"The Right Stuff"

October 5, 2001

Facing the Onslaught of Jihad
by Ilana Mercer

There is a pithy aphorism from a Tractate of the Jewish Law regarding the right of self-defense. The Talmud, as the law is called, is a veritable minefield of complexities and interpretations. The rabbis would have prefaced their edict with extended discussion. They would have argued about the threshold that must be met before a pre-emptive strike can be carried out, what constitutes imminent danger, and whether defensive actions apply only to individuals or to collective action as well. These scholars belonged to a people that spent a good part of their history perfecting the Christian art of turning the other cheek. Yet ironically, and doubtless after careful consideration, the rabbis recommended that, "He who rises to kill thee, ye rise earlier to kill him."

In facing the onslaught of jihad, we have missed the opportunity to deal a pre-emptive strike. We now have the benefit of hindsight. We have been forewarned about an organized, deadly cabal, united by the creed of jihad, the Muslim holy war. "Islamism," writes director of the Middle East Forum, Daniel Pipes, "is not so much a distortion of Islam, but a radically new interpretation. It politicizes the religion, turning it into a blueprint for establishing a coerced utopia. In many ways, its program resembles those of fascism and Marxism/Leninism." This faction boasts an extremely cohesive infrastructure, including a well organized, U.S.-based, militant Islamic lobby.

This brand of Islam sees the West—not only Israel—as an archenemy. Its adherents seek an Islamic Revival through which the infidel must be defeated in holy war. We have had a taste of their dedication. They intend, very plainly, to kill westerners. "Allah has answered our prayers; the sword of vengeance has reached America, and will strike again and again," came the message from the Hamas. The writing on the wall is clear and pervasive. The jubilation at the fate of the Twin Towers swept not only the Palestinians, but also the urbane, cultivated Muslims of Lebanon. The message is embedded in some Islamist religious rulings that cast suicide bombing as a devotional act. And it is buried none too deep in a standard text for Palestinian seventh graders: "Islam will defeat all other religions and it will be disseminated, by Allah's will, through the Muslim jihad [holy war]."

Each and every recruit to jihad has one overriding aim, and that is to kill the infidel (read: you and me) simply because we do not share his beliefs. Whether our indoctrinated killer discharges his bloody duty now, or years down the line, he remains a terminator in waiting.

PACIFISM

The response of the pacifist is to reject a strike at this enemy. The pacifist relinquishes justice in favor of some diffuse karmic confidence: a fuzzy belief that somewhere along the line evil will be punished. He is committed to a rudderless world bereft of individual responsibility.

"Violence breeds only violence" is a pacifistic plumb line one hears a lot from libertarians like Harry Browne. This particular New Age guff equates reasonable punishment with violence. While it can include violent methods, reasonable punishment is not the same as violence. When we follow an unprovoked act of aggression with a proportional act of retribution, and when we punish only the guilty—no collateral damage—then we are doing justice, not violence. We do justice not only for the purpose of vindicating the dead, but because justice, like liberty, is the fulcrum of a peaceful and orderly society. To ignore the imperative of justice is to be in revolt against the natural law, which precedes and transcends man-made law.

By extension, Mr. Browne's logic leads to the expectation that a lack of response to terror would extinguish the "naughty" behavior, much like Pavlov's dog unlearned his tricks when the morsels of meat were no longer forthcoming. While simple schedules of behavioral reinforcement work fine with the laboratory animal, human terrorists have a more complicated motivation than the proverbial beast. Islamic fundamentalists might one day respond to pacifism. But not before a few small demands are met, starting with a global Islamist Renaissance.

THE RIGHT TO LIFE

The libertarian political philosophy is important when discussing what constitutes a just war, because it pivots on the iridescent principle that prohibits aggression against non-aggressors. Discussion can, however, become singularly theoretical, which is when the implications may be questionable. Despite the abstruse treatment author and commentator Wendy McElroy offers in her essay Libertarian Just War Theory it is possible to reasonably draw from it some pragmatic inferences.

Only a small portion of the people in the U.S. was aggressed against, goes this argument, yet, on their behalf the State commits an entire nation to hostilities against the terrorist entity. This is indeed true: only a fraction of the population perished in the September 11 calamity. But must we infer from Ms. McElroy's point that the more people killed by an aggressor, the more a defensive war gathers moral suasion? Would it take a jihad-dropped nuclear bomb that annihilated a majority of Americans to make retaliation less subject to the calculus of minorities or majorities?

I suggest, rather, that we look at the context and meaning of this particular mass murder. The crime has grave implications for all Westerners. Jihadists deem each and every Western infidel as kosher for annihilation. By virtue of the fact that each one of us is a potential target, a conduit to martyrdom for these fanatics, we are all at war with the practitioners of jihad, even though, so far, only "a small percentage" has been aggressed against. In the eyes of the jihadist, we have no right to life. And so, unless he comes to recognize our rights, we must, as the rabbis of the Talmud inveighed, endeavor to eliminate him before he eliminates us.

Ms. McElroy adds that "the proper authority to exercise a right of self defense against an aggressor is the individual whose rights have been violated, or a designated agent." However charitably one interprets this, one cannot avoid wondering how over 6000 people, whose right to life was sundered, go about nominating a proxy to act on their behalf in a manner that will satisfy the contractual legalities. Most people think of the criminal justice system as their proxy. And most of the dead would probably agree that it is much worse than useless to summon Bin Laden and a few suspects to The Hague with a subpoena.

It is possible indeed to leave it up to the victim to forfeit—or choose his own form of—redress for certain misdemeanors. If the victim thinks smoking a peace pipe or huddling in a sweat lodge with a perpetrator is more conducive to his welfare than being compensated—it's his choice. But to leave punishment for murder up to the vicissitudes of the victim or his proxies is a different matter. When it comes to taking a life, we, as a society, must punish. And the justification for punishing jihadists? By virtue of already executing mass murder, and committing to ongoing slaughter, every jihadist has forfeited his right to life. They have shown no mercy and they have indicated they have none to show—hence justice ought to be merciless.

Assume that the remaining victims and their proxies request that no punishment—privately executed or other—be carried out. Must the murderers go free? If so, the implication is that the right to life is a right that the victim's proxies can choose to alienate or relinquish at will. Assume a group other than the victims—most of whom are buried in the rubble—or their proxies, or the government, takes out Bin Laden. Would this be unjust?

Say The Magic Montana Militia carries out the task of retaliation (something I support wholeheartedly). Does this change the fact that, according to the protocol specified by Ms. McElroy's rules of a Just War, the victims will not have sanctioned this act?

To support the actions of private mercenaries, or any other anonymous benefactors of mankind in fighting jihadists is to concede that justice is abiding; that taking a life must be punished irrespective of the victim's consent or that of his "designated agent." It is to say the right to life is inalienable until one kills, maims and rapes. It is then that one loses the right to life.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the State monopolizes defense, we can hardly hope for an efficient and just solution that eliminates terrorists without hurting innocent people. In line with this unavoidable reality, we must push for less large-scale military excursions. The American people need to tell their government they do not want the military to continue its clodhopper's traipse around the world, blowing up American servicemen and innocent civilians alike. The government can be encouraged, for example, to lift a 25-year-old ban on U.S. involvement in foreign assassinations. Operations that surgically eliminate terror cells are also acceptable.

Like in any nationalized system, the incentives in a socialized military are perverted and efficiency and motivation lacking. The U.S. government must be pressured to sub-contract to professional killers: The government ought to deploy professional mercenaries. Competent, trained soldiers like the apartheid era killers who did war so ruthlessly in Angola come to mind. Soldiers like these get high on blood and can be put to good use as the Pac-Men of the universe. Mercenaries paid by contract are far more motivated than a poorly paid military that has no reason to do the job.

There is little incentive for GI Joe to avoid killing civilians. Punishment for carelessness is infrequent. In fact, his actions are psychologically collectivized—a kind of esprit de corps, if you will—and thus often exonerated. On the other hand, the mercenary contractor will incur liability for "collateral damage," the euphemism for killing innocents. For the mercenary, stray bullets mean strained budgets. Like any private contractor, our mercenaries will be paid in full only on delivering the Bin properly Laden with goods.

And there is more. But rely we must on the West being able to clearly understand that preaching and teaching jihad under the guise of freedom of speech and religion cannot pass muster now that we know that the aim of the jihadist is to destroy western civilization. "Islamic institutions that funnel Muslim youth into jihad (sacred war) activities," must be tackled, writes Daniel Pipes. Does the U.S. have an obligation to allow jihad ideological boot camps just because they pose as religious institutions? Let them set up shop off U.S. soil.

At the very least, we can expect from the State to implement an immigration policy that does not undermine western values with enforced multiculturalism, to say nothing of allowing entry to a steady flow of potential killers who in time will prey on peaceful people.

My next recommendation will be controversial. Academics, for the most part, live off the public purse. Many in academia have with impunity inculcated generations of young people with a devotion to socialism and communism. It's bad enough that these academics are directly responsible for siring stool pigeons for the State. Can we tolerate public servants that preach the causes of jihad? Taxpayers must refuse to support any attempt to romanticize this creed. Want to preach jihad? Do it on your own nickel. Publicly funded academia must cease to be a place where the militant, parasitic effete, nourished by our tax dollars, is free to agitate against and demonize the west. Right now my tax dollars support academics who preach theft of my property. Must we support those who preach violence against our person? Publicly paid pedagogues should not get away with curriculum that romanticizes or exculpates jihad. The causal chain between the word of jihad and the deeds has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. ***

© 2001 Ilana Mercer

Ilana Mercer is a freelance writer. Visit her website at http://www.ilanamercer.com