Two Prongs Are Better Than One

It's something of a pity that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann chose this time to publicize her concerns about Islamic infiltration of the federal government. Given the ongoing presidential campaign and the recent Aurora, CO atrocity, it's been largely ignored as a third-echelon contretemps. In sober truth, it's one of the two most important political subjects of our time.

Ignore the brayings from CAIR, ISNA, and the like. These are mouthpiece groups explicitly required to respond to charges such as Mrs. Bachmann's as they have. They have no other reason for existing. Ignore the shouts of "McCarthyism!" from the Left. Any other reaction from them would be implausible. Most especially, ignore the chastisements aimed at Mrs. Bachmann by John McCain and other Establishmentarian Republicans. Regardless of party affiliation, an establishmentarian's highest priority is to keep the boat from rocking, so his rice bowl won't be overturned.

Mrs. Bachmann's concerns are sincere and important. They should be taken seriously. Indeed, they must be. We've already discovered militant Islamists advising the FBI and Homeland Security; what more are we waiting for?

The central point about Islam's program for world conquest is that it's a two-pronged affair. To understand the mechanism in specifics, let's review a cliched phrase often misused in discussions of international relations: "the carrot and the stick."

First, the misuse: treating "carrot" as an inducement to cooperate, and "stick" as a threat of punishment for non-cooperation. Because this misuse is so frequent and has gone on for so long, it's acquired a legitimacy of sorts: people understand it the way it's meant to be understood when used in a relevant context. However, this interpretation of the phrase differs dramatically from the image that goes with its origin.

Imagine that you have a wheeled, unpowered cart, and a donkey that you'd like to pull the cart. Trouble is, your donkey is a recalcitrant beast; he does nothing except what gratifies his belly. So you can't harness him to your cart, yell "Giddy-ap," and expect forward motion; he'll just stand there with that "What's in it for me?" look on his face. You have to give him a reason to want to move -- and moreover, to pull a significant load.

So you find a long stick, dangle a large carrot from one end, and affix the other end to the front of the cart. The stick must be long enough to hang the carrot about eighteen inches in front of the donkey's face: close enough to see and smell, but not close enough to grab with any possible contortion. The donkey will walk forward in an attempt to get to the carrot. The stick, being affixed to the front of the cart, will keep it just out of his reach. But the donkey, being a Democrat donkey, will just keep walking "toward" it, even against significant resistance.

This original meaning of "the carrot and the stick" nicely captures Islam's program for subverting governments everywhere. So-called "moderate" Muslims, who repeatedly tell Americans that they have no interest in harming anyone, claim that they can advise Washington on changes to federal policy that would mollify "militant" Muslims, soothing their wrath toward the United States and making peaceful, profitable relations with Islamic states easier to achieve. Washington, desirous of a reduction in tensions and of the probability of further terrorism against Americans and their property, admits a number of these "moderate" Muslims to the halls of power, as advisors, and implements their recommendations. However the hoped-for improvements, if any, are mild and transitory: tensions are soon back to where they were, and the threats of terrorist action against America are as numerous as before. The "carrot" is just as distant as ever. So Washington admits still more "moderate" Muslim advisors to its ranks, and on their recommendations makes still further changes and conciliatory gestures.

Lather; rinse; repeat.

Neither prong of the Islamic offensive would work at all well without the other. "Moderate" Muslims would have no entry point to Washington without the pressure being generated by Islamist threats and violence; Islamist threats and violence would provoke only military responses and ever stricter border controls were it not for the half-plausible blandishments of "moderate" Muslims about how nasty we've been and are being toward the Islamic world. Together, they're seductively effective, because few persons in positions of authority or influence are paying attention to the pattern being formed.

Mrs. Bachmann has paid attention. She's noticed the accumulation of not-particularly-moderate Muslims as "advisors" to various highly placed persons and government agencies. In her usual fearless style, she's made public note of it and has exhorted others to do so as well. In the Establishment's usual no-boat-rocking style, they've castigated her without paying the slightest shred of respect to her easily verified observations.

I find it difficult to believe that even Democrats really want to see Islam suborn the Constitution, or achieve privileged status here in the United States. It's far easier to believe that many, many persons in high places are reluctant to admit that they've been seduced into letting enemies of the United States into their confidences. But the consequences are what will matter -- and the history of conciliation toward Muslims does not engender confidence that those consequences will be pleasant.

Draw your own conclusions.