A Thought Experiment

Last Thursday, Michael Goldfarb wrote that the United States should not alter its policy if said policy increases the appeal of al Qaeda to the Muslim masses. Matthew Yglesias is shocked someone could be so reckless; Justin Logan responds with a total non sequitur about Penthouse Letters; Scout Finch at the Daily Kos nominates Goldfarb for the highly coveted “Dumbest Conservative Pundit” award. Their argument appears to be that the Iraq War is a bad thing because it aids al Qaeda in their recruitment efforts.

Today, Edward N. Luttwak pens an Op-Ed in which he warns that, regardless of whether or not Barack Obama was ever a practicing Muslim, under Islamic law he is considered an apostate. The key idea:

More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obama’s conversion to Christianity once it became widely known — as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.

The thought experiment: If it is wrong for the United States to prosecute the war in Iraq because it aids our enemies, is it not equally wrong for the American people to vote for a man that would “horrify” the Muslim world and give radical clerics (and their friends in al Qaeda) another tool with which to preach violence against the West?

Now, as it happens, I tend to agree with Andrew that we cannot allow our enemies to tell us what to do or terrorize us into doing something. But that concept extends beyond than the presidential election. It extends to Danish cartoonists. It extends to Dutch filmmakers. It extends to American foreign policy. We simply cannot allow our enemies to dictate terms to us; if we give precedence to what our enemies want, we have lost the struggle already.