cartoons is ridiculous; it is no more ridiculous than a death sentence for penning futuristic dream sequences featuring Koranic motifs. Seventeen years after Rushdie, what has changed? Surely this: the Islamic Brownshirts are far more numerous and visible in Western society, and far more brazen in their death threats. Seventeen years ago this month, the West could have made it clear to the Islamic Republic of Iran that it would not put up with such death threats. The West could have withdrwn ambassadors and, at a minimum, taken the steps that Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya and Palestine have taken against Denmark. Instead, the West settled on a course of appeasement and ignoring the problem.

Appeasement has been a failure. It is doomed to failure in theory, because, as Mark Steyn points out, the logic of appeasement to Muslims offended by the West has sharia as its end point. It is particularly doomed to failure in the case of Islam, since the rioters are precisely the zealots who are not interested in compromise or halfway measures, but rather in Jihad to deliver Muslim rule of the West.

The European governments do not seem to know what Plan B is, so they may well try more of Plan A. We are not sure what Plan B is either, but we’re pretty sure that whatever it is, it would begin with the arrest of people who carry signs like those above.

UPDATE

We also recommend this related post at New Sisyphus, which reprints a good chunk of Khomeini’s disgusting fatwa.

UPDATE II

Scotsman: “Clearly some of these placards are incitement to violence, and indeed incitement to murder – an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly.”- David Davis, shadow home secretary. We’ll see if that is a start to Plan B or just talk.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 5th, 2006 at 3:52 pm and is filed under EU, General, Left of Left, Religion, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.