Are We Descending into World War IV?

Mark Steyn has a retrospective piece up, published exactly one year ago today – The Death of Europe, in which he said:

It’s the European argument today: just as the 20th century belonged to America, so the 21st will belong to Europe, a Europe that cannot – and, indeed, disdains to – compete with the Yanks in “aggression” (military capability) or “materialism” (capitalism red in tooth and claw), and so has devised a better way. We’ve all had a grand old time these last few weeks watching M Chirac demonstrate his mastery of “the arts of peace” and his “lofty moral character”, but it would perhaps be fairer to choose a more representative Euro-grandee to articulate the EUtopian vision. Step forward Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, who said in London last year that “the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests.”

Best case scenario: you wind up as Vienna with Swedish tax rates. Don’t get me wrong, I love Vienna. I especially like the way you can stroll down their streets and never hear any ghastly rockers and rappers caterwauling. When you go into a record store, the pop category’s a couple of bins at the back and there’s two floors of operetta. All very pleasant, though not if you’re into surfing the cutting edge of the zeitgeist. I quite like Stockholm, too. Well, I like the babes, but they’re gonna be a lot wrinklier by 2050. Its 60% overall tax rate is likely to be the base in the Europe of 2020 and fondly recalled as the good old days by mid-century.

Worst case scenario: Sharia, circa 2070.

Steven Den Beste makes an uncharacteristically short, but typically razor-sharp comment on Spain’s reaction to terrorist attack:

The people of Spain marched in the streets on Friday.

Then they crawled on their knees into their voting booths on Sunday.


The Feces Flinging Monkey links to two telling comments, the first one here, and I will quote his piece entire:

It Dosen’t Get Much Clearer Than This

Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission of the EU:

“It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists,” Prodi said. “Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago,” and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper.

Well, that’s it, then.

There are lots of Americans who would agree; they will mostly be voting for John Kerry this fall. Most of the rest of us will be voting for George Bush.

It’s not about Red and Blue anymore. The war comes first.

And the second one here:

Dear Spain,

Sincerely, sorrow for your loss.

Sincerely, thank you for your support.

Sincerely, nice knowing you.

I hope that appeasement thing works out, but, it never does.

It appears that Mr. Steyn called it last year. Europe is destined for Sharia, and 2070 might be way, way late.

That will leave us and possibly some of the recently freed Eastern European nations against the forces of radical Islam that now appear to be controlling “old Europe” through immigration and intimidation.

World War III was the “Cold War” – a war of superpowers fought at low-intensity, and by proxy forces in little countries around the world. World War IV will be a different war yet – another low-intensity conflict, but one fought on our own soil for once, and in many other disparate places. Another war without fronts. A war in which the combatants are difficult to identify, and who use our freedoms against us. A type of war that Israel has been fighting for decades.

A type of war that, in its genocidal intent, might provoke a genocidal response.

Walter Russel Mead wrote in The Jacksonian Tradition

Jacksonian America has clear ideas about how wars should be fought, how enemies should be treated, and what should happen when the wars are over. It recognizes two kinds of enemies and two kinds of fighting: honorable enemies fight a clean fight and are entitled to be opposed in the same way; dishonorable enemies fight dirty wars and in that case all rules are off.

An honorable enemy is one who declares war before beginning combat; fights according to recognized rules of war, honoring such traditions as the flag of truce; treats civilians in occupied territory with due consideration; and – a crucial point – refrains from the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Those who surrender should be treated with generosity. Adversaries who honor the code will benefit from its protections, while those who want a dirty fight will get one.

There’s a tasteless joke making the rounds of the internet:

At a small airport terminal in Texas, three strangers awaiting their shuttle flight start conversing about the recent worldly events. The strangers were of varying cultures. One was Native American. Another was a cowboy from West Texas. The other person was a devout Arab Muslim.

During their conversation, they began to discuss their cultural history. The Native American stated “once my people were many, now we are few.”

The Muslim then chimed in and said, “once my people were few and now we are many.”

The cowboy looked at the Muslim, shifted the toothpick in his mouth and said with a sly grin, “that’s ’cause we ain’t played Cowboys and Muslims yet.”

Just because it’s tasteless, doesn’t mean there’s no truth in it.

It is my sincere hope that it doesn’t come to that, but better that than Shari’a.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *