Yesterday’s post about Tom Tancredo’s remarks provoked a lot of unexpected argument in the comments, with some excellent contributions by a number of people. To clarify my position, here is the text of an email I sent to Pastorius last night:
|I think we only disagree on emphasis and timing, and not on substance. My position is that a sword should remained sheathed until time to use it.|
|And my main objection is to the idea that we would destroy Mecca because some subset of Islam attacked us. Until we know for certain that all of Islam is lined up against us, that is morally indefensible. And, since one of the features of this war is our enemy’s total lack of what we consider morality, it is important that we always act morally.|
|That said, if we do end up fighting all of Islam, and the imams of Saudi Arabia declare against us, and jihadis set off nukes in a dozen of our cities, then a reasonable and appropriate response would be the destruction of Mecca. Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it would shorten the war.|
|Then, for the rest of time, we would be blamed for our awful deed, but so what? It would be the right thing to do at that point.|
|But revealing this card now is a bad idea. We are not at that time yet, and with God’s grace we may never get there.|
|As the Tao te Ching says, “A country’s weapons should not be displayed.”
— Baron B.
This can be a jumping-off point for further argument, if anyone feels so inclined.