Better Dhimmi Than Dead?

In the 50's and 60's there was a slogan that went something like "better red than dead". It was a saying used by many campus radicals , communists, and 'fellow travellers', meaning we would be better off if the communists took over than being killed in a nuclear holocaust trying to fight them.

Today we seem to be heading in a similar direction. It seems that we have had enough of the War in Iraq and the whole War on Terror for that matter. Speaker Pelosi's trip to the Mideast along with the seizure of British service people appear to have dotted the "i" on the issue. It is clearly deemed better to talk than to fight, to negotiate rather than to confront.I wonder though: Is there any foreign leader or regime that is too evil to negotiate with? Is there any point or thing worth fighting for or dying for? Apparently, Adolph Hitler was such a leader and the Nazi government of Germany such a regime. In 1938, Neville Chamberlain declared Hitler a "reasonable" fellow and one whom "we can talk to". By 1939, it had become clear that no words or treaties would be enough to constrain his bad behavior. The world came to the conclusion (very briefly, it now appears) that Saddam, the Taliban, Bin Laden and al-Qaida were also beyond talk.

So, what about Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs? Assad? Kim Jong Ill? Sadr? Hamas? Hezbollah? Can we talk with them? Can we negotiate with them? Should we? Can we trust that they are not simply using talk to sap our will to fight them while we are strong and they are weak? Oh, look at Iran, you say. See how negotiations got the British sailors back. Sure, Iran seizes 15 Britons, holds them hostage for a week or so and then lets them go, without explanation or apology. A brazen act of piracy on the high seas and no penalty imposed. This from the non-nuclear Iran. What can we expect after they get their nukes? Iran now knows that NATO and the EU are impotent, a lesson it already learned about the UN. Only the US stands in its way now and the US not for long.

Our citizens have become tired of this war. We just want out. We don't want to spend any more of our money and our soldiers lives on this "futile" cause. After all, there were no WMD and Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11. If we just get out of Iraq, we can just go back to the way things were. Can't we? And, what about Afghanistan; remember, that's the place with the "legitimate" war. I'm sure the Islamic terrorists understand the distinction between that war and our mistaken "occupation" of Iraq.

Is it realistic to believe that the Islamic terrorists will let us alone if we get out of Iraq? What if we throw in having Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria? Do Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the other defeatist Democrats in Congress believe that? No, we all know better. But, we can't take the heat anymore. We can't suffer losses. We can't do anything that's hard. The Democrats in Congress have decided to ignore their responsibilities to protect the country for political gain by pandering to the public's loss of will to fight for what is right. It seems incredible that the example of Neville Chamberlain and the pre-WWII appeasers has been forgotten.

By the way, I do not excuse George W. Bush in this matter. He is most responsible for our situation. He understood the stakes and laid out the strategic vision in his speeches immediately after 9/11. For reasons I cannot comprehend, however, he failed to execute his strategy in a way that would ensure victory. First, he did not really explain the case for the broad war against the Islamic radicals and he did not do enough to ready the American public to accept the long-term commitment of our military and our treasury. Worse, he failed to fight the war fiercely and decisively, which against this enemy was the height of folly. The fact that Moqta al-Sadr still walks the planet is enough proof of this. I supported President Bush all the way on Iraq and the War on Terror; sadly history will judge him harshly for knowing what needed doing but failing to do it.

It now appears to me that the West is well on its way to acceptance of Dhimmitude. This is the situation of the non-believer who lives in the Moslem dominated world. Islamic Sharia law will be in force and the non-moslem (inferior) must abide by it on the pain of death. But, if you accept the premises of the left, fighting and dying are worse than anything else, so acceptance of Dhimmitude makes perfect sense.

I'm going too far, you think? Look at Europe today. The Brits never considered fighting to get their sailors back. In France, Moslem youths go on periodic rampages without reprisal. Al-Qaida in North Africa has announced its plans for a campaign to reclaim lost Islamic lands in Spain. Danish cartoonists and Dutch film-makers were threatened or killed for producing works "offensive to the Prophet". Even in the US, calls for "tolerance" of Islamic customs have Minneapolis cab drivers refusing to take passengers with alcohol in their luggage and check-out clerks refusing to ring up items containing pork.

Better Dhimmi Than Dead. For the left, blinded by hatred of George Bush and disdain for capitalism and even our American way-of-life, that slogan has a ring to it. Personally, I'll stick with "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death".