I agree with Wretchard's take on the Democratization of Violence, which he explained in the Three Conjectures Scenario:

http://www.belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_belmontclub_archive.html#106401071003484059

It is not Western Civilization facing destruction, but rather Islamic civilization. We are in a race with the clock to salvage the Islamic Civilization before it destroys itself.

Bill:

Let's suppose that we accept Zakaria's theory for the sake of argument, ignoring the inherent difficulties in acquiring materials, expertise, and a delivery means for a dirty bomb. I can accept that maybe it's easier than I think, because that is certainly not my area of expertise. If that is the case, I just have a few questions:

1) You said yourself that the probability of achieving the goal of preventing a major terrorist attack using the methods we are now using is rather low. If so, why not consider other methods? It seems to me that persuading the societies at large in Islamic countries of the need to turn their focus inward is rather unlikely if the perception is of a constant external threat.

2) If, as you said in one of your responses to me yesterday, Islamic culture is so radically different from Western culture as to operate on an incompatible logical plane (I'm paraphrasing here), then why was sympathy and revulsion so widespread after 9/11, Bali, Madrid, etc? I think what you may not be considering is that human beings are similar enough in terms of basic psychological structure that even cultures which seem to have developed along highly tangential paths are not as alien as they may appear at first glance. Individual behavior which may seem to be irrational or illogical may become less difficult to understand by considering the behavior as more a function of the environment in which the individual exists *in addition to* the more superficial aspects of the individual's cultural background. It's also important not to forget the subjectivity of any observations made by a human being about another human culture. In other words, it's not as straightforward as saying that Islamic culture is "illogical", nor that American culture is "decadent"; it's all relative, and it all depends on the situations in which an individual from a given culture is placed. My argument is simply that what amounts to de facto collective punishment is not an effective means of dealing with the extreme elements of Islamic society. I believe that given a chance to do so in the absence or minimization of outside interference, the problem would be handled internally by the vast majority of Muslims who at a basic level are really not very different from Americans in terms of their desires for security, health, employment, and opportunities for their children. If we contribute to poverty, insecurity, and hopelessness, we are only making a bad situation worse and in effect *increasing* the threat of backlash while furthering the aims of the extremists. Of course we have to defend ourselves, and I think a strong military and even nuclear deterrent, as much as I dislike the idea in principle, is probably a necessity for now, but it should be used for strictly defensive purposes. Even assuming the purest motivations of government officials, I think our constant interventionism is just asking for trouble regardless of which culture is on the receiving end (I don't think anyone would claim that the Chinese objection to being spied on by American surveillance aircraft is based on religious extremism).

3) This is the simplest and yet the most difficult question to answer: if it's that easy, why hasn't it happened before now? Even 9/11, as horrifying as it was, was not anywhere near as bad as it could have been (the planes flew right by a nuclear power plant and there were no chemical or biological agents involved). Is it possible that as angry and disaffected as the Islamists are, they are still human beings with consciences who would rather not murder millions if their message can be sent without doing so? Look, I'm not saying that it's no big deal to kill a few thousand people whereas a million would be, but I imagine you can grasp the difference in scale. Even setting aside issues of consciences, let's just be pragmatic for a minute... the extremists, I'm sure, understand that attacking the U.S. on a massive scale would be catastrophic for Muslims as well. What would be gained? They wouldn't be able to convert everyone to Islam if their cities were nothing but craters, now would they? And that's exactly what would happen. I see no reason to believe that, as much as the fundamentalists talk about the glories of martyrdom, they have any real wish to see their entire countries burned to the ground in a nuclear firestorm.

Mike, you are so altrusitically naive it makes me raff - raff, raff, raff, raff!

1. Preventing a terror attack is low but maybe possible in a world that consists of all (or 95%) pluralistic democracies. In any other world it may be next to impossible.

2. You confuse human nature with culture. human nature is the same, Americans are just as violent as other humans, but our society and culture has moved away fro,violence to a large degree. If I were to trust in the power of one fundamental aspect of human nature, it would be violence. All the hugs in the world may accomplish much, but one angry man can destroy much more.

3. The percentage of people that wish to actually murder thosuands and millions is tiny, but the technology still has barriers - these barriers are evaporating at an exponential pace.

Mike - you are a complete and utter fool to trust in the goodness of human nature to attempt survival. Contrary to what you believe, US involvement in the world has not been so ubiquitous as to have a hand in all of the acts of genocide, war and destruction that have taken place in the 20th century. Left to its own devices, the middle east would continue to fester. Where we have had engagement, there are notable negative exceptions, but by and large, MILLIONS OF PEOPLE HAVE ATTAINED FREEDOM.

these are FACTS. Your attitudes are very applicable in pre-schools, couples counseling and group encounter sessions; they have no place in foreign policy.

FH - you are correct, but for Islamic civilization to be destroyed, Western Civ will have to endure one hell of a bloody nose - it could be crippling.

OK Bill, you win. I'm a naive fool and you know all there is to know about the world. My mere existence is made irrelevant by the awesome power of your staggering intellect. Nothing I say can even compare to the sheer overwhelming insightfulness and wisdom present in every studious commentary you bestow upon the mere mortals who are graced with the opportunity to receive enlightenment at your blog.

I therefore proclaim myself unworthy to continue to drink from the overflowing cup of perspicacity and incision that is your flawless mind. I will now step aside and allow you to go on dispensing knowledge to your eager disciples without further interference.

Thank you. You've done the world a great service.

Bill, that was Wretchard's point, I believe. Unless a new paradigm is established in the Middle East, and soon, the West is going to suffer a catastrophe, and likely more than one. And in return it will be returned 100 fold against Arab/Islamic civilization.

However, it would have to be a pretty amazing strike to knock us out. Such a strike is likely beyond their capability, now or in the future.

NY, DC and LA going up in mushroom clouds might not destroy us, but it would certainly spell the end of the West's dominant economic and cultural capabilities.

This is indeed a race between Western civilization and the radical elements of the Islamic civilization; as a European, I wholeheartedly support the U.S. and her allies in this quest (although I'm sadly in the minority over here).

I realize (well, I hope) that Mike is gone, but I just can't help commenting on one particular piece of wisdom of his:

Is it possible that as angry and disaffected as the Islamists are, they are still human beings with consciences who would rather not murder millions if their message can be sent without doing so?

Yes, of course; because nothing says "we care" like murdering only 3000 people when you had a shot at killing hundreds of thousands. </sarcasm>

It is sad that somebody of Mike's obvious eloquence can have such a well and truly screwed up moral compass, not to mention utter lack of survival instinct as noted on another thread. Where did these people go wrong? What makes somebody become an apologist for ruthless murderers? And what will it take for them to see what we're up against and recognize it for what it is?

It does make me wonder what will happen to that ilk if the Islamofascists push the U.S. to the brink and nukes get used (one direction and/or the other). I hate to throw around terms like "fifth column" and "traitors", but I'm afraid such an outcome may well lead to another American civil war. I hope I'm just being pessimistic about that.

PW -

Q: "Where did these people go wrong?"

A: complex rationalization bred by living in a bubble of Western civility and comfort - it's a simple failure of imagination.

Most people I know think that if Bush wins in 2004, the US will have problems with left wing terrorism.