James Lileks says what I meant to say here, but more at length and, as always, more eloquently.

...half the battle will occur in places we cannot reach or observe. A minimal-casualty defeat of the Islamists will require the help of Islam. I'd like to think that will happen on its own, without some exterior catastrophe to force the issue. For that matter I'd like to think I'll win the Powerball. Every time the jackpot goes over 200 million, I buy a ticket. Every time I lose. I'm always disappointed, of course. But never surprised.

Let's hope we can hit the jackpot.

Rand, this is why I say we are losing the PsyOps war. Where are the moderate Muslims who condemn yesterday's murder of Mr. Berg? Are there none or have we failed to reach them? Or protect them?

= = =

The blog you linked to was excellent! The nub of the matter, IMHO.

"Rejection: This would be speaking out singly or in concert with fellow Muslims, denouncing the acts without making the entire peroration an elaborate plinth on which to place the word “BUT.”

This is the heart of the matter. How small a "but" are they allowed? Any "buts" at all?

Is unconditional cultural surrender the only option we offer?

= = =

al Qaeda is evil. No argument, but as we debate the prison abuses I am reminded of this quote:

Be careful when you wrestle with monsters, lest you thereby become one. For, if you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you.
-- Friedrich Nietsche

Although the members of radical Islam do hate us, my religion forbids me to hate them back.

I still find statements about "destroying Islam" to be in poor taste, stupid, and certainly not justified by the facts.

The West doesn’t have the power to change Islam; it only has the power to destroy it. We have a lot of nukes. We could kill everyone. We could just take out a few troublesome nations, kill millions, and irradiate Mecca so that the Fifth Pillar is invalidated. The hajj would be impossible. Every pilgrim a martyr. I don’t think we’ll do either; God help us if we do, but inasmuch as we have the capability, it’s an option. But it would be a crime greater than the crime that provoked such an act, and in the end that would stay our hand. They know we won’t do it.

Let's us not forget that the world of Islam hasn't commited a "crime" to provoke even speculation of such an act of colossal barbarism. So why bring it up?

Also, Lilek seems to show a gross ignorance of Islam and how easy it would be to "destroy". As I understand it, one isn't required to perform the Hajj (as well as a few other sacred duties) if the task threatens the health of the worshipper. I suspect tramping through a radioactive desert would qualify. They probably would come up with a substitute for the Hajj and life under Islam would go on.

Karl, could Islam survive the destruction of Mecca? Particularly if the black rock they worship were vaporized? How would they explain that to themselves, since "everything is Allah's will"?

I'm not advocating nuking Mecca - I'm really interested in an answer. If Allah couldn't stop the destruction of Mecca, would it make at least some of them question the validity of their religion? How would they rationlize something like that?

Barbara,

It does sound like a "Final Solution" - - no? Ironic in a grim and dirty way. Yet I seem to know another religion that has survived quite nicely after the destruction of their holiest place.

= = =

The essence of PsyOps, turn your enemy into something they will despise having become.

Karl, could Islam survive the destruction of Mecca? Particularly if the black rock they worship were vaporized? How would they explain that to themselves, since "everything is Allah's will"?

Barbara,

The simple answer is that they don't worship a black rock in Mecca any more than I presume you do. And I suppose they'd rationalize it the usual way. God is testing the faithful again. I think an analogy here is would Roman Catholics fall apart if Rome were nuked and the Pope and all those Cardinals lost? Don't those Catholics "worship" the Pope? The answer to both questions is of course, "no".