Exclusive: The Dangers of the Liberal-Islamist Connection (Part One of Four)
By David J. Jonsson


Author: David J. Jonsson

Date Published: 2007-07-02


The nexus between liberal ideologues and militant Islamists creates daunting hurdles for Western democracies. FSM Contributing Editor David J. Jonsson discusses how pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency can provide the needed means with which this deadly alliance might succeed.

The Dangers of the Liberal-Islamist Connection
 (Part One of Four)


By David J. Jonsson

If you believe your life can be wonderful if we get out of Iraq now, then events going on around the world probably already have become a haze as you watch the latest golf scores or read the propaganda from the latest appeasement journal or cable news cast.  After all, it seems all one hears are speeches of the latest Tokyo Rose complaining about the U.S. and its war mongering, blood for oil or unfair treatment of terrorists.

However, there is a group that wants to destroy our way of life in our lifetime, and there are some tough questions that must be answered.  One paramount question is whether the allies now joined for freedom and liberty will support a battle against the forces of evil.  In a time of war, the critical elements for success are to know the following facts:

Who is the enemy?

What are their goals?

What is the definition of success?

….and finally…….
What will the world be like if we lose?

Up to the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938, these questions were not answered. Today, the West faces the same situation in that it must decide on the answers to these questions or, if not, be prepared to live under Shariah Law in a totalitarian Islamic state.

How could this scenario be possible?  Because terrorism as a means of warfare is not confined to so-called non-state actors like Mohamed Atta and his colleagues (although WMDs increasingly have become the weapons of the poor) but is habitually employed by nation states.  On our comprehensively terrorized globe, almost everybody from covert, stateless bands of Jihadists, Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda - to name a few - to accredited members of the United Nations, believe themselves in need either of ready-made atomic bombs or the technology and expertise with which to manufacture them.  International affairs Is a Zero Sum Game.
 
When power is withdrawn by one state, another state or group will fill that power vacuum.  History has proven this in the past.  When British hegemony declined, American power filled that gap in the Western world.  Communism similarly filled power vacuums left after America’s withdrawal from Vietnam.  President Jimmy Carter’s defense spending cuts diminished American influence in Africa, South America, and Asia.  The same rules of international affairs hold true today.  Should America withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, that power vacuum will be filled by some state or group, and clearly it will not be friendly to the United States. 

In the Middle East, it is clear that Iran is filling power vacuums that the Iraqi government did not fill when authority was handed to it by the U.S. military.  Similar situations exist today in Lebanon, Gaza, and Afghanistan where there is weak political leadership; Iran has further expanded its power through its allies and affiliated organizations in those countries.  Iran, along with its allies and sponsors, will continue to do so until they are countered with force or by a competing political influence.  That is why it is critical that we prevail in Iraq to stave off an increased likelihood of terrorist attacks on U.S. interests by unfriendly regimes.

The Appeasement of the West

Decades from now, historians will discover that the United States, the West and the international community were being targeted by global ideological movements which emerged in the 1920s, survived World War II and the Cold War, and carefully chose this timing for their onslaught against democracy.

Whether she realizes this or not, America is facing a kind of liberal-Islamist alliance: a sympathetic relationship that leading Leftists in America have with Islamic radicals around the world.  I’m not suggesting the two groups actually like each other. Actually, they despise each other.  Leftists like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and Michael Moore despise, or they should, bin Laden and his fellow radicals because they are religious fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic [Shariah] holy law.  That means goodbye to freedom of religion, women’s rights and gay rights, and thus in all candor, goodbye to people like Pelosi, Frank and Moore.  By the same token, Islamic radicals like bin Laden detest the American left because, as they see it, the left is the party of atheism, family breakdown and cultural depravity.  The left is in the vanguard of imposing secularism and libertine social values in America and the EU.

The West’s Fatal bugs in the Software

If one looks at the military strength of the West compared to Iran, victory would seem to be inevitable, even if Iran acquires nuclear weapons.  Iran does not have the military machine that the Axis powers had in World War II or the Soviet Union had during the Cold War.  The Leftist/Marxist/Islamist Alliance, however, may be more effective than the earlier totalitarian movements operating individually. They could even win. That’s because however strong the Western hardware is, its software contains some potentially fatal appeasement bugs. Three of them – pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency - combined with the Oil Weapon could provide the needed means with which this deadly alliance might succeed.

Many on the American Left loathe America (which bolsters the Islamists who share in this feeling), while they love the Constitution and their vision of what America in their estimation should be.  Conversely, the Left has contempt for the average American. That is why most of the Left speaks of America as bringing immeasurable misery and sadness to the world and, essentially, as deserving attacks on it (which bolsters the Islamists who share in this feeling).

Ditching the “War on Terror”

Politicians in the U.S. and Europe are ditching the “War on Terror”, even though the “War on Terror” will probably not survive the next Republican administration, let alone the next Democrat one.  This, however, is probably not the big news. The real news is that little to no attention is being paid to Russia, China and India.  While attention is directed to the Middle East, there is little attention to the rising great powers.

The Democrats’ foreign policy proposes that the major rising powers are no threat at all. Consequently, it's no surprise that Edwards and Obama want to boost foreign aid.  They believe the poor world threatens the U.S. more than the rich.  That’s why Mitt Romney and John Edwards have proposed a new type of Marshall Plan.  The real danger, they argue, is from states that are too dysfunctional to educate their people, provide public health or control their territory; thus they export a swarm of pathologies, from Jihadist terrorism to loose nukes, and even to bird flu.  Their answer is a foreign policy that is directed to social programs in the guise of a new “Marshall Plan.”  In this proposal, the Left flinches at the hard-nosed calculations of survival of the West.

Social programs in dysfunctional states will not remove the threats to our democracy, liberty and freedom.  How the U.S. handles the threats from these totalitarian major powers and the assorted surrogate pawns of Iran, Syria, Venezuela will determine how dangerous the world becomes in the coming years, and whether the U.S. remains its lone superpower.

The question that the West has to answer is: would you choose appeasement?  Or would you fight for Western democracy, freedom and liberty? 

How these questions are answered by us will determine the course of global history.

[Next week, in Part Two of this series, I will discuss the wicked web of dangers threatening Western stability, safety and liberty.]

# # #

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, (Xulon Press 2005.) His new book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance (Salem Communications May 30, 2006) and can be reached at: djonsson2000@yahoo.co.uk

read full author bio here


If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note -- The opinions expressed in this columfn are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.




Click here to support Family Security Matters