SO MUCH HOT AIR
Downplaying the Islamic State shows not only our lack of courage and compassion but also our failure to learn from the past.
I think of myself as a pacifist, in many senses. Not only do I avoid bar fights and all forms of road rage but where I'm aware of them I try (though in hindsight often fail) to drop the seemingly countless weapons of privilege I've been handed. Yet I also realize this non-violent stance is a luxury afforded me by the accidental location of my birth and the fact that this event took place in the later half of the twentieth century. Acknowledging this means that my pacifism ends at a point just before delusion. I'm able to see there are cases where the use of force is preferable or even necessary. These are cases in which inaction, not using force to prevent further violence, is not a benign choice, or an act of benevolence, but the opposite: the action of a true monster.
It's for this reason I find reading Adam Rasmi's "Up in the Air" (over at the thewalrus.ca) so difficult. I would agree with Rasmi that there appears to be confusion among liberals (both big L and small), for the imperative of stopping ISIS is clear. What we have here is a violent collective with a clear vision of God's will and all the righteous zeal to impose this will on everyone else. It's a vision so narrow and so bleak that no amount of violence or misery could, in their eyes, given their perfect knowledge and the promises of the afterlife, ever be unjustified. And we know this because they tell us so. They murder their neighbours and foreign journalists for sport, and with divine permission, and then use the graphic footage of these events for recruitment and public relations purposes. They do this not because they feel it exposes them as bigoted barbarians but, to the contrary, because they are certain it casts them in pure and noble light. And they have and continue to win recruits from all over the world (Calgary and Edmonton, for example) with such happy advertisements.
Knowing this, who then doubts that it's with compassion – compassion for the victims of ISIS and the countless innocents who can't help but fall in their path (almost exclusively Muslims in Syria and Iraq) – that we form part of a coalition opposed to their very existence?
While I would agree that airstrikes are not ideal, where are the ideal options that have been overlooked? A regional peacekeeping force has yet to materialize and put an end to the madness... A millions-strong volunteer legion of devout pacifists hasn't turned up on the scene and put their bodies on the line... We haven't formulated an argument so philosophically profound that it could dissuade this group of religious fanatics from their horrific endgame... No one has announced the invention of the stun ray... And yet in the absence of these options something must be done. Is there any doubt?
When we've seen the mass murder of innocents and can anticipate more of the same we are required to do everything in our power to stop such an evil in its tracks. This is Roméo Dallaire's message, is it not? We simply must have the will to intervene. Rasmi's logic, that this isn't our fight, is precisely the reason 800,000 Rwandans died. History has shown us this response, not wanting to get ourselves dirty while innocents are murdered, is immoral. So what have we learned? Nothing it would seem. (How many more books, films, and plays need to be produced for the message to get through?)
Confusingly, Rasmi even quotes a Syrian who reminds us what we already know: that 'hundreds of thousands of people died in the last few years, and no one came to bomb Damascus.' So exiled Syrians are asking us where we were and just what we were thinking while we sat back and watched them being slaughtered. They aren't thanking us for minding our own business.
To be clear, inaction is just what Rasmi offers when he talks about humanitarian aid. Providing food, shelter, medical assistance, or even immigration – if there's anyone left to accept it when all is said and done – is not some kind of preferable high road. This is doing nothing. This is the fire department, aware that your house is ablaze, planning to show up the following day with offers of cookies and blankets for anyone who managed to escape the inferno.
But Rasmi's article is much more depressing than this. He also suggests that our attack on this growing band of fanatical thugs will cause reprisal attacks; and for this reason he says we should abstain. Please take just a moment to notice how horrific a statement that is. It's something like suggesting no one intervene in a murder or sexual assault or in a case of domestic violence on the grounds that the attacker may resist or that someone may see the intervention and feel sympathy with the attacker. Isn't that what's being argued? Anyone feeling sympathy for these folks, particularly as a result of what is clearly our best effort to stop their murderous rampage (again, almost exclusively innocent Muslims) needs to have their head examined. Rasmi would also have us believe that ISIS – who views even their faithful neighbours and family members as deserving of the most unspeakable violence – would label France or Canada (and our throngs of apostates, non-believers, and homosexuals) as inoffensive and pay us no mind if it weren't for our meddling in their private affairs. Of course, in light of the murder of European cartoonists and the resulting censorship of the majority of the world's media, I'm not sure how this idea could even be formulated. The ISIS public relations machine has told the world openly that anyone who is not a card carrying member of their death cult is their sworn enemy. So the idea that the appropriate response here is to ignore the problem, and to keep our head down and our tail tucked, is far beyond silly. In fact, what is more anti-Muslim or anti-refugee than leaving ten million people to the horrors this group promises to visit upon them?
I'm opposed to violence, but given their past and their stated aims where and when exactly do you think ISIS will voluntarily draw the line? Maybe once they've taken all of Syria and Iraq? Ya, maybe then they'll grow tired of all the violence and abandon their whole worldview and vision of Armageddon. Ya, and maybe then they'll develop a progressive government and social programs, and all take up badminton and curling and compete in the Olympics. Ya, and maybe then we can get them to sign on to the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty too? Ya, maybe. But somehow (call me crazy) I don't feel joining the community of nations is the direction this band of psychos is heading.
I understand that it's difficult to imagine these people believe the pure madness they say and espouse but, at this point, I think we should take their word for it.
Comments