Monday, September 21, 2015

Defending Western Civilization

In that last Republican debate, it seems that only two participants made good points: Trump, of course, maintained his anti-illegal position, something that seems unique to him among Presidential hopefuls this year. And Rand Paul pointed out that whenever we overthrow a secular Muslim strongman, he gets replaced by either chaos or Islamic fundamentalists or both. The rest were all about comparative trivialities.

Those two positions fit together rather well, so it's a pity that Paul and Trump seem to despise each other. When you create chaos in the Middle East, of course you cause people to want to leave there for all kinds of reasons, and immigrate to the West. So, the kind of fighting we're doing against the Islamic world is actually a fight against our own civilization. No matter how you look at it, millions of Muslims streaming into the West, whatever their motivation, is not good for Western Civilization. Just ask Charles Martel. Or John III Sobieski.

So I repeat the advice I've been giving for years. Don't meddle in the Middle East, and don't accept immigrants from the Middle East.
Quibcag:  The quote is from a commenter over at Chateau Heartiste. You can read about it at [link]. The illustration is from Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā)


  1. Hey! When did Oorai Anglerfish team get to upgrade from a PZIV-H to a Koenigtiger?

    1. When they realized that being the champions of an international competition requires your command tank to be better than a stop-gap solution to heavy IS tanks and T-34s.

  2. It's a matter of competition.

    The issue isn't intervention in and of itself, but effective intervention in the context of competition. It makes sense that any regime change - whether in America, Europe, Asia, Middle East - will result in a vacuum (chaos) that competitors (such as Islamic revolutionaries) will seek to fill with their own version of order. War isn't a sport that resets with a game clock. The competition continues after the flag is seized. The task of regime change isn't complete with deposing the standing regime. There must be a 'strong horse' occupation of sufficient control, duration, and influence to construct a preferred form of order that withstands competitors. Without the necessary 'post-war' stage, then we've simply cleared the deck for another willing competitor to impose their preferred form of order.

    Paul's point overlooks the basic competition aspect. (Paul also habitually overlooks that Saddam was not a counter to but a vector of Islamic terrorism that overlapped the al Qaeda network - see By the time that the Bush administration transitioned to the Obama administration, the Iraq intervention was back on track building a Western-compatible order - see - for the simple reason the US continued to compete there. Of course, at that point, the Arab Spring, including Obama's Libya intervention, hadn't happened yet.

    President Obama has since tailored US foreign policy in a particular way that has severely undermined our competitive effectiveness. Obama's foreign policy seems purposely designed to set up US international interests for failure.

    Foreign intervention and illegal immigration don't follow from each other. If anything, spreading Western civilization through intervention that competitively constructs a Western-compatible international order upholds the supremacy of Western civilization. This is especially the case with the refugee crisis exacerbated by the deliberate refusal of Western leaders to fill the vacuum competitively by constructing a Western-compatible order. The post-Bush Western failure to compete in the Middle East has been an invitation for willing competitors such as the Russians and Islamic revolutionaries to fill the vacuum as they see prefer.

    Defending Western civilization means championing Western civilization in competition. Obama and Paul are apparently unwilling to compete for it.