Posted 4:55 PM by steve

With Tom Tancredo receiving almost universal condemnation over his suggestion that we bomb Mecca in response to a terror attack that involved a nuclear weapon, such as from Patterico, XRLQ, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin and (it seems) Ace, with only the occasional supporter, such as La Shawn, I thought, having some time on my hands, of taking a crack at figuring out if there's a way that Tancredo isn't so off base....

I'd start by pointing out that his comments were aimed at three audiences: Muslims as a whole, the terrorists themselves, and the American people. Assuming the Muslim community wouldn't want Mecca to be nuked, the fear that it would happen might lead to more cooperation from the general Muslim community, and might lead to reduced support (tacit and otherwise) for terrorists and terrorism. Right now, support - financial, logistical, material and spiritual - comes from the Muslim community as a whole - and there is literally no downside to them in doing so. Saudis provide funding, Iran and Syria provide logistical support and safe havens... all with no downside (except, of course, for those Muslims being blown up in Iraq.. but that's their own darn fault for not being sufficiently anti-American). Tancredo's threat might cause some of them to think twice about their actions At the same time, for the vast majority of Muslims (I hope) that are not involved in any way with terrorism, the potential loss of one of their prized spots might lead to an increase in the pressure they put on their governments to help end terrorism.. Tancredo's threats might persuade an awful lot of people that they have a vested interest in helping to keep America safe.

As for the terrorists themselves, while they might be interested in doing something that would result in Mecca going bye-bye, they might not be. Is it a sure thing that America would be the only one blamed should Mecca disappear one day? If a Bin Laden-supported group triggered a nuclear incident in New York City, and Mecca went bye-bye the next day, I agree with Tancredo's critics that there would be a billion ticked off Muslims, but I think they'd be angry not only at us, but also at whomever was stupid enough to provoke us... perhaps even angry enough to deal with them for us.

For a second point, I'd point out that there's a difference between what people think we will do and what we actually will do. During the Cold War, it was believed - by both the Soviets and the American public - that any Soviet nuclear attack would trigger a nuclear response of our own. But (thankfully), we never had to learn whether the likes of Jimmy Carter would actually follow through and order a nuclear response. Because we had established a credible threat of such retaliation, the Soviets never could bring themselves to launching an attack (for that matter, they never could bring themselves to launching a non-nuclear attack on Western Europe because of the credible fear that we would go nuclear in such a situation). In the present situation, what is important is not whether we would destroy Mecca, but rather whether people thought we would.

A third point: destroying Mecca would be a bit over the top, but maybe what we need to do in the GWOT is to stop fighting back with one hand tied behind our back. Our security measures at home are designed as much to not offend Muslims nor terribly inconvenience Americans as they are to safeguard our safety - no profiling of, as Ann Coulter would say, dark swarthy men of a certain age and national origin. Our borders at home aren't sealed. Our troops in Iraq are hamstrung by rules of engagement designed to minimize civilian casualties and damage to religious sites. Iran and Syria get a free pass because the Bush Administration has been so buckled by its critics that it can't muster the energy to argue for enlarging the field of battle in the Middle East. We don't treat the detainees in a way that would maximize the information we get from them, we give them defense attorneys to help them get free to be able to go back to killing Americans. Our policy towards Saudi Arabia is designed more to protect the economy than our physical safety. Our policy towards Israel focuses more on 'ending the cycle of violence' than it does on giving Israel the support it needs to end terrorism on its own terms. As I have argued many times before, for all his rhetoric, Bush doesn't do what needs to be done. He's not the President of a country at war, he's the President of a country that is sort-of at war. Threatening to destroy Mecca certainly ups the ante. Of course, one wouldn't have to threaten Mecca in order to show that we're taking things as seriously as needed... but doing so certainly gets people's attention in a way that easing the ROEs in Iraq might not.

As for Tancredo speaking to the American people, I could be wrong, but I think the last thing the American people would want to hear in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States is that we were going to continue with our 'measured' response. In the aftermath of an attack, I see three divisions in American public opinion: the 'give peace a chance' liberal, who will argue that this attacks proves our military response to 9/11 (as well to terrorism as a whole) was unwise, the 'stay-the-course' types, who will advocate more of what Bush is doing, and the third group, Americans who are going to want payback and end this once and for all.

Look at our history: anytime we're attacked - the Alamo, the Maine, Pearl Harbor, 9/11 - we demand payback. We don't want turning of the cheeks, we don't want to wonder if we're somehow responsible for what has happened, and we never want to think the other side got off easy.... heck, we demand that we hurt the other side far worse than they hurt us. And I believe, most Americans, deep down, don't distinguish between the fundamentalists and the general Muslim population. It may not be right for them to do so, but they do. And, should 'they' be responsible for nuking an American city, the American people would demand payback. Big time. Against something that really matters to 'them'. Such as Mecca. During the pilgrimage.

And, in the aftermath of a nuclear attack, I think the demand would be incredible for an approach that ended our problems once and for all. There would be demands for retaliation against anything and everything that remotely was connected to those behind the attack. Collateral damage would cease to be a concern. There'd be no concern about whether the rest of the world viewed us as bloodthirsty jackals set on revenge.

An argument offered up by some of Tancredo's critics is that destroying Mecca would be viewed as an attack against all Muslims, when we are (supposedly) at war with only certain groups of Muslims. Well, we may not be at war with Islam, but how many Muslims have to be rooting for the Great Satan to receive its comeuppance before that distinction ceases to matter? How many Muslims have to be actually blowing themselves up on buses and shooting at us in Iraq and trying to destroy us before it's reasonable to stop making distinctions between good and bad Muslims?

So actually all Tancredo was doing was promising the American people that, should the unthinkable happen, if he had his way, we would get our payback.... and we'd end the war. A bit late. But we'd end it.

Which, despite the grief he's taking, will probably play better in Peoria than those who would call for us to stay the course, or those who would say that we should take our problems to the United Nations...


And that's the best I can do... now back to work.

|