Riots in France Do Mean Something in the War On Terror

I wrote a couple of columns last week that put the riots in France into context with the Global Islamist movement. Understandably, the question of the "links" between the two have come into question. Ace begs the question today:

Is This Really A "Muslim Uprising" Or Just Some Good Old Fashioned Street Violence? There's some debate about this; to me, though, it does seem to look an awful lot like an uprising. If there's no Al Qaeda like ideology behind this, but more of an inchoate desire to hold terriotory Youths of Undetermined Ethnic Extraction can call their own, is that really any better?

I don't think it matters. Clearly, al Qaeda is the most dangerous and violent of the Islamic extremist groups, however there is so much rot and decay within the framework of most Islamic based societies that needs to be dealt with. The knee-jerk reaction towards violent confrontation is the primary reason that we went into Iraq. It was time for force a confrontation in the heart of Islamic society to either join the 21st Century that allows others to live in peace under their own belief systems, or to destroy the continuing behavior that supports violent methods for either airing their grievances or furthering of ideology.

The operational, or even ideological, links to al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgency and the Muslims in France is irrelevant. The response by the West to actively resist, confront and suppress their violence, however, is. The West has not yet figured out that we are being watched. Each time we demonstrate weakness, whether it is calling for a "spirit of dialog and respect" while our cities are burning, or pulling out of a military engagement short of strategic goals, we embolden their most violent elements.

I think the broader strategic picture is much more important here. Ace continues this thought in a better way than I could:

Diplomacy has its virtues, of course, but its efficacy has always b(een) limited by its major flaw: The word "No." You can call for all the dialogue and respect you like, but if your would-be interlocutor simply says "No," that's it for diplomacy.

John Kerry could never seem to understand that with regard to Iraq or our "historic allies."

I'll take it a step further--the West is going to have to teach Islamic societies to understand the word "No." We can't put them in "timeout" or send them off to their rooms with no desert. They have initiated a confrontation with violence, and if we in turn, cower and allow them to dictate to us their terms, we have lost the argument and the war. They are learning slowly in Iraq and Afghanistan that violence is going to be met with swift justice, but this war is going to require us to be uncompromising to Islamic violence (regardless of its "root cause") wherever it springs up.