The One Word Grand Strategy for Westerners and Muslims: “Disconnect”

Last
week, British authorities released the names of 19

British-born individuals
arrested for plotting to
blow up airliners by

smuggling bombs onboard
in

sports drink bottles
:

Abdula Ahmed Ali, Cossor Ali, Shazad Khuram Ali, Nabeel
Hussain, Tanvir Hussain, Umair Hussain, Umar Islam,
Waseem Kayani, Assan Abdullah Khan, Waheed Arafat Khan,
Osman Adam Khatib, Abdul Muneem Patel, Tayib Rauf,
Muhammed Usman Saddique, Assad Sarwar, Ibrahim Savant,
Amin Asmin Tariq, Shamin Mohammed Uddin, and Waheed
Zaman.

Notice a pattern?

Yet,
almost five years after

19 Saudi Arabian and Egyptian individuals
with
similar-sounding names hijacked four airliners and
killed 3,000 people on 9/11, the United States
government remains committed to not using

ethnic profiling
to raise the odds of

airport security.

During his

second debate
with Al Gore in 2000, George W. Bush,
hoping to win the Arab vote in Michigan, promised to
eliminate airport profiling:

"Secondly, there is other forms [sic] of racial
profiling that goes on in America.

Arab-Americans
are racially profiled in what is
called secret evidence [sic]. People are stopped, and we
have to do something about that. My friend, Senator

Spencer Abraham
of Michigan, is pushing a law to
make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with

respect
. So racial profiling isn`t just an issue at

local police forces.
It`s an issue throughout our
society."

Although Bush lost Michigan

anyway
, he began implementing this policy at
airports in early 2001, a move which

may have contributed to 9/11
, although nobody seems
interested in this question other than me.

In
January 2002, an 86-year-old

former governor of South Dakota
and retired
brigadier general named

Joe Foss
, on his way to give a speech to cadets at
West Point, was subjected to the third degree by Phoenix
airport security for

45 minutes
because the metal detector was set off by
his dangerously pointy

Congressional Medal of Honor
. When I first heard
this, I assumed that Bush`s anti-profiling rules would
be laughed out of existence.

I was
wrong.

Bush
has stuck with this plan in the post-9/11 world as
adamantly as he has stood by his similarly
discredited-by-events obsession with increasing
immigration. Indeed, criticism of it has largely died
out.

Meanwhile last week, inconclusive fighting between
Israel and the Hezbollah Shi`ites of South Lebanon
inspired a frenzy of apocalyptic war fever among
prominent commentators in America, with many lashing out
in frustration at Israel`s inability to kill
satisfactory numbers of Hezbollah guerillas who have

burrowed
deep into their home turf.


Excitable gentlemen
claimed once again that we are
on the brink of

World War III
with The New Hitler. (The precise
identity of this imminent world-conqueror has varied
over the last half decade, depending on the date and the
obsession of the pundit, with the Muslim Fuhrer role
being filled by bin Laden, Hussein, Zarqawi,
Ahmadinejad, and Nasrallah.) The logic of more than a
few of these diatribes appear to imply a pressing need
for the

nuclear genocide
of much of the Muslim world.

In
other words, the Administration and its media shills
remain committed to their Grand Strategy of Invade the
World – Invite the World. Bomb them over there and
indulge them over here.

Obviously, when you stop and think about it, that makes
no sense whatsoever.

So,
it`s time for a new Grand Strategy to unify domestic and
foreign policies for how Westerners should deal with
Muslims. Because strategizing routinely fails due to too
much

Rube Goldbergish
complexity, I`ll boil it down to
one word:

Disconnect.

Perhaps the most quoted

social philosopher
of our time famously asked:


"Can
we all get along?"

Well,
when it comes to Muslims and Westerners, the answer is:


No,
we can`t.

So,
deal with it. When we get in each other`s faces, we get
on each other`s nerves. It`s time to get out of each
other`s faces.

Westerners and Muslims don`t agree on the basics of
social order and don`t want to live under the same
rules. That shouldn`t be a problem because

that`s what separate countries are fo
r
. We
should stop occupying their countries

and stop letting them move to ours.

To
paraphrase

E.M. Forster:


"Only
disconnect."

If we
start disconnecting now, maybe in a generation or two
we`ll have forgotten what we`ve done to each other and
can start afresh.

Domestic policy:

In
the long run, as

Robert Pape`s study
of 460 suicide bombings shows,
there`s a strong correlation between outside occupation
and suicide terrorism, so cutting down our footprint in
the Muslim world will slowly reduce terrorism against
us.

But
that may take a generation to work itself out. In the
meantime, we need to take rational steps to defend
ourselves.

  • Implement ethnic profiling of Muslims. Treat
    them with suspicion. If they don`t like it, they can
    leave.

  • Enforce the laws against cousin marriage.

    Arranged marriages
    between young Muslim women in the
    West and their first or second cousins back in the Old
    Country are the main engines in Europe of
    de-assimilation and of immigration fraud.

I
recently received this email:


My
name is XXX. i`m YYYteen years old and am a muslim girl
living in scotland and was wondering if you know of
anything that will help me escape marrying an older
first cousin from the middle east. I know i sound stupid
but i got really freaked when my mum spoke to a relative
telling them that she`d still give my hand to my cousin
who is years older and tells the relative to wait
because i haven`t finished school and my other
education. Also it is my mum`s brother`s son i`m
supposed to marry and my uncle is really ill and my mum
dotes on him. what if my uncle died and that was his
dying wish, to have me married to my cousin? how
disastrous is that going to be, i mean i don`t even like
the thought of inbreeding i think it`s
sick!
Please do you know any loopholes in a XXX
wedding that will stop me getting married to ZZZ? Please
can you help i haven`t even finished school or got a job
so this has really blown me away!

This
situation is

utterly common
. Among married people in Britain of
Pakistani background,

55% are married to a first cousin
. Not

surprisingly
, Pakistani children in Britain have
very high rates of

birth defects
.

In
particular, as I outlined last fall, Europeans need to
begin a

push-pull system
to persuade Muslim legal residents
to leave.

  • Combine that with "buyout offers" paying $25,000
    (or more, if necessary) to pull the less successful
    Muslims out.

Foreign Policy:

First, calm down, take a deep breath, and get some
perspective.

Contrary to what is being printed in the neoconservative
fever swamps, we are in no danger whatsoever of being
conquered by Islam`s military might, such as it is. We
don`t need to nuke large swatches of the Muslim world.

The
United States is vastly more powerful militarily than
all the Muslim-run nations put together. We account for
either

48 percent
or

49 percent
of all military spending in the world.
That`s almost eight times more than that of all 44 or so
Muslim-dominated countries combined. (Of course,
in the real world, Muslim nations can seldom get
themselves combined over anything.)

We
have complete air supremacy.

We
have

twelve aircraft carriers
, featuring more than 80
percent of the

naval aircraft
in the world. All the Muslim
countries in the world have zero.

One
obvious reason for the

military weakness
of Muslims is that, despite much
oil, they aren`t very economically productive so they
are mostly poor. According to the

CIA World Factbook
, Muslim countries account for
just 8.4 of the global GDP, compared to America`s 20.3
percent.

Interestingly, the notorious

Iranians
devote only

3.3 percent
of their GDP to

military spending
, while we allot

4.06 percent.

The

boring fact
, one that won`t get mentioned much on
Fox News because it doesn`t help ratings, is that the
world became

more peaceful
and less threatening when the main
engine of lethal mischief, the Soviet Union, broke
apart.

The
bottom line is that America, as the lone hyperpower, can
severely punish any Muslim state that hurts us, as we
showed in Afghanistan in 2001. If necessary, we can
conquer and occupy any one of them. That leaves the
Muslims with the poor man`s ways of war: guerilla
resistance and terrorism.

What
we can`t do is occupy them and make them:

  • resemble us politically, socially, or
    culturally;

  • love us for ruling them; or even

  • merely submit to us, if they really don`t want
    to and we`re not willing to

    slaughter them en masse
    , as civilized nations
    seldom are these days.

The
Israelis found all this out when they invaded Lebanon in
1982. The Shi`ites of Southern Lebanon initially cheered
Ariel Sharon`s tanks because the Israelis were coming to
drive out the Palestinian immigrants whom the Shi`ites
hated. But being occupied gets old quick, and soon
Hezbollah was organizing attacks. Israel held a strip in
southern Lebanon until withdrawing in 2000.

Occupying a Muslim country is like trying to teach a
duck to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the
duck.

This
hard-earned realism isn`t the end of the world. The oil
exporting countries will still need to export oil to the
world market—it`s not like they have other ways to pay
their bills.

So,
let`s get out of Iraq.

And
invest some of the

$87 billion
wasted annually on occupation on, among
other things, defensive technologies like

anti-missile systems
.

Being
a sensible, realistic idea, the Disconnect Strategy may
lack the irrational emotional appeal of Invade the
World—Invite the World. But isn`t it time for common
sense?


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]