Containing Radical Islam

Bill O'Reilly's December 3rd Talking Points

I can concur that the left generally sees Muslim-generated terror as a police-type deal and the right sees it as an all-out-war. I can probably agree that the threat from fanatical Muslims is now at an all-time high. Is the world at great risk? I think that's a severe overstatement. Terrorism is always a risk in free society. You put your security in place as best you can and use intelligence to weed out terrorist strikes before they happen where possible. Is the current terror threat beyond police action as Mr. O'Reilly asserts? That poses an interesting question which really needs resolution because it's not simply a matter of saying that police action isn't enough. You have to consider what action should take place and what the ramifications of such action are. Assuming it's beyond police action, that implies to me that we should be looking at a military solution. Consider this: terrorist groups have been hiding out and operating out of many countries (including our own). Is Mr. O'Reilly implying that we should invade every country that has any ties to terrorism? If so, this is unreasonable and infeasible. We simply don't have the troops to deploy to such a far reaching campaign. I don't think we can occupy the entire Middle East, North Africa, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, North America, and South America...oh, why don't I just say the entire world? Even if we did, the ramifications of such an action would be catastrophic. In attempting to eliminate terrorism, we would be guilty of creating it. All the countries we occupied would not be grateful for the occupation, but furious with it. The normally peaceful residents would join resistance movements which we would term terrorist insurgents. Iraq is a microcosm of this. Iraq is a perfect example of where military action causes more problems than it solves. As Bruce Willis eloquently puts it in "The Siege": "The Army is a broadsword, not a scalpel." The implication is if you want to find and eliminate terrorist threats, you have to be careful in doing so. Terrorists live among civilians and collateral damage is not an acceptable loss in the war against terror as it is in traditional warfare. You cannot expect the army to take down terrorism, except in small and well coordinated strikes based on solid intelligence. In other words, all out invasions of other countries is not the solution. A combination of diplomatic and intelligence operations with small surgical strikes is the answer. So in my long winded way, I am in total disagreement with Mr. O'Reilly that the threat is beyond police action. Police action is the only way to go in this scenario. Anything more is simply counterproductive.

So to the crux of the counter point. Mr. O'Reilly mentions Jillian Gibbons' sentence of 15 days in jail for allowing her second grade students to name a teddy bear Mohammed. First of all, I am entirely for the separation of church and state. I don't think government should be dictating any action for the "crime" Ms. Gibbons is accused. But, my disagreements with a foreign government are secondary in this case. Did she break Sudanese law? Yes, she did. Given the nature of the crime and the fact that Ms. Gibbons is a foreigner to Sudan, I don't feel the sentence was severe, and in fact diplomatically the British Government has secured her release. So while the New York Post chooses to title their story "Islamo-nuts jail teacher for naming teddy Mohammed", I find that fairly outlandish. Essentially the New York Post is calling the Sudanese government nuts. You and I may disagree with the Sudanese law, but since we are not residents of Sudan and no human rights violations are involved, it really isn't much of our business. The fact is that this has become a big deal simply because it was a British teacher involved. Had the teacher been Sudanese, we would hear nothing of this. So this is an interesting news item to me in the diplomatic work that the British government went through to secure Ms. Gibbons' release, but fairly much a non-issue with regard to the crime involved.

Mr. O'Reilly mentions that there were protests by Sudanese Muslims who were calling for the execution of the British teacher. He then makes the leap that these Muslims calling for the execution of Ms. Gibbons are "Muslim killers" and are supporting Hezbollah, assisting in harboring the Taliban, and supporting Al Qaeda. First of all, there are always going to be radical elements in society. Protests are a completely legitimate means for expressing outrage at a particular event. It happens all the time in the United States. Let's remember the OJ trial where both sides were out protesting. People protest in favor of execution here in the United States all the time. People protest against execution, too. This is all considered good democracy. Let people voice their opinions. So why is there such outrage when a group of people protest calling for the execution of someone? Is it because she's British and not Muslim? I think the answer is a resounding "yes." This trial and protest symbolizes the battle between Christianity and Islam. Between the Middle East and the west. Mr. O'Reilly plans to use this as ammunition for why we should all be against these "Muslim killers" who are attempting to kill a saintly British Christian. I find that abhorrent. I find it abhorrent that Mr. O'Reilly says we need to go after "Muslim killers." I find it abhorrent that Mr. O'Reilly is not going after terrorists or killers in general, he is targeting Muslims. Why? Because there is a radical Muslim population that would kill because someone decided to name a teddy bear Mohammed. And he doesn't target them because of their actions, he targets them because of their thoughts. If a Muslim extremist killed Ms. Gibbons, I would be outraged. I would call for justice to be carried out because Ms. Gibbons is a British citizen and was ignorant of the crime she was committing. I would be outraged because the punishment does not fit the crime and the World court needed to come to bear on the issue. I would be outraged because a murder had taken place. Am I outraged that a group of Muslims are calling for the head of a teacher who offended their religious beliefs? I'm not. Do I disagree with their opinion? I do. But I most certainly will not be calling up my congressman and telling him we need to go to war with Sudan or take out those Muslims who think Ms. Gibbons should be executed. That is ludicrous.

And that's "The CounterPoints Memo"