Restraint is neither weakness nor appeasement

Europe may not have fought any major wars since World War II, except for futile overseas deployments to hang on to way too expensive colonial empires, but that shouldn’t been mistaken for an inability to fight wars if necessary. In the more than forty years between the France-Prussian war and World War I, the European powers, for all their global domination, hadn’t experienced any major wars either. The fighting that did take place was located overseas, and back then as in our immediate past, all about colonial holdings. European, and especially German, militarism might be a striking feature of the early 20th century, but the only troops to enter the Great War with any combat experience worth speaking of was the small professional British army. The big mouthed saber-rattlers had no idea what they were talking about, and neither had Europeans in general, who were, if anything even more ‘soft’ than we are today. And yet these ‘soft’ people started the slaughter of WW I virtually overnight.

Historical experience gives us pause, and makes us reluctant to take up arms, and this reluctance dresses up as multiculturalism and pacifism. The true believers are only a small minority, though, the rest of us merely gives lip service to these concepts. Europeans are chauvinists in every sense of the word, and wouldn’t dream of regarding other cultures as superior, or even equal, to Western civilization. Modern manners dictate to pretend otherwise, but ‘Multiculti’ means to us nothing more than ‘Alright, do your funny dances and rub blue mud into your bellybuttons if you want to, but leave the rest of us alone’. European pacifism doesn’t amount to anything either, during the war on Yugoslavia there were too many in Western Europe who demanded that the crap should be bombed out of the Serbs to claim otherwise.

Our militaries also may seem small and insignificant compared to the American one, but they tower over any potential enemy, foreign or domestic. We do presently lack the capability to project power, but that would change very quickly if necessary. Conscription has seen to it that many millions of European men in fighting age, most of them having gone through military training already, could be called up to arms. Troops aren’t supposed to be deployed in domestic fighting, but if certain minorities start to seriously feel frisky, such constitutional niceties would fall by the wayside.

Keeping all that in mind, I’m not too unhappy with a certain amount of restraint on part of the French authorities. If it takes time to formulate an effective strategy, then, by all means, let them take that time. A massacre can be committed in a very short time, but the consequences would be with us for decades. It would make the Irish ‘Bloody Sunday’ and its aftermath look like a picnic, and make it necessary to crack down ever harder in the future. Right now there still is time to calm things down, and to integrate the vast majority of Muslims into European society, once we finally get around to actually formulating an integration policy, but that window of opportunity would close if the response were too harsh. The problem has built up over decades, and it can only be solved slowly and deliberately. Whatever else may happen, a mass-expulsion of minorities just isn’t in the cards, and we will have to live with them, like it or not. Let’s not make that coexistence, and gradual assimilation of minorities, anymore unpleasant than absolutely necessary.

In the short run the mistake to lump all the inhabitants of the suburbs together with the riots also needs to be avoided – the peaceful majority there is already staging protest marches against the violence.

My mixed feelings about the French police’s restraint

On the one hand I’m appalled that the French police is reacting this passively to the Muslim riots. On the other I think that it may be better to show restraint while they don’t have a real strategy for handling the rioters. Going in without a plan could well lead to more bloodshed than would otherwise ever happen. Besides, so far nobody has been killed except the two idiots who were electrocuted when they ran into a transformer house.

Also restraint definitively is better than this:

On October 17, 1961, thousands of Algerian immigrants living in Paris took to the streets in support of the national liberation struggle being waged in Algeria against France by the FLN (Front Libération National – National Liberation Front). In response, the Paris police department violently broke up the demonstations, as well as took other severe actions related to the demonstrations. While the police originally claimed that only three deaths resulted from the conflict, historians estimate that between 32 and 200 demonstrators died. With almost no media coverage at the time, the events surrounding the massacre, as well as the death toll, were almost unknown both in France and worldwide for decades. For this reason, there is no generally-used name to designate these events.

The Paris massacre of 1961 appears to have been intentional. …

As noted on this Wikipedia page, some question the article’s objectivity, so here’s another source for corroboration.

Also, don’t forget that French troops killed several hundred thousand Algerians between 1952 and 1962 in order to keep the country a French colony.

Compared to this, (maybe) excessive restraint, or officials squabbling among themselves if Sarkhozy was wrong to call the rioters scum, doesn’t seem to be all that bad.

Update: Some may have misunderstood what I was getting at. I wrote that I have mixed feelings, but I don’t advocate a weak response to the riots at all. Then again, any response has to be based on some kind of plan, and the French leadership doesn’t seem to have any right now, nor are they agreed on what to do. A crackdown is fine, as long as the police moves into the suburbs with some kind of plan. If they go in without some kind of strategy, and are beaten back, if only locally, it will be far worse than maybe excessive restraint, as far as encouragement for the rioters is concerned. Once they go in in force and well prepared, and finally rout the mobs, any perception of weakness on the side of the authorities will soon be forgotten. In the meantime the non-violent majority in the suburbs, including the Muslims, are getting fed up with the riots, for they bear the brunt of the riots.

For perspective, the riots in L.A. 1992 cost 50 lives in three days, so far there don’t seem to have been any in France. Ginny raises the point in the comments that rioting deaths in France may have been gone unreported since the police isn’t going into these areas even in good times, but I think that is unlikely – if there had been any deaths, the organizers behind the riots would have tried to blame them on the police. They would be eager to drag dead bodies into the spotlight, and if the media wouldn’t report them, they would do it themselves online.

To sum it up, the situation is serious, but it isn’t desperate, and I don’t feel any psychological need to prove that I have big pair by calling for bloodshed. It’s all fine and good to demand a crackdown from a distance, but up close it isn’t all that simple.

Update II: Please see my next post above.

With most Muslims there can be no such thing as a true religious ‘dialog’

Link via LGF:

Prince Charles is currently trying to ‘plead the cause of Islam’ in America”>.

I’m pretty sure that he has no idea what he is talking about:

WASHINGTON, June 18 (UPI) — A leader of the small worldwide Muslim reform movement warned the West Tuesday against wishful thinking as the U.S. government promotes an intensive dialogue with Islam.
“The dialogue is not proceeding well because of the two-facedness of most Muslim interlocutors on the one hand and the gullibility of well-meaning Western idealists on the other,” said Bassam Tibi, in an interview with United Press International.

“First, both sides should acknowledge candidly that although they might use identical terms these mean different things to each of them. The word ‘peace,’ for example, implies to a Muslim the extension of the Dar al-Islam — or ‘House of Islam’ — to the entire world,” explained Tibi, who is also a research scholar at Harvard University.

“This is completely different from the Enlightenment concept of eternal peace that dominates Western thought, a concept developed by (18th-century philosopher) Immanuel Kant.”

In other words, not the crusades, much less more recent events, but rather the Battle of Poitiers is the true source of Islamist resentment and aggression. They won’t want to stop until whole world follows their interpretation of Islam:

“Similarly, when Muslims and the Western heirs of the Enlightenment speak of tolerance they have different things in mind. In Islamic terminology, this term implies abiding non-Islamic monotheists, such as Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, as second-class believers. They are ‘dhimmi,’ a protected but politically immature minority.”

According to Tibi, the quest of converting the entire world to Islam is an immutable fixture of the Muslim worldview. Only if this task is accomplished — if the world has become a “Dar al-Islam” — will it also be a “Dar a-Salam,” or a house of peace.

Read more

Lech Kaczynski is the new Polish President

I’m a bit late reporting on this, but I couldn’t blog this week. Anyway, somewhat surprisingly, Lech Kaczynski of the Law and Justice party has been elected as the new Polish President last Sunday

Warsaw, Poland (AHN) – In a surprising ending, Warsaw Mayor Lech Kaczynski has been elected the new president of Poland, winning by over 9 percentage points over his rival, Civic Platform leader Donald Tusk. After confirmation of his win, Kaczynski quickly called on Sunday for a quick completion of government talks between his conservative party and its pro-business ally.

Until Sunday, Tusk had led in preliminary polls by the same amount of points, with the outcome of the election coming as a shock to most Poles who predicted a win for Tusk.

“Society has made a decision and this should be a signal for the government,” Law and Justice leader Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Lech’s identical twin, told private television channel TVN24.

Donald Tusk had been leading in the polls, and was the favorite of the younger generation, but his ideas for free market reforms and cutbacks of welfare programs didn’t go over all that well with older Poles. Voter turnout was just above 50 percent, and it seems that those who were skeptical of Tusk’s reforms were more motivated to vote than his supporters. Kaczynski’s and Tusk’s parties will have to come to an agreement, though, if they want to form a coalition:

According to analysts, coming to a compromise between the Law and Justice and Civic Platform parties may become difficult because the presidential race underlined deep differences between the parties on how far the country should go with market reforms and how much welfare it can afford.

Their value systems differ on more than just economics:

Tusk’s opponent in the runoff is Mayor Lech Kaczynski of Warsaw, who leans left when it comes to social spending and the welfare state but is a deeply conservative Roman Catholic outspokenly opposed to abortion, divorce and homosexuality.

… Tusk stands for a kind of modern secular liberalism, a nonjudgmental, morally relativist stance of the sort that might be found, say, in a Paris café or on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. He is also an economic liberal in the European sense of the term, a believer, like Milton Friedman or Ronald Reagan, in the stultifying effect of too much government, the liberating power of the market.

Kaczynski, on the other hand, comes across to many Poles as more steeped in Polish tradition. He is religious, outspokenly nationalistic, a mayor who banned the annual gay pride parade in Warsaw.

How much of that difference is based on substance, rather than just a show put on for the elections is in doubt, though, as this article from the IHT also states. Either way it seems to have been a pretty tough election campaign, including strident personal attacks.

Both Kaczynski and Tusk are veterans of the Solidarity movement, and vowed to finally put an end to the post-communists’ still entrenched position in the country’s institutions. Kaczynski also has been demanded tribunals for Poland’s former communist rulers and their lackeys.

Both candidates are staunchly pro-American so there won’t be any great changes to the present government in this regard. Lech Kaczynski has announced a more assertive stance towards both Germany and Russia, so neighborly relations might suffer somewhat in the near future. More on that in some later posts; since the new President has already signaled a more moderate attitude towards Germany than he had adopted during the election campaign, it also isn’t quite clear how he is going to actually behave yet. One issue that definitely is going to become contentious is the announced gas pipeline between Germany and Russia, since it will be built under the Baltic Sea instead of going through Polish territory. Some critics even have compared the deal to the Hitler-Stalin pact, a pretty ridiculous case of hyperbole, even if the criticism is somewhat understandable.

Kaczynski as a social conservative and an economic liberal, almost to the point of socialism (the Western rather than its Eastern bloc variety) isn’t exactly my cup of tea, and I’m a somewhat skeptical about his ability to be an effective President. Poland has the highest unemployment in the EU at about 19 percent, so the country badly needs more pro-market policies, which Tusk had wanted to introduce but Kaczynski has expressly eschewed, at least so far. Even so he might turn out to be a pleasant surprise yet, especially as far as free market reforms are concerned.