Bdos: Carl Ince on war -- the folly of the Caribbean media

The Independent of London dated Friday, May 02 led with a story entitled "The Destruction of Morality". Above the story there was a photograph of US army reservist Lynndie England holding a naked, bearded Iraqi on leash. "No sadistic movie," said Robert Fisk, "could undo the damage of this image. Lynndie smashes to pieces our entire morality with just one tug on the leash." I respectfully disagree with Fisk. This was merely one incident in the immoral experience of an iniquitous war. Notwithstanding the biblical endorsement and the historical blessing of countless of kings and princes, war has been a wicked and wasteful endeavour. It corrupts all who participate. In the theatre of war, spirited by the appropriate propaganda, many of us could be capable of the most despicable acts. One shudders also at the response had the boot been on the other foot, and had Lynndie England been Khadija Muhammad. With war, morality and equity, and more go through the window.

Ince's argument here contains a number of flaws. The first is that war is "a wicked and wasteful endeavour." The corollary to this is that it is wrong to wage a war of liberation, and people oppressed by a cruel and murderous dictator so ought to remain. By this standard, Ince and many Caribbean journalists should not have been in support of the freedom movements that were in South Africa and Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. However, they were. Perhaps, Ince's rationale here accounts for the Caribbean silence on the Mugabe atrocities in Zimbabwe and Islamic genocide in Sudan.

The second is that war "corrupts all who participate." If war corrupts all who participte, then every man engaged in the waging of war is corrupt. Therefore, duty, decency, honor, and justice are not ideals that may be maintained in the heat of war. The logical conclusion is that military discipline is incompatible with war; for, it is the preservation of military discipline that prevents an army's descent into chaos and atrocities, what Ince terms "despicable acts." Thus, Ince's position is absurd on the face of it; for, his underlying premise is, contrary to von Clausewitz, that an army at war lacks military virtue. Hence, Ince can assert, foolishly, that "[w]ith war, morality and equity, and more go through the window."

The third is that Ince has very quickly forgotten that the boot has been on the other foot, and a leash around the neck has been the least of it. It has more been like a bullet to the head; a knife to the throat; actual physical torture; bodies burnt, mutilated, and strung up like beef at an abbatoir. Moreover, there has been no outcry resulting from such atrocities. In fact, the media worldwide has been silent, and the Caribben media no less so. For, in the view of the global community, such acts are expected of Islamic countries and not of the U.S. One suspects that the media swarm is occurring because America, the one nation viewed as a beacon of decency and a bastion against inhumane treatment in wartime, has fallen from grace.

The fourth is that while war is hell, and cruel and immoral things do happen during war, yet, not all warriors commit cruel and immoral acts during war. Thus, it is simplistic to argue, as Ince does, that "[w]ith war, morality and equity, and more go through the window." Ince needs to read von Clausewitz's On War.

Ince later writes that

[t]he war that is being waged in Iraq is the war that is being waged in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. Unless it is halted it will spread further afield. And it will increasingly be young men and women, Muslims, Jews and Christians who will find their physical and moral lives cruelly cut short. On all sides they will be the victims of political forces in the guise of religious conflict. The battlefield will spread to the cities of Europe and on and on, as vicious acts are succeeded by even more abhorrent retaliation. Nationalism will fuel the conflict and as in the Second World War any combatant becomes capable of deeds hitherto unthinkable. The Miss Englands are not monsters, nor are the so-called terrorists they are dealing with. They are young men and women caught up in the demeaning enterprise of war.

Again, how quickly we forget history. First, this was not a war that the U.S. began. This war began in 1983; it continued unchecked in 1993; and it burst into full flower in 2001. Since Ince has also forgotten this, he should look to Barbados's neighbor to the south to realize that the war briefly manifested itself in the Caribben in 1990. This is a war begun and sustained by Islamics. The U.S. and Britain did not enter the theatre until 2001. Thus, inasmuch as Muslims began the war, it is up to them to lay down arms and abandon the field. This they will not do. Therefore, the young Jewish, Christian, and atheist men and women whose lives are cut short, will be the victims of a religious jihad begun by Muslims whose aim is to bring all the world under the domination of Islam ... whatever it takes. By ignoring this, Ince does his readership a grave disservice.

Second, Ince apparently does not realize that Europe is already a battlefield. A quick scan of the foreign press or JihadWatch will confirm that this is so. Lest Ince and other Caribbean journalists doubt their fellows in the Euro-media, let them recall 3/11 and Spain. Moreover, the battlefield is Africa (remember Kenya, Sudan, Nigeria?), Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Russia, and there are rumblings in TT, with events in the Muslim Triangle and Venezuela yet to come online. Such wilful ignorance of the facts is dangerous.

Third, it is not nationalism that is fueling or will fuel the conflict. On the Muslim side of the equation, which is that of the aggressor, it is Koranic doctrine and religious fervor inspired by Islamic preaching and teaching. Moreover, the nature of the Muslim ummah eschews any sense of nationalism; thus, what happens to a Muslim in one part of the globe, however well deserved, is an offense and impetus to action to a Muslim in another part. On the defending side stands the divisive nationalism of Western nations. Yet, as more nations come under attack by Islamics, the uniting factor in the West will not be religion but the natural desire to preserve Western civilization, which includes its Judaeo-Christian heritage.

Fourth, the moral equivalency exhibited by Ince, which leads him to describe the aggressors as "so-called terrorists," is consonant with that of media types in the Caribbean an elsewhere. It is this same "even-handedness" which precludes them from presenting their countries with the true nature of the threat which confronts our way of life. This failure to present the facts as they are, and not as the journalist distills them to be, means that citizens of many countries, especially in the Caribbean, will be very unprepared to meet the looming threat head on. A quick survey of the Caribbean press reveals a power anti-American bias rather than a presentation and analysis of the events that led the U.S. and the rest of the Coalition to where they are right now. That failure on the part of the media might well result in a tremendous loss of life, when the jihadis come, for come they will.

Finally, Ince crowns the supreme folly that is his essay by stating

"[i]n the absence of a Mandela who wisely did not take up arms and pursue justifiable retaliation, when victory by war might have seduced him, we could be in for decades of strife. Hear Mandela:

"That we succeeded in resolving our political conflict through peaceful cross-racial negotiations and established through joint consent a non-racial democracy, is in many respects the achievement of the entire international community. The peaceful nature of our transition, where many had expected and predicted a bloody racial WAR and the destruction of the country, led to us often being referred to as a miracle nation."

That miracle needs to be replicated throughout the world. We can, if we beat our swords into pruning hooks and leave our young people, including Miss England and the next suicide youngster to build new States.

First, a statement such as this is absurd, given the context of the war. That context is provided by Islam's Koran, its teachings, and the imams' preaching of those teachings. Thus, it is immediately apparent that the ideological underpinning of the conflict is different from that of the Western countries against whom jihad is being made. Mandela was not confronted with such a situation. Instead, Mandela faced a racial conflict occuring within the context of shared Western values. Had the value system been different, Mandela might have been forced to pursue another course.

As proof of this, one needs only look to Nigeria where Christians have begun retaliating against Muslims who have burnt churches and slaughtered Christians. There can be no dialogue because, according to Ahmed Sani -- the Muslim governer of Zamfara state who has ordered, "that his government ... embark on demolition of all places of worship of unbelievers in the state," -- Islamic injunction requires Muslims to fight against non-Muslims wherever they are found.

The only "peaceful" negotiation that Islam understands or will accept, and then only temporarily, is that undertaken at point of defeat. Then, when Muslims regain sufficient strength, the fight resumes. That's the Islamic hudna which has no regard for any treaties that Muslims might make with non-Muslims. In this context, then, what possibility is there of peaceful conflict resolution? None, for one party will not make agreements in good faith.

Thus, Ince's conclusion is folly for it demonstrates an abysmal ignorance of Islam, and and betrays a willingness to regard the Islamic homicide bomber as the equivalent of a soldier whose lack of military virtue leads her to mistreat prisoners.

Ince and the rest of his Caribbean media-brethren need to awaken from their drowsy-natured sleep. For, the only thing that will stand to preserve their freedom is war.