Doug Smith: I’m not impressed with apologists for our enemies

I heard it from the left throughout the Cold War regarding the Russians.  If we understood them a little better, we would see what nice folks they really are. After all, they are just failed Communists. They really are not doing it right, you see. If WE were doing Communism, we would get it right and it would really be a worker’s paradise.  There are no Gulags, no mass starvation, and no Russian troops fomenting wars on 3 continents.  Khrushchev was misquoted when he said “We will bury you. “

In the 1960s, many of these folks said “We can work with the Soviets.” President Kennedy’s response to them was “Let them come to Berlin!”

It is easy, cheap, and cowardly to empathize and memorialize victims, while avoiding confrontation with the barbarian aggressors.  It costs little to pile flowers and candles at a makeshift shrine. It costs a bit more to go after murderers and kill them.

Now the current enemy, and the current apology du jour, are for Muslim terrorists.

Now, the apologists try to make the argument that anyone who commits an act of violence in the guise of a Muslim terrorist is just a bad Muslim.  Never mind that they tell us loudly that they are Muslims. Never mind that they are venerated by Muslims in the street after their noisy demise. If the apologists, who are usually not Muslims, could only explain it to them, things would be fine.  That is not what they are really about.

I am reminded of the scholar who argued passionately that the Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by another Greek of the same name.

People can argue themselves into the most absurd points of view, laying all common sense aside.

The other talking point is that Muslims practice a philosophy of peace, and we should never fight back against it. Charles Martel would be amused at that point of view.

Charles Martel was the bastard son of a minor politician, who by virtue of his strength and military ability , rose to power in 8^th century( what would become, )  France.  In his time, Muslim conquest, begun just after the death of Mohammed in the late 7^th Century, had spread for 100 years to include most of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain.   The depredations were brutal, and Martel looked at the situation in Iberia (Spain) with alarm.

In his judgment, it would not be possible to hold back this coming invasion of the Frankish kingdoms with the usual Middle Ages response of calling the men up for service after the harvest. He would need a standing army; trained, fed and supported, and ready at a moment’s notice. He could supplement it with call ups, but either he would have his standing Army, or Gaul would fall to the Saracens (Muslims.)

(Indeed, from the hindsight of history, it is likely that had Martel not prevailed, the Muslim conquest would have swept across Europe, even into England.  In fact, the Reconquista of Iberia, i.e. the retaking of Spain from the Muslim conquerors, took 7 centuries.  It was finally completed early in 1492. Now where have I heard that date before? )

However, Charles Martel did not fail. He confiscated properties of the Church, and used it to feed his soldiers.  (This got him in a bit of hot water with the Church, but since he subsequently stopped the invading Muslims, all was forgiven.) By the time of the Battle of Tours, Oct 10, 732, he had 80,000 heavy infantry under his command. He soundly defeated the invading Abdul Rahman, leaving over 10,000 dead, including Rahman himself. This was the high water point of the Muslim advance into Europe until Suleiman in 1529.

So, what is the point of this brief history lesson?  In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris last week, it has become fashionable to march with arms linked, and wear a T shirt that says, I am Charlie Hebdo.  Empathy with the victims. If you attack them, you attack me.  That has a certain “We are the World “appeal to some, I suppose.  Still, Charles did not wander around Tours wearing a tunic emblazoned with “I am Bordeaux.” (A city the Muslim invaders sacked and looted, just prior to meeting Charles) Instead, he earned the appellation “Martel” (The Hammer) for the way he hammered his enemy, and drove them back, and out of France.

He did not wear a black arm band, nor did he stand with his head held high and defy the attackers with flowers.  Instead, he recognized the coming threat, took steps to prepare for them, and met them at Tours and shattered them.  Even he was surprised that after the 1^st day of battle, the survivors simply dropped all their loot and ran for home.  But run they did, and the Battle of Tours ranks as one of the 15 most important battles in history.  The history of Europe for the next 1500 years, and the history of America turned on the outcome of that battle, and the deeds and life of that one man, who was supposed to have faded into obscurity.

So, I’ll empathize with the French.  (For all the jokes about the French Army surrendering every morning, just in case there is an enemy close enough to hear them, I’m glad they came in the 1700s to help us.) I’ll empathize with a brave and bold Frenchman as well

But I don’t want to say to the French, or the terrorists, “Hey, I’m just as brave as the last victims.”  I want to say, if your choice is to be barbarians, then look to your lives.

We are not Charlie Hebdo.

We are Charles Martel.

Tags: DOUG SMITH, FSP