Dinesh D'Souza Gets September 11th Wrong
By Aaron Goldstein (02/07/07)
Although 2007 is still in its nascency the most controversial book of the year has to be Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left & Its Responsibility for 9/11.
Understandably, such a book would draw the ire of the Left. However, it has drawn as much ire from conservative thinkers such as Robert Spencer ( www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID-26553 ) and Andrew Stuttaford ( www.nysun.com/article/47948 ).
As someone who eschewed the political left in favor of conservatism after 9/11, the book was a source of intense curiosity. Now having read the book, I am compelled to join Spencer and Stuttaford in their criticisms of this dubious effort. Aside from his embarrassing performance on The Colbert Report (where he stated that FDR was “indirectly responsible” for 9/11) for anyone to describe Hamas and Hezbollah as “champions of democracy” one must know that something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
So why pay attention to D’Souza at all? Whatever one might think of this particular work, D’Souza has been an immensely influential thinker in conservative circles over the past quarter century – most notably his book Illiberal Education. When he writes, conservatives should sit up and take notice. The same applies to non-conservatives as well. But make no mistake. His sterling credentials do not make him immune from criticism.
So what is the fuss all about? D’Souza argues that “without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened.” He defines the “cultural left” as being the left-wing of the Democratic Party and “a few Republicans, notably those who adopt a left-wing stance on foreign policy and social issues.” According to D’Souza, the cultural left contributed to the attacks of September 11th by a) promoting decadent American culture that angers Muslims; b) undertaking of a campaign to promote secular values amongst Muslim and non-Western cultures and c) confirming their prejudices about the goals of U.S. foreign policy. All of these factors so inflamed Muslim radicals that they learned how to fly airplanes so that they could navigate them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. If not for the heroic efforts of those on United Flight 93 they might have succeeded in launching an attack on the White House or Capitol Hill.
Heavens to Betsy!!! We have inflamed the Muslim radicals (yet again)!!! What can American conservatives do to save ourselves and the Republic for which we stand? Don’t fret. D’Souza has come to save the day. He advocates that American conservatives form an alliance with “traditional Muslims” to fight Islamic radicalism.
So who are these “traditional Muslims” that D’Souza speaks of? Well, he doesn’t really tell us who they are but admits they differ little from Islamic radicals:
What are the theological differences between traditional Islam and radical Islam? On the fundamental religious questions, there are none. What are the political differences? In general, there are few. Remarkable though it seems, traditional Muslims agree on the threats faced by Islam, on where those threats come from, and even on the general solution.
The only disagreement between the two is the willingness of the Islamic radicals to “pursue insurgency”. Well, just because traditional Muslims might not strap explosives to their waists or design I.E.Ds doesn’t mean they don’t support the efforts of their more radical counterparts. Later in the book, D’Souza acknowledges traditional Muslims accept Sayyid Qutb’s commentary as gospel (for lack of a better word) that sharia is the law at the exclusion of all other laws. Amongst many other things, sharia law imposes execution upon those who wish to leave Islam for Christianity or any other religious faith. This doesn’t exactly have the makings of a solid basis for an alliance between American conservatives and so-called traditional Muslims.
Even if American conservatives were to heed D’Souza’s pleas and form an alliance with traditional Muslims what will they do to help us? What is it that they will do to stop Islamic radicals? Preferring to keep us mired in an unappetizing stew of cultural relativism D’Souza chooses not to enlighten us.
So what is the disposition of traditional Muslims towards Mohammed Bouyeri? I ask this question because D’Souza makes several references to Bouyeri in the book. Who is Bouyeri? He is the man who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in broad day light in November 2004. D’Souza describes Van Gogh as “foulmouthed” (he did refer to Muslims as “goatf**kers”) and as someone “famous for his sexual promiscuity and cocaine use.” What D’Souza does not mention is that he was murdered for co-producing a short film called Submission with former Dutch parliamentarian Ayaan Hirsi Ali. For that matter, D’Souza makes no mention of Hirsi Ali either. The ten minute film documented the physical abuse of four Muslim women according to edicts set out in the Koran. In the course of the film, the verses were written on their naked bodies of the four women. After Van Gogh’s death, Hirsi Ali went into hiding and was eventually asked to leave the country and now is the United States as a research fellow with the American Enterprise Institute.
D’Souza makes reference to Bouyeri’s trial when he addressed Van Gogh’s mother:
I don’t feel your pain. I don’t know what it’s like to lose a child that was brought into this world with so much pain. I hope that you will derive some comfort from the maximum sentence.
Yet according to David Rennie of the The Daily Telegraph:
Spectators in the maximum security courthouse in western Amsterdam gasped as
Bouyeri then turned to the victim’s mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs. Van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: “I don’t feel your pain. I have to admit I don’t have any sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because you’re a non-believer.”
He added: “Maybe you could find some consolation if the maximum sentence is given.” (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/13/wbouy.xml)
To be fair, D’Souza was quoting the International Herald Tribune in this instance. Nonetheless the quotes are markedly different. The quote D’Souza provides gives no indication that Bouyeri felt no sympathy for Van Gogh’s mother much less that he felt no sympathy because she (not her deceased son) was a non-believer. In other words, Bouyeri deemed Anneke Van Gogh to be an infidel. Moreover, the quote D’Souza leaves the reader with the impression that he had made his statement after his life sentence was handed down. The quote from The Daily Telegraph indicates he made his statement prior to sentencing.
One could argue that I am nitpicking here. But I would counter that by omitting the fact that Bouyeri proclaims no sympathy for Van Gogh’s mother because she is non-believer D’Souza is effectively minimizing Bouyeri’s crime. His earlier references to Van Gogh’s sexual behavior and drug use leave one with the impression that he is indeed nodding in approval of Bouyeri’s vicious act.
It is worth noting that when D’Souza examines suicide bombings and violent attacks carried out by Muslims he states that they are done out of “Islamic motivations.” In the case of Bouyeri, D’Souza refers to Bouyeri’s statement during his trial that his execution of Van Gogh was in accordance with “the law that instructs me to chop off the head of anyone who insults Allah or the Prophet.”
What kind of religion or culture sanctions a law that results in the beheading of those who they have deemed to have insulted their deity or prophet? It is one thing for traditional Muslims to be offended by Van Gogh’s words and works. It is quite another to take his life for it. If the act of chopping off someone’s head is an “Islamic motivation” I am not sure how D’Souza expects American conservatives to abandon the likes of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and embrace traditional Muslims – especially if traditional Muslims cannot bring themselves to unequivocally condemn such a horrendous and savage act.
As far as horrendous and savage acts go one cannot do much worse than the attacks of September 11th? Or can you? Perhaps the single most disturbing aspect of D’Souza’s book (amongst far too many things) is his characterization that 9/11 attacks were not terrorist attacks at all – at least where it concerns the Pentagon. “Although 9/11 is routinely described as a terrorist attack, can anyone seriously maintain that the Pentagon was not a military target?” asks D’Souza. He claims the 9/11 terrorists were more concerned about destroying the symbol of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center than about killing the people inside them or the people on the hijacked planes. D’Souza ponders, “(W)ould 9/11 have been less an act of war had the World Trade Center been unoccupied at the time of the attacks?” Well, let’s see. The first plane crashed into the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. The second plane crashed into the South Tower 16 minutes later. This would be about the peak of morning rush hour. I suppose D’Souza thinks it is a coincidence the 9/11 terrorists happened to crash the planes at a time when they could bring about the maximum amount of casualties.
What is also troubling is D’Souza’s criticism of the Bush Administration characterizing particular causes as terrorist “who pose no real danger to the United States.” He cites the Palestinians(along with Chechnya and Kashmir) as an example:
These latter cases involve wars of self-determination, disputes over legitimate title to land and rule. In these situations it is preposterous to dismiss the merits of one side’s claims by simply chanting “terrorism.” No one can deny the horror of Palestinian…attacks on civilians, but these have to be measured against the state-sponsored terror on the other side: the bulldozing of Palestinian homes, the shooting of stone-throwing teenagers.
So let me get this straight. It is preposterous to characterize a Palestinian teenager who straps explosives to his waist at the behest of his family, school, mosque and Palestinian Authority state television to kill as many Israelis as possible – including women and children – as a terrorist. Yet it is not preposterous for D’Souza to characterize the legitimate efforts of the Israeli Defense Forces to stop these attacks (including bulldozing homes that harbor known Palestinian terrorists and their weapons) as an act of state sponsored terrorism. If this isn’t a declaration of moral equivalence then nothing is. It is also clear that D’Souza does not understand the nature of the situation that Israel finds itself with the Palestinians. If it was only about land why do Palestinian schools teach their children that Jews are nothing more than apes and pigs?
Then again, D’Souza gets numerous things wrong. The ancient clash between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. The benevolence of Muslims towards Christians and Jews prior to the Ottoman Empire. The merits of Wahabbism. The Danish cartoon controversy. And, of course, the root causes of September 11, 2001.
For D’Souza, the root causes revolve around the exportation of coarse American culture. He supplies a laundry list of offenders including Eve Ensler, Jerry Springer, Howard Stern, Madonna, Britney Spears, Eminem and other gangster rappers. I’m surprised Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan were spared D’Souza’s invective. He also cites TV shows such as Will & Grace and Two and a Half Men. One can certainly debate the merits of American pop culture. But in condemning American cultural decadence, D’Souza relies heavily on the words of Sayyid Qutb, a man D’Souza describes as having “done the most to inspire Islamic radicalism around the world.” D’Souza notes Qutb’s time spent in the United States and his disgust with American culture declaring that its inhabitants were “living in a large brothel.” Qutb expresses contempt for liquor, fashion shows, dancing and films amongst other things. But as Dean Barnett points out D’Souza neglects to tell the reader that Qutb lived in the United States from 1948 to 1950. As Barnett aptly observes, “The ‘40’s had no filthy hippies, no gangsta rap, no gay weddings.” (www.hughhewitt.townhall/g/4358-1f6-2a20-42a9-ba23-bda2d69af0ef).
I would hasten to add the 1940s did have jazz. In his book, America I Saw, Qutb takes note of American musical tastes of the time. He writes, “Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires.” Well, what a beacon of enlightenment. I suppose D’Souza thinks Duke Ellington was also “indirectly responsible” for 9/11. If the music of Lawrence Welk is too wild for Qutb’s liking I don’t think there will ever be a meeting of the minds between American conservatives and traditional Muslims never mind the souls. If Muslims, traditional or radical, are so offended by our popular culture why can’t they just change the channel or turn it off and engage in some other activity? I don’t care for Britney Spears or Jerry Springer anymore than D’Souza does. But I don’t want to engage in mass murder over it.
Yet it seems Muslims have no trouble resorting to the sword as a matter of first resort whether this takes place in the form of killing apostates who have been abandoned Islam in favor of other religions or in the honor killings of women who have been raped. Even in matters that do not result in death, Muslim women are often consigned to a living death when their word is only worth one half of a man’s word or are forced into a so-called pleasure marriage where an already married man “marries” a woman temporarily – sometimes for only an hour. Or she can be divorced on a whim and be left without any means of support. While D’Souza acknowledges excesses with Sharia law but then dismisses these as “the consequence of system that assigns different social roles to men and women.” Yes, the role of men is to be superior and the role of women to be subservient – by the blade of the sword. If Muslims, be they in the United States or abroad, want to think of us as infidels because of our way of life then so be it. But they in turn ought to be prepared for some harsh judgments from non-Muslims.
What proves to be D’Souza’s undoing is that he undermines his own argument. Consider Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two man in al Qaeda. D’Souza refers to al-Zawahiri’s writings in his book, Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner. In writing about his native Egypt, al-Zawahiri argues that al Qaeda cannot overthrow Mubarak so long as he is supported by the United States. Simply put, an Islamic caliphate cannot be brought about in the Middle East unless al Qaeda takes out the United States. D’Souza himself amusingly puts it, “Zawahiri now became convinced that the road through Cairo and Jerusalem ran through New York.” So al Qaeda decided to attack the United States not because of one too many episodes of South Park but because of tactical pragmatism. If American music, movies and television programs were the cause of the September 11th attacks I submit that radical Muslims would have struck America a long, long time ago.
It is quite a shame because D’Souza displays fleeting moments of lucidity. He is certainly right that critical elements of the Left want the United States to lose the War in Iraq and the war on terror as a whole. He is right to take to task certain figures on the Left who have either praised the insurgents or demeaned our soldiers (i.e. Michael Moore, Markos Moulitsas of the dailykos.com), those who have questioned President Bush’s honesty (Al Gore and Cindy Sheehan) and those who don’t believe we can prevail (Howard Dean and Senator Patrick Leahy). He is also right to call upon the Right to place a wedge between liberal Democrats and the far Left and force more mainstream Democrats to take a more decisive stand in America’s fight against Islamic terrorism. But the Left cannot be properly characterized as the cause of Islamic terrorism. At their very worst, they aid and abet it. At their very best, the Left believes it is wrong to use America’s power to act in America’s interests. The words and actions of the Left in America and abroad since September 11, 2001 are the main reason I rejected its ideology and embraced conservatism.
But I didn’t embrace a conservatism that would make excuses for Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, D’Souza’s book does the events of September 11, 2001 and the people who lost their lives that day as well as their families a grave disservice. Whatever America’s flaws or follies, nothing we have said or done can excuse or justify the deliberate murder of innocent civilians. Instead of providing insight to events of September 11, 2001 all D’Souza has succeeded in becoming a right-wing equivalent of Noam Chomsky and Ward Chruchill. He has also succeeded in getting the meaning of September 11, 2001 almost entirely wrong.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
