ROBERT D. KAPLAN, to whom attention must be paid, sides with the multiculti crowd on speaking softly about Major Hassan. But he does it for a strategic reason, not the hollow moralism.
Numerous frustrated voices declare that we shouldn't be shy about declaring that this attack was an incident of Islamic terrorism. That it may well turn out to be, but we would lose far more than we would gain by waving the bloody shirt. The ultimate strategic goal of al-Qaeda is to turn our struggle into a "clash of civilizations." If potential Muslim recruits to the U.S. military quietly decide not to enlist for fear of tribution or prejudice inside the barracks, that would be a victory for al-Qaeda.
A victory, Mr. Kaplan is arguing, because we need more Muslim soldiers, not fewer, especially Arabic speakers. Their presence in Afghanistan and Iraq helps militarily and politically, with the locals.
The consequences for terrorists must be tough, but our rhetoric must remain ecumenical. We should let the investigation take its course, mete out punishment, and quickly move on.
Read the whole thing, especially for Mr. Kaplan's acute insight into "clash of civilizations," the theory of history that dares not speak its name.
[Because] the only way to win a clash of civilizations is to deny that you are fighting one is the first place, government and military officials must always take the high road in their public statements.
(Robert D. Kaplan, "Responding to Fort Hood," theatlantic.com, November 15, 2009 )
For what it's worth, Unca D doesn't see it as a clash of civilizations. He sees it as a clash of civilization and barbarism.
Comments