The "Muslims First" Foreign Policy

Daniel Greenfield

In France, American embassies and consulates have been directed to "empower" Muslim and push for the passage of "social reforms" that will benefit them. In the UK, American diplomats were directed to again "empower" Muslims and made outreach to them a top priority. In Israel, the US consulate in Jerusalem caters only to Muslims and does its best to pretend that Jews and Israel don't even exist. And when Obama visited Greece, what else did he do but push the political and religious authorities to open more mosques and Islamic schools. America's own interests and our obligations to our allies have been put aside to focus on a single goal of overriding importance. Pandering to the Muslim world. It's as if we have no other foreign policy goal anymore beyond keeping Muslims happy. The United States has its first Special Representative to Muslim Communities in the person of Farah Pandith. We also have Rashad Hussain, a Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference. (No relation to Barack Hussein Obama. The name Hussain is common among Muslims as a tribute to Mohammed's grandson, Hussain ibn Ali, the 'Martyr Of Martyrs' in Islam.) Hussain (Rashad, not Barack) had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which helped create both Al Qaeda and Hamas, and defended Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian. Farah Pandith is a Kashmiri Muslim who began her career as Barbara Bush's secretary. But just creating two new Muslim posts in the diplomatic sector isn't enough.

NASA Administrator Bolden told Al Jazeera that the agency's new priority is outreach to Muslims. After gutting NASA and killing its space program, the agency focused on its new top priority by appointing Waleed Abdalati, as its new Chief Scientist. Waleed Abdalati is a twofer, as a Muslim and a Global Warming researcher. So the Obama Administration gets to kill off the space program and replace it with Global Warming junk science headed by a Muslim. It's what the devil would call synergy.

Is any of this working? Does the Muslim world love us now? No they don't. And France, the UK, Israel and Greece like us less for tampering with their internal affairs at Muslim instigation. All the outreach in the world can't help, because it's not outreach, it's pandering. Not only is it condescending, but it sends a message of weakness and desperation. When we pressure our allies on behalf of Muslims, we're sending them a signal that our first priority is fulfilling the marching orders we received from the Muslim world. And this not only fragments our traditional alliances, but it encourages Muslim regimes to support further acts of terrorism to improve their position.
.
Since 9/11 we have sunk billions of dollars into the Muslim world. Usually we had to defeat a country in a war before we began rebuilding them, but now we rush to throw money at hellholes like Pakistan and Indonesia where human rights is a punchline and the mass murder of non-Muslims is an ongoing event.

Taking a look at the fortunes we have plowed into Taliban's godfathers in Pakistan, the round the clock duty that American soldiers perform securing and rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, the death grip that Bin Laden's own adoptive Saudi royal family has on our foreign policy, our bankrolling of the Palestinian Authority, not to mention the money that we paid and are still paying to Baathist and Taliban terrorists in exchange for not attacking us-- and even the least terrorist prone country in the Muslim world can't help but think that it could do better for itself by bombing us, than by trying to be our friend.

This frantic flurry of outreach reveals that we consider Islam to be the primary threat to global stability and a major national security threat. The positive image reveals the negative. We're so obsessed with pandering to Muslims because we're afraid of them. The Muslim world knows it, and gloats, when it isn't busy acting offended. The American public knows it too, even behind the camouflage tarp of learning about other cultures, that we're trying to defuse the violence. But trying to defuse violence through appeasement is not a good strategy unless you're willing to go all the way to Dhimmitown.

By enslaving our foreign policy to Islamic interests, we're already much of the way there. Chief Justice Stephen Breyer has adopted a new Constitutional understanding of free speech, in which you're free to say what you want as long as it doesn't run the risk of getting Muslims violently angry. In Europe you can be arrested for yodeling even in the shadow of the Alps-- if it offends a Muslim. A 21st century revival of The Sound of Music might now feature the Von Trapp family escaping into the mountains only to end up under arrest because some immigrant from Algeria, Morocco or Turkey was offended because the sound of "The Lonely Goatherd" resembled his own prayers to Allah a little too much.

What does this have to do with foreign policy? Everything. If we treat the Muslims of the world as a collective group always balanced on the edge of exploding, then there is no more difference between foreign and domestic policy when it comes to Muslims. Accordingly every Western country with a Muslim minority must pursue only Muslim approved policies at home and abroad. If Thailand, Israel or India begin fighting Muslim terrorism-- they must join in on the Muslim side. If France passes a Burqa ban, then the United States must begin lobbying to overturn it. If Danish cartoons in a local newspaper offend Muslims, then the Prime Minister of Denmark must be compelled to apologize for his country's free speech before being allowed to become NATO's Secretary General.

The combination of Muslim terrorism and immigration eradicates all differences between foreign and domestic policies. There is only one policy. A Muslim policy. And the bottom line of the Muslim policy is that Muslims get what they want. At any cost. Any price. Freedom, morality, loyalty, national values and human rights are dispensable now. Appeasing Muslims is not.

Appeasing Muslims had tied the free world in an infernal knot. Each country pressures its own citizens and other countries to do whatever Muslims want. This would be unjustifiable even if it worked, but the damnedest thing of all, is that it doesn't actually discourage Muslim violence. It actually encourages it. And why not? If countries pandered to murderers, rapists and robbers instead of putting them in prison-- would there be less murders, rapes and robberies. Or would there be more?

The only way we can justify our craven appeasement is through the belief in the discredited Blowback Theory of Muslim violence. The Blowback Theory holds that Muslim violence is only retaliatory. That every time Muslims kill people, it's only because they're retaliating for a wrong done to them. Whether that wrong be a Predator drone taking out a terrorist (who was only retaliating for being yodeled at), drawing a cartoon of an illiterate 7th century pedophile worshiped by a billion people with deficient morals, or some battle fought 600 years ago. Whatever it may be-- the Blowback Theory holds that Muslims are always in the right to kill us. And we're always in the wrong to defend ourselves against being killed.


The corollary to the Blowback Theory is the Infinite Muslim Terrorists Theory. The Infinite Muslim Terrorists Theory holds that every Muslim grievance creates new terrorists. Like an angel getting its wings every time a bell rings, the Infinite Muslim Terrorists Theory warns us that every time we offend Muslims, it bring forth new terrorists. And shooting them does no good. Because shooting terrorists only offends Muslims even more. And that generates still more terrorists. Kill a terrorist and four more take his place. And if the process keeps going, there will eventually be more Muslim terrorists in the world than there are Muslims, causing the entire world to implode into the event horizon of a singularity.

The paradox of the Infinite Muslim Terrorists Theory is that it insists that the vast majority of Muslims is peaceful, and yet threatens that every single one of those peaceful people can be converted into homicidal maniacs if we're not careful. And when combined with Blowback Theory, it puts the blame for the instant terrorist conversion on us. Like Gremlins that we're afraid of feeding after midnight, we take care to step lightly around Muslims, for fear that they will suddenly turn into monsters bent on killing us. Such thinking might be considered bigoted, but with Blowback Theory we know that if they do turn into homicidal monsters, it will be entirely 100 percent our fault.

Project this mode of conduct on a global scale, and this is what our foreign policy looks like. All our envoys to Islam. Our Muslims First foreign policy. Our retrofitting of policymaking at every level to accommodate the whims of the prophet's beard. And for all the cringing and crawling, appeasing and advocating, the violence continues to grow. Because you can end violence by taking a firm stand, not by falling to your knees.