…may be to be offensive.
If I read Hugh Hewitt right, he’s of the opinion that publishing the cartoons is counter-productive because it will drive otherwise moderate Muslims to the radical fringe, and make it harder for those Muslim leaders and states that are or could become our allies to support us in the GWOT.
As much as I respect Hugh for trying to pour oil on these troubled waters, I think it’s too little, too late, and probably a bad idea anyway.
First, it seems inevitable that we will continue to offend Muslims, whether we want to or not, either because the Muslim street really is as volatile as it appears to be or because powerful voices in their world are opportunistically fomenting and focusing outrage. So the outcome of the war against terror won’t be—mustn’t be, can’t be—predicated on our ability to live up to their impossibly high standards.
Second, there’s the little matter of Israel. It isn’t a very big country, but I’m fond of it, and it’s one of the chips on the table. Its very existence is an affront to about half of the Islamic world, and the only ones making serious progress toward solving that problem work for the Iranian military. What this means is that we’re going to have to offend someone, eventually, to prevent genocide. There we go again….
Third, and sadly, and most practically, seeing the true face of radical Islam is productive. It probably can’t stop Europe’s slouch toward sharia, but it gives the half of America inclined toward appeasement something to think about. This offense has strategic value.
Finally, there’s a point of principle.
“Those who are easily shocked should be shocked more often.” — Mae West
I disagree. This is the kind of convenient justification invoked by people who take delight in causing offense, an attempt to wrap juvenile self-indulgence in the mantel of righteousness. It was cute when Mae said it, but it was never right in principle.
All other things being equal, it is wrong to offend people.
Having said that, we’ve reached the point where the asymmetry between the offense and the response is so great that we risk falling into a moral trap. If cartoon pictures of Mohammed motivated Muslims to sulk and write letters to their editors, we would be right to chastise the papers for their disrespect. That isn’t the case. The Muslim response has been so vile, so over the top, so irresponsible, that it must be unconditionally rejected. Sharing the blame is appropriate when the offenses are comparable. These aren’t.
