A Protest That Is Also Prophecy?

I don’t endorse all of his politics, but the world today gives Edwin Markham’s classic poem, Man With a Hoe, an eerily prescient ring. He wrote it after seeing the renowned painting by Millet.

Bowed by the weight of centuries he leans
Upon his hoe and gazes on the ground,
The emptiness of ages in his face,
And on his back the burden of the world.
Who made him dead to rapture and despair,
A thing that grieves not and that never hopes,
Stolid and stunned, a brother to the ox?
Who loosened and let down this brutal jaw?
Whose was the hand that slanted back this brow?
Whose breath blew out the light within this brain?

Is this the Thing the Lord God made and gave
To have dominion over sea and land;
To trace the stars and search the heavens for power;
To feel the passion of Eternity?
Is this the Dream He dreamed who shaped the suns
And marked their ways upon the ancient deep?
Down all the stretch of Hell to its last gulf
There is no shape more terrible than this —
More tongued with censure of the world’s blind greed —
More filled with signs and portents for the soul —
More fraught with menace to the universe.

What gulfs between him and the seraphim!
Slave of the wheel of labor, what to him
Are Plato and the swing of Pleiades?
What the long reaches of the peaks of song,
The rift of dawn, the reddening of the rose?
Through this dread shape the suffering ages look;
Time’s tragedy is in the aching stoop;
Through this dread shape humanity betrayed,
Plundered, profaned, and disinherited,
Cries protest to the Powers that made the world.
A protest that is also prophecy.

O masters, lords and rulers in all lands,
Is this the handiwork you give to God,
This monstrous thing distorted and soul-quenched?
How will you ever straighten up this shape;
Touch it again with immortality;
Give back the upward looking and the light;
Rebuild in it the music and the dream,
Make right the immemorial infamies,
Perfidious wrongs, immedicable woes?

O masters, lords and rulers in all lands
How will the Future reckon with this Man?
How answer his brute question in that hour
When whirlwinds of rebellion shake all shores?
How will it be with kingdoms and with kings —
With those who shaped him to the thing he is —
When this dumb Terror shall rise to judge the world
After the silence of the centuries?

Advertisements

Who’s Leaving Who Over Gaza?

Writing for The Hill, Niall Stanage wondered earlier this week whether the Obama administration’s impotent criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza could finally cause the oft-predicted,  never realized shift of American Jewish voters toward the GOP. The answer, I suspect, is no. But while he and others are worrying about shifting opinions and demographic trends among potential voters, perhaps they should take a look at what is already resulting from Israel’s actions.

Evangelical Christians, especially in America, have arguably been the Republican Party’s most dependable group of supporters. There are lots of reasons for this, but the two most important are the GOP’s perceived opposition to abortion and unflinching support for the Zionist element of Israeli politics. These two factors – being pro-life and pro-Zionist – are increasingly at odds. The prevalence of a novel and unbiblical view of Bible prophecy has so far led to the Israeli government getting a pass from American evangelicals, but among younger evangelicals that is no longer a safe assumption. While Jewish voters in the next decade or so aren’t likely to leave the Democratic Party over a bit of meaningless criticism of Israel, the loss of evangelical Christians as an assumed base of support is much more likely to result from Republican support for Israel’s wholesale slaughter of Gazan civilians.

What Happened To Iraq?

Over the past two months, as Iraq has disintegrated in the face of ISIL, one particular interpretation of events has been consistently pushed forward by neoconservatives and Bush apologists: Iraq is in crisis today because America pulled its troops out too soon. Excuses are, of course, all that can be expected from the neocons at this point, since they have long since proven themselves impervious to the instructive benefits of hindsight. More concerning, though, is the readiness of otherwise thinking, intelligent people to buy into such a fantastical narrative. Twice in the last week I’ve been confronted with the argument that if only the US had taken the same time and effort in Iraq that we did in Japan after WWII, we might have a similarly friendly, democratic ally in the Middle East today. (Of course, the underlying goal of such claims is nearly always to shift the blame for the current state of affairs in Iraq away from the neocons and toward Obama.)

My initial reaction to this suggestion was disbelief, followed, however, by a determination to give it full consideration and compose a thoughtful response. I confess that my impatience with the whole idea has increased with the amount of time I’ve had to consider it. The total dissimilarity between Iraq today and postwar Japan is so obvious that it seems unreasonable to devote space to proving it. Be that as it may, such an effort is clearly needed. Following are four reasons why the postwar Japan model does not apply to Iraq after Saddam Hussein.

1 – There was no reason to anticipate a civil war in Japan, held together by two thousand years’ worth of cultural, religious and political ties; there was every reason to expect one in an Iraq held together by little more than Saddam Hussein.

Japan in 1945 had been a unified nation more or less for two millenia. It was a commercial society built on an ancient feudal structure. Culturally and politically, it’s hard to imagine a more cohesive national identity. While Shintoism and Buddhism have had their share of conflict, religious animosity was not a significant force shaping Japanese society in the 1940s. The Mikado was widely viewed as a deity and could trace his ancestry back through a nearly unbroken line of emperors all the way to Yamato herself, 300 years before Christ.

In contrast, Iraq in 2003 was a relatively new, arguably artificial nation cobbled together by Great Britain in 1920 from three distinct provinces of the Ottoman Empire (Mosul, Baghdad and Basra), with a piece of Kurdistan thrown in at the insistence of exiled Syrian king turned British puppet, Faisal I. Its multi-ethnic population was deeply divided along ethnic and religious lines. Fourteen hundred years of tension between Sunni and Shia Islam cut across Arab, Kurdish, Turkish and Assyrian ethnic groups. Most if not all of these groups included armed militias. Political stability was a consequence of complete domination of government power by the Sunni Arab ruling class.

2: The Japanese people had many reasons to trust the US;  the Iraqi people had as many reasons not to.

The United States in 1945 was at its zenith as a world power. We had, deservedly or not, a worldwide reputation for plain dealing and fair play that had not yet been squandered by reckless adventurism and failed interventions. The Japanese had no longstanding reasons to hate America. While an indigenous insurgency was of course a possibility, it was not a likely scenario.

By 2003, on the other hand, our conduct over the past sixty-odd years in the Middle East had been marked by lies, injustice, backstabbing diplomacy, broken promises – in short, every thing but plain dealing and fair play. Iraqi Shia and Kurds both had vivid memories of being encouraged by the US to take up arms against the Hussein regime, only to be brutally crushed when America failed to deliver the expected assistance. Saddam’s own regime knew first hand how treacherous we could be, having secretly received chemical weapon components (and critical intelligence help with targeting those weapons) from the US during the Iran-Iraq war, and more recently, having invaded Kuwait with an implied American promise of neutrality only to have that promise broken spectacularly in 1991. In short, no one in Iraq had any reason to trust America or any illusions that the occupation was meant to serve the interests or improve the lives of the Iraqi people. An insurgency against American occupation may not have been inevitable, but it was nearly so.

3: In 1945 the US imposed a military government on a soundly defeated aggressor; in 2003 the US was the aggressor.

The most glaring difference between occupied Japan and occupied Iraq is in the circumstances leading to the occupation. Japan had preemptively attacked the US in pursuit of an expansionist agenda that aimed to bring the entire western Pacific under Japanese control or influence. Their aggression failed; instead of knocking America back on its heels while Japan consolidated its gains, the war became a fight for survival of the Japanese state. By the war’s end in 1945, Japan had been thoroughly defeated and the expansionist wing of Japanese politics just as thoroughly discredited. Under such circumstances the Japanese people feared the worst from the occupation; instead they were treated remarkably well.

In 2003, however, it was America who launched a preemptive war against a country that had neither the ability nor the motivation to threaten it. The Iraqi government and military, entirely unable to face the US in conventional warfare, collapsed in weeks, but the Iraqi people, most of whom had merely observed the invasion rather than resisted it, were undefeated. Their primary allegiances were tribal and religious, not to the Hussein regime; they were not about to transfer those allegiances to the US.

4: Bremer was no MacArthur.

Does that really even need to be said?

Douglas MacArthur was a brilliant general and strategist with years of experience in the Far East; more importantly, he was a conscientious leader who took his responsibilities as such seriously. He was an avid student of Japanese culture; he went out of his way to show respect for,  and sensitivity to, their customs; he used his vast power to give the Japanese people a taste of just, efficient government; he carefully discriminated between those responsible for the war and the average Japanese. He won the respect – some would say love – of the Japanese people by his conduct and policies, not by some magical force of personality.

Now consider L. Paul Bremer – a career fearmonger masquerading as a terrorism expert. Prior to his appointment as Interim Dictator of Iraq he was Chairman and CEO of Marsh Crisis Services, a risk assessment firm – which is to say, his professional expertise was in frightening other corporations. While real terrorism experts like Michael Scheuer repeatedly warned the Bush administration of the likely consequences of Bremer’s (and Bush’s) policies, Bremer used his powerful position to immortalize his own incompetence and ignorance. He disregarded years of American propaganda aimed at convincing Iraqi soldiers to abandon Saddam. Within weeks he had created all the conditions for a Sunni insurgency in Iraq through a series of incredibly stupid executive orders. That insurgency was the incubator in which Abu Bakr al Baghdadi and his private army, AQI/ISIL, were formed and developed. The current “Islamic State” traces its origins directly to Bremer’s first three months in office. While a civil war and an anti-American backlash were likely consequences of the invasion and occupation anyway, Bremer did everything imaginable to guarantee both.

Does it still seem reasonable, in light of the above, to blame the absence of American forces since 2011 for Iraq’s current plight? Add to all this theorizing the fact that insurgent violence and terrorism during the occupation was at its worst from 2004-06, with >100,000 coalition troops in the country – before the much hyped “surge” had taken place and before the 2011 withdrawal date had been set by the Bush administration. If the insurgency could not be contained with that level of military presence, on what basis can it be claimed that an extended troop presence would have helped? Add to that the equally important fact that even the puppet government we established under Maliki refused to allow any American troops to remain, so that if we had kept combat forces there they would likely have been dealing with a Shia threat perhaps equal to the Sunni insurgency.

There is simply no way one can argue from the facts that it was the withdrawal of American forces that paved the way for ISIL. On the contrary, it was the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the subsequent occupation of Iraq and the policies pursued by the Bush administration and the occupying authorities which led to the ongoing tragedy that is Iraq today.

Principled Opposition Or Game Of Thrones?

For those of you who still hold to the myth that there is some meaningful distinction between a “conservative” or right-wing foreign policy and a “liberal” or leftist one, here’s something to think about:

In 2002, a Republican-controlled US government joined a Labour-controlled UK government to launch an unprovoked attack on Iraq, justifying the war with flimsy, perhaps even fabricated evidence of WMDs. They did so in the face of significant push-back from the Democratic and Tory oppositions.

Eleven years later, a Democratic-controlled US government and a Tory-controlled UK government seek to launch an unprovoked attack on Syria, justifying the war with similarly hasty claims. They appear ready to move forward in the face of significant push-back from the Republican and Labour oppositions.

I’d like to repeat a proposition I’ve made before, in spite of the likelihood that it will tick some of you off: the only bedrock principle guiding the foreign policy positions of most American (and many British) politicians is job security/advancement. They don’t give a rat’s whisker for the lives of American soldiers or innocent civilians, except to the extent that their constituents are likely to blame them. They don’t care whether an “intervention” is moral, constitutional, proportional or affordable. They know that war always results in the accrual and consolidation of power in the hands of the executive, and thus they support war when their guy is in and oppose it when the other guy is in. They make decisions that will affect the lives and livelihoods of untold numbers of their fellow creatures based on a despicable and mercenary calculus: who will get the credit, and who will get the blame?

Time For A Declaration Of Interference?

Someone I know and love recently shared a poster featuring Leutze’s majestic painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River on Christmas Eve, 1776. The caption read “AMERICA,” followed by the words, “We will kill you in your sleep on Christmas.” My initial reaction to this sickening boast was similar to the first time I heard Toby Keith’s hit single, Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue. It was a combination of disgust, sadness and grudging acknowledgement that the sentiment does indeed speak for much of America.

That last got me thinking. Maybe “a boot up …” really is the American way now. Maybe what I call Americanism is too 19th century. Maybe we need to articulate and embrace a new set of foundational principles, sort of like Romney’s “bedrock principles” – only those were attitudes. Anyway, since we have so carelessly trashed our founding principles as they appear in our Declaration of Independence, maybe we should trash the Declaration itself and replace it with a new and updated document, one that more accurately reflects our position in the world and our modern approach to international relations. I’ve tried to draw up such a document below. With a little editing by legal and PC experts, it should be something any modern patriot could proudly carry in their pocket.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes advantageous for one people to overstep the political boundaries which have separated them from another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, that supreme and arrogant station to which their economic and military prowess entitles them, a pretence of respect for the well-being of mankind requires them to set forth the consequences everyone else may expect from their ascension.

We hold these claims to be above legitimate debate: that America is exceptional; that we are endowed by the fact of our super-awesome existence with certain international obligations; that among these are global hegemony, full-spectrum dominance, and the responsibility to speak and act for freedom-loving people everywhere (whether they like it or not); that to fulfill these obligations, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of Uncle Sam; that, whenever any government becomes inconvenient for, or ill-disposed toward, America, it is our right, it is our duty, to overthrow such government, and to institute a new government; granting its powers to such persons, and organizing it in such form, as to US shall seem most likely to ensure our continued dominance. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that a nation in the enjoyment of peace ought not to engage in war for light and transient reasons; and all experience has shown that empires are more likely to fall prey to their own corruption, arrogance, and sense of invincibility, than to the dangers and bugbears by which they justify their continued expansion. But when a long train of abuses and interventions, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to enrich a few at the expense of the entire world, without provoking any career-ending electoral displeasure or unmanageable foreign crises, it is our habit to take such complacency for authority, and to embark on new adventures for our further enrichment. Such has been the long-standing experience of these states, and such is now the political climate which invites us to double down on our interventionist policies. The unique awesomeness of these United States is so significant that the lessons of history and prior human experience are insufficient to deter us from bossing you around at gunpoint. In this spirit of hubris, let warnings be presented to an increasingly skeptical world.

We may demand that your laws conform to our constantly changing standards, as the ultimate measure of what is good.

We may offer your leaders immense financial incentives to place the interests of the few above your interests and those of your nations.

We may overthrow your national governments when we see fit, by force or subterfuge, at our option.

We may neglect for a long time, after such overthrow, to allow new governments to be formed; the legislative powers meanwhile being left in the hands of ruthless and incompetent bureaucrats, and your national resources exposed to all the corporate interest groups and speculators that follow in our wake.

We may endeavor to make your leaders dependent on our will alone for the tenure of their offices.

We may invent countless new conventions, commissions, agencies, administrations and NGOs, and send swarms of bureaucrats to harrass your people and live at your expense.

We may keep among you, in time of peace (if you are that lucky), standing armies, bribing your leaders with foreign aid packages to ensure their consent.

We may keep our military independent of, and superior to, your civil institutions.

We may combine with others to subject you to the jurisdiction of the U.N. Security Council, or whatever jurisdiction we may invent at the time, giving our assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among you;

For protecting them, by secrecy, complicated regulations, and vicious prosecution of whistleblowers, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on your people;

For cutting off your trade with any or all parts of the world;

For imposing regulations and restrictions on you without your consent;

For depriving your people, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting you overseas to be tortured for intelligence, or to rot away in prison without trial for alleged offences;

For abolishing long recognized individual freedoms in other nations;

For taking away your national sovereignty, appropriating your most valuable resources, and altering fundamentally the order of your societies;

For disbanding your civil institutions, and assuming the responsibility to redesign them for you according to our wishes.

If you refuse to cooperate in our benevolent makeover of your nations, we will plunder your lands, blockade your coasts, bomb your towns, and destroy the lives of your people.

We will hire large armies of private contractors to assist in the work of subjugation, which will be conducted with a reckless disregard for innocent human life scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized nation.

We will incite domestic insurrections among you, and when our own people become weary of the costs of war, we will rely on our immense technological advantage to continue the fight with bombs, missiles and drones, whose known rule of warfare is an indiscriminate destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these operations we will pay lip service to diplomacy, democracy and self-determination in the most flattering of terms. Our repeated assurances should not be taken seriously. A nation whose policies are thus marked by such reckless ambition and brutality is best obeyed without question or complaint.

Not that we would be averse to achieving our goals through “soft power” when possible. We will print, from time to time, large sums of money to assist in making our uninvited meddling more palatable. We will remind foreign dictators of the invaluable assistance our military and information sectors can provide. We will appeal to their native lust for power and wealth, and cajole them by our common interests to connive at these usurpations. But if they prove deaf to the arguments of self-interest and influence, we must acquiesce in the necessity which requires our forceful intervention, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, targets in war, in peace, puppets.

We therefore, the representatives of these United States of America, in Washington, D.C. assembled, appealing to the inexhaustible credulity and imperturbable ambivalence of our constituents for the peaceable nature of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this nation, arrogantly publish and declare, that we are, and of right ought to be, the leaders of the free world; and that as such, we have full powers to levy war, conclude peace, impose treaties, obstruct commerce, multiply agencies, commissions, laws and regulations, and to do all other things which previous empires have in general done. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on our immunity from the laws of unintended consequences, we mutually pledge to each other your lives, your fortunes, and our sacred honor lol!

I expect all my patriotic, interventionist friends to be overjoyed at the prospect of a new founding document, one that encapsulates the new and improved relationship between America and the rest of the world, and can form the basis for our future prosperity as the successor to all the previous empires that most Americans have never heard of.

Facts or Propaganda?

As the final debate between Obamney approaches, I am bracing for what will likely be the undoing of the warm feelings I have been dutifully nuturing toward our candidate. Governor Romney’s blissful ignorance of America’s place in the world, constitutionally and in reality, remains the biggest obstacle to this conservative’s support. And his efforts to reassure voters by promising to defer to his military advisers are anything but comforting. The only thing the founders feared more than an executive with unchecked war-making powers was an autonomous military. James Madison must be digging out of his grave by now.

Not only does Romney fail to understand both the mess that is the American empire and the relevant constitutional law, he doesn’t even seem to have a coherent position of his own. In his much hyped VMI speech two weeks ago, Romney identified the “bedrock principles” of the Romney doctrine: “America must have confidence in our cause, clarity in our purpose and resolve in our might.” But as Gene Healy points out in an excellent piece in the Washington Examiner, “…those are attitudes, not principles. And if jut-jawed self-assurance that we know what we’re doing in the Middle East was the key to victory, we’d have a little more to show from the last 11 years of war. Hope is not a strategy, but hubris isn’t either.”

Worse than the over-confident and under-informed arrogance, however, is the deliberate deception and propaganda constantly peddled by both campaigns and the war lobbyists they work for. Nonsense about Muslims hating us because we’re free, idolization of Syrian “freedom fighters” with no acknowledgement of their terrorist connections, and fearmongering that borders on psychosis with regard to Iran are all examples of the schizophrenic foreign policy jumble that both candidates embrace. And the voting public seems tragically complacent about the utter lack of meaningful distinctions between Team A and Team B.

Several days ago I was reading a Foreign Policy article about the radicalization of rural Pakistani youth, and specifically the techniques employed by terrorist groups in recruiting teenage boys for suicide attacks. I was stunned by the sickening methods used to convince these uneducated and ignorant boys to kill and die. Without repeating the claims made in the article, I will only say that one cannot help seeing even a suicide attacker in a different light after the author’s description of their indoctrination.

As my wife and I were discussing the article, my oldest son arrived home from school. He greeted me with, “Hi dad, Mrs. – says Iranians are dangerous people, is that true?”

Oh boy, I thought, here we go. “Why does Mrs. – say so?” I inquired.

“She says they are building a nuclear bomb to launch at us.”

“And why does she think they would want to launch a nuclear bomb at us?” I persisted.

“Because they don’t like that we’re over there defending our oil.”

Now, in fairness to Mrs. -, who I genuinely like and admire, I’m reasonably certain that she wasn’t quoted verbatim. It is entirely possible that my son’s impression of her comments differed substantially from her intent. Be that as it may, the timing of his question, coming as it did while the deceptive propaganda of Islamic jihadists was fresh in my mind, was an uncomfortable, but inescapable, reminder that both sides are equally guilty of using rank propaganda and deception to motivate and gain the support of the masses.

The problems with such ridiculous claims (which, regardless of whether my son’s impression was accurate, are widely believed by rank-and-file conservative voters) ought to be obvious. First of all, to describe “Iranians” (or any other ethnic group) in such sweeping terms demonstrates a pitifully two-dimensional view of the world, not to say of human nature. Secondly, our own intelligence agencies have been unanimous in their opinion that Iran is not, at present, building a nuclear weapon. Nor are they enriching uranium to the level required for such a weapon. Thirdly, if Iran did succeed in building a nuclear weapon, they are clearly unable to deploy it via ballistic missiles that would threaten the US. Fourthly, if Iran ever did develop intercontinental nuclear capabilities, what motive could they possibly have for a first strike? And lastly, while it is undoubtedly the height of insolence for Muslims in general and Iranians in particular to live on top of our oil, the evidence does not favor our appetite for oil as a pat explanation for Iranian animosity toward the US.

But its been a long time since evidence was last allowed to get in the way of the military-industrial complex. I expect Romney to differ from the President tonight only in the violence of his rhetoric. I would love to see him advocate a more humble and constitutional foreign policy, one that would present voters with a real choice to deal with the national debt, stop alienating allies and manufacturing enemies, and put James Madison back to bed. He has changed his position on most other issues, so perhaps there is reason to hope.

But, alas, hope is not a strategy.

Why Do They Hate Us?

I wonder if any question has ever been asked more often with less sincerity. The complete absence of curiosity on this point, especially among my fellow Christian conservatives, is appalling. My head is spinning with the comments I’ve heard just in the last few days from professing believers, some even members of my own denomination, my own church.

“Arabs really are just not nice people,” one friend observed. (Really? Is that as far as your mind is permitted to wander?) “People are people,” I told her. “They need the gospel-” “They’ve rejected the gospel,” she replied decisively.

Who are “they,” I wondered. When did they reject the gospel? What gospel did they reject? Have they ever really heard the gospel of Jesus Christ? Are the ideas and concepts they associate with Christianity likely to aid in winning them over? Are American Christians doing anything about that? Do American Christians even care?

Put yourself in the shoes of a middle eastern Muslim for a moment. (No, it isn’t an act of treason, and no, you won’t go to hell if you die while doing this exercise.)

Imagine that you were born and raised to believe in one god who expects you to earn your salvation by good deeds and strict adherence to his law. Imagine that every authority you know, from vigilante mobs to religious leaders to the tyrannical government you live under, sees violence as an appropriate response to offensive speech.

Imagine that in your world America is synonymous with Christianity. But you don’t know the America that for so long was a beacon of hope to oppressed people; the America that opened its doors to offer freedom and opportunity to the world’s tired, poor and huddled masses. You know America only as the world’s most powerful and wealthy nation; a “Christian” nation that exports obscenity and imports drugs. You know America as the money behind brutal dictators and the police states they control; as the source of drone attacks that strike without warning and kill indiscriminately; as the proponent of brutal economic sanctions that condemn the poor to a slow death long before the elites in your government feel the pinch. You know America as the land of politicians who think its okay to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslim children to further their own economic interests; as the place where soldiers who kill unarmed civilians in cold blood are protected but soldiers who expose them are mercilessly prosecuted.

Pretend you are an Afghan who survived a drone attack on a wedding that killed your wife and left your child with permanent brain injury. (The US government has since christened your loved ones “militants.”) Or maybe you would rather be a Yemeni whose brother got on the wrong side of local authorities and ended up in Guantanamo. (After four years imprisonment he was cleared but he’s still there ten years out because the US hasn’t found a safe place to release him.) Imagine you are an Iraqi who hailed the overthrow of Saddam Hussein only to watch as professional fear-mongers dismantled your country’s civil institutions and pocketed millions while your society descended into chaos and violence.

Picture yourself as an Iranian father whose daughter is dying because the medication she needs is no longer available. (You’ve demanded an explanation and been told that the US is deliberately using economic sanctions to prevent its importation so that Iranians will die.) Or put yourself in the shoes of a Pakistani whose young son was vaccinated with something by a doctor you later learned was working for the CIA, and he died two months later. (The hospital says it was pneumonia but the talk on the street is that it was the secret substance in the “vaccine.”) “What nonsense!” you say. “Totally irrational!” Of course it is irrational to you and me, but not to someone in that world. They don’t trust their governments any more than you or I would, and they certainly don’t trust our government. Can you blame them?

Imagine … what’s that? You can’t take it anymore? Neither can they. It is true that a crummy you-tube drama doesn’t explain all the recent rage among Muslims. Neither does self-righteous nonsense about Muslims hating us because we’re free. Religion and culture don’t explain it either; while Islamic culture is violent to a great extent, that has been the case for the last 1500 years since the religion was founded. But this visceral anger targeted directly at the west and America in particular is a recent phenomenon – certainly within the last fifty years.

Self-righteous punditry aside, it isn’t the violence that strikes me as senseless. Trying to understand the current outburst of Muslim rage without taking American policies and intervention into account is senseless. Writing off all Muslims for “rejecting” a Gospel they’ve never heard is senseless. Imposing democracy by force on a society that has understandably grown to hate us is senseless. Killing innocent women and children to help dissuade the survivors from becoming terrorists is senseless. Sending American soldiers to die in tribal wars in Afghanistan is senseless. And calling support for such reckless insanity “conservative” is perhaps the most senseless thing of all.