I know that Mark Steyn assumes that European demographics mean that Europe will surrender to Moslem immigrants and their fast-breeding offspring, but this neglects the long span of European history. I have written about this many times. Such as here. I quoted an earlier post of mine:
Eventually the Europeans will have to choose between surrender and harsher options. Will Bosnia and Kosovo be the models the Europeans will follow in desperation as the alternative to surrender? I don't think the Euros are so permanently soft after five decades of easy life under our protection that they have forgotten centuries of brutal ruthlessness. The Europeans turned the Moslems back inside Europe itself at Tours and Vienna, and expelled them from Spain. They are capable of doing so again.
And this time the US won't come to the rescue of Moslems under assault. Unlike our past military actions to save Moslems, we won't intervene to save Europe's Moslems. We wouldn't want to provoke Moslem anger by doing so, eh? Ingratitude for past efforts will suppress any sympathy we have. Continued terrorism will lead us to at least remain quiet as Europe goes about its dirty work.
Ralph Peters (via Real Clear Politics) seems to agree with me:
The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.
The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.
In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds.
Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.
THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.
We try to help the Moslem world win its own "civil war" and gain control of their fanatics.
Europe ignores the fanatics and accepts their reasons for being mad at us--but in the end I think they will exterminate Moslems from within Europe when the Euros can no longer ignore the attacks and fanaticism.
Much like the neighbor of the serial killer after the killer is arrested, we will all be stunned: "He was such a quiet young man!"
I guess we shall see who has the more nuanced and compassionate policy towards Islam.
UPDATE: Steyn replies here to Peters. I think Steyn is a bit harsh, and saying that some Europeans could go fascist is exactly what he predicted, but that it won't be enough to save the continent from Moslem domination, isn't enough to sway me to Steyn's view.
Even if Europe's aging population means that a population of 400 million has young people appropriate for a healthy population half its size means Europe could still mobilize a lot of soldiers. And with the power of the state behind them and a tradition of Western military excellence as opposed to the Middle Eastern tradition of fighting poorly against Western armies, I don't find it unlikely at all that a roused Europe will slaughter and drive out Moslems rather than succumb to Moslem rule.
What's the saying? One man willing to use a machine gun beats 100 without a machine gun? Recall any riot situation you've seen with small numbers of organized police using shields and batons scattering unorganized rioters that outnumber the cops by large ratios. Give the cops guns and enough fear and determination to use those guns and the Moslem youth will not stand a chance.
As my link to my earlier post shows, Victor Hanson thinks (or thought it at the time) the Europeans will react rationally to the threat and in time join us but at a little lower profile level of effort against the jihadis. I guess Hanson is the most optimistic. Steyn the most pessimistic, assuming Europe loses. And Peters assumes Europe goes postal in a middle route of winning in a very ugly manner.
I have to side with Peters here. As much as I like Steyn and Hanson (and though I think Peters has gone loopy on us over Iraq), I have to side with Peters in figuring the Europeans will ignore the problem of Islamo-fascism and then choose the killing option--a time honored tradition in Europe--over the surrender option. I just don't think 60 years of pacifism have erased 600 years of crushing non-Europeans who got in their way.
Have a nice day.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Paul Belien takes issue with Peters' hostility toward Europe. I do disagree with the idea that Europeans are evil. They are part of the West with our shared tradition of freedom and democracy. So I don't condemn Europeans for a brutal past which is certainly no more brutal than the sainted Third World's history. And Europe has done much to advance civilization, which is more than most other people can claim when you tally up the horrors and advances different civilizations have on ther respective ledgers.
What I want is for Europeans to stand with us in defense of the West. I only bring up Europe's violent past (beyond 1945) to argue that Europeans are just as capable as anyone of defending themselves even if they must be brutal to do so. Europeans aren't ready to be brutal yet. But unless VDH's more optimistic scenario takes place, Europeans will do what it takes to defend themselves from an internal enemy if that is what develops in their suburbs.
