Dymphna and I have been posting these 9-11 anniversary essays once a year, beginning in 2005, so this makes the fifteenth. I’m on my own now, and I must admit to a certain discouragement: in the eighteen years since the Twin Towers fell, our ability to identify and deal with the danger of Islamization has markedly deteriorated.
Readers who are old enough to recall the fall of 2001 may remember the robust public discussions about Islam that took place during the months after September 11, even in the MSM. Even on NPR! I remember listening to the op-eds during “All Things Considered” in the car on my way home from work. Yes, the general conclusion — led by the pronouncements of President George W. “Religion of Peace” Bush — was that the perpetrators of 9-11 were “extremists” who had “hijacked a great religion”. But Islam was mentioned, and it was even possible to publicly dissent from the “extremist-vs.-moderate” party line without being hounded from one’s job and driven into hiding.
Not any more.
Over the intervening years, the patient infiltration and indoctrination by the Muslim Brotherhood has borne fruit. The word “Islam” is rarely used in any public commemorations of 9-11. In fact, the public remembrances themselves are becoming more and more frowned upon and stigmatized as “racist”, “white supremacist”, etc., etc.
In the Long War, Ilhan Omar is winning, and we traditional Americans are losing.
Mark Steyn says it much better than I ever could in “The Language of Losing”. Some excerpts:
The eighteenth anniversary of 9/11 was marked by the Administration inviting the Taliban to Camp David, and by the resignation and/or firing of John Bolton as National Security Advisor — which two events may not be unconnected. Because really, when the Taliban are running around Camp David, who needs national security?
We run around fighting for worthless bits of barren sod like Helmand province in Afghanistan, while surrendering day by day some of the most valuable real estate on the planet, such as France and Sweden.
In any war, you have to be able to prioritize: You can’t win everything, so where would you rather win? Raqqa or Rotterdam? Kandahar or Cannes? Yet, whenever some guy goes Allahu Akbar on the streets of a western city, the telly pundits generally fall into one of two groups: The left say it’s no big deal, and the right say this is why we need more boots on the ground in Syria or Afghanistan. Yesterday President Trump said he was committed to ensuring that terrorists “never again have a safe haven to launch attacks against our country”.
By that he means “safe havens” in Afghanistan. But the reason the west’s enemies are able to pile up a continuous corpse count in Paris, Nice, Berlin, Brussels, London, Manchester, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Orlando, San Bernadino, Ottawa, Sydney, Barcelona, [Your Town Here] is because they have “safe havens” in France, Germany, Britain, Scandinavia, North America, etc. Which “safe havens” are likely to prove more consequential for the developed world in the years ahead?
Who’s winning what turf? After 16 years of western military occupation, the Taliban control more territory in Afghanistan than at any time since the first US troops went in. On the other hand, after 16 years of accelerating Islamic immigration, Europe has more no-go zones, more sharia courts, more refugees, more covered women, more Muslim-dominated schoolhouses, more radical mosques, more female genital mutilation, more grooming and gang rape, more Muslim Brotherhood front groups, more Muslim mayors and legislators, more Muslim-funded Middle East Studies programs at universities …and fewer churches, fewer Jews in Toulouse, fewer gays in Amsterdam, fewer unaccompanied women out after dark in German and Swedish cities, fewer historical representations of Mohammed in Continental museums, art galleries and scholarly books, fewer mixed bathing sessions at municipal swimming pools, fewer lessons on the Crusades and the Holocaust in European schools… and less and less free speech in some of the oldest democracies on earth.
…General Mattis’ line about “maniacs disguised in false religious garb” might be politic or even sincere when advanced in Tikrit or Basra, but delivered at the Pentagon it’s the most feeble dissembling 16 years into an existential struggle. And its deployment on 9/11 itself — on the home front, on sacred ground where blood was spilled — is not a small thing. It underlines that, in a profound sense, the dreary endless unwon wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere are not just a peripheral distraction from the real, central front, but an obstacle that prevents even the shrewdest and bravest of men from framing the struggle correctly.