The Syrian Migrant Crisis of 2015
Having established a foothold in Iraq and Syria, the Islamic State has begun actively expanding to other regions. It is seeking dominance in the Islamic world. And not only there, and it plans to go further than that. The situation is more than dangerous … This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions, especially given that Islamic State camps train militants from many countries, including the European countries.
— Vladimir Putin, President of Russian Federation1
It is an issue of demography. I would say that before accepting immigrants or refugees, we need to have more activities by women, elderly people, and we must raise our birth rate. There are many things that we should do before accepting immigrants.
— Shinzo Abe, Prime Minister of Japan2
Masses of young men in their twenties with beards singing Allahu Akbar across Europe. It’s an invasion that threatens our prosperity, our security, our culture and identity … Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, Serbia are safe countries. If you flee them then you are doing it for benefits and a house.
— Geert Wilders, Dutch politician3
During the course of writing this book, one of the greatest difficulties was incorporating new events as they arose. Islamic fanaticism is on the move, and with the emergence of ISIS as a state player it seems every month brings fresh atrocities. In April of 2015 a long- simmering crisis surged into the consciousness of the Europeans and Americans, bringing home the reality of one of the fundamental arguments and warnings of this book. This crisis is known popularly as the Syrian Migrant Crisis.
Press coverage has tended to focus on emotionally gripping images. One of the most famous is the photo of the body of a young boy washed up on shore after his migrant boat sank in the Mediterranean Sea. Other images have shown people living in camps, running over barren terrain, and fighting with border police. People’s hearts quite naturally go out to scenes of human suffering. Everyone wants to help. Such feelings likely prompted German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s initial declaration that there was no legal limit to the number of refugees the EU might take, if they were qualified.
But once the full scope of the migration became clear, feelings of concern gave way to practical considerations. Hungary has seen some 200,000 migrants, mostly Muslim, streaming over its border at a rate of as many as 5,000 a day. They gather at train stations and demand transportation to the destination of their choice (often Germany). To put this in perspective, imagine if over six million people entered the United States between January and September and requested asylum. The EU had the most asylum requests it has had in 20 years in 2014 with 625,000 and may be on track to reach up to 800,000 in 2015.4 Faced with large, unruly groups of migrants passing through Hungary quickly put up a border fence and began policing it fiercely.
The reason why Hungary and other former Eastern European nations are so critical for migrants is that they are on the outer border of the “Schengen Zone.” European nations bound by the Schengen Agreement allow for hassle-free transportation across countries (similar to traveling from state to state in the United States) within the area. Once migrants reach a country within the Schengen Zone they have only to go to the country where they want to end up to request asylum. None of the refugees want to stay in Hungary, as it is not particularly wealthy or generous in its social subsidies. They just want to get there because it is one of the easiest nations in the Schengen Zone to get to; then, they will transition through. This plan was disrupted when Hungary decided it had neither the interest nor the infrastructure needed to handle what amounts to mass immigration of Muslims from the Middle East.
Why are such large numbers of Muslims trying to get to Europe? Some are indeed Syrian refugees fleeing their war-torn country. At present, Syria is de facto split into separate sections ruled by President Bashar Assad, by anti-government coalition forces, by Kurdish separatists, and by the Islamic State. American policy has been to provide covert support (and some direct financial aid and military supplies) to the anti-government coalition, even though many of these groups are al-Qaeda affiliates or other religious fanatics much like ISIS itself.5 American money and weapons have already ended up in the hands of ISIS and al-Qaeda, and there is an ever-present danger that more will follow suit.
However, EU figures suggest that as few as 1 in 5 migrants are actually Syrian (although as many as 90% of those who enter will claim they are Syrian hoping to obtain asylum).6 For the most part, migrants are (70% of them) adult males, Muslim, from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. They are coming because the ongoing war in Syria shows no signs of stopping. Afghanistan and Iraq remain failed states which cannot consistently provide basic services for their citizens. In fact, the Taliban has recently retaken Kunduz, one of their last strongholds to fall during the U.S.-led invasion in 2001.7 Not all of the migrants are fleeing war, by any means. Some simply want to improve their lot in life. Not a bad aspiration, but when it is shared by millions of others the practical reality is that few will be able to accomplish it. Thanks to unscrupulous human traffickers it has never been easier for those hoping to trade their unpleasant situations for the wealth and security of Europe. The end result has been the largest migration of people to Europe since World War II.8
EUROPE’S RESPONSE
The response of European governments has been twofold. There has been a perfectly reasonable, skeptical attitude from some—notably from poorer former Soviet Bloc countries on the periphery who have to deal with migrants transitioning through their lands for greener pastures. Then there is a contrasting suicidal and politically correct attitude which high-handedly condemns the former attitude without due consideration for its merits.
The former attitude is perfectly encapsulated by Hungary’s Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. Orbán astutely noted the “explosive consequences for the whole of Europe” which would follow from allowing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to enter. In a German newspaper he rightly noted that “We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture. Most are not Christian, but Muslim. That is an important question, because Europe and European culture have Christian roots.”9
By contrast, European Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans accused Orbán of playing on irrational fears. “Any society, anywhere in the world, will be diverse in the future,” he declared, “that’s the future of the world. So [Central European countries] will have to get used to that.”10 This statement is almost too sick to believe. Since every place must be “diverse” (whatever that means) the reality must be imposed on the people? Is resistance to mass Muslim immigration really irrational? Later events seem to call Timmermans’ view into question. While at first Hungary was struggling to stop Muslim migrants and Germany was encouraging them, within a couple of weeks Germany closed its Schengen border with Austria and began enacting migration controls as its facilities were being overwhelmed.
The irrationality and foolishness are all on the side of those who encourage mass Muslim immigration and then damn those who try to stop it. It is not merely a case of logistical problems or lack of capacity. It is, as Viktor Orbán stated, a matter of life and death for the survival of Europe as a civilization and as a culture. It is not mere speculation or paranoia to say so. History and current reality both suggest that Orbán has a point.
THE DISASTER OF MUSLIM IMMIGRATION IN WESTERN EUROPE
Muslims first immigrated to Europe in substantial numbers in the 1950s and 1960s. After nearly three generations, what has been the result? Across Western Europe Muslims have distinguished themselves among immigrant groups by their self-segregation, by their incompatibility with host cultures, and by their hostility and aggression. This is not a matter of race and ethnicity—Hindus of essentially similar racial and ethnic backgrounds to Pakistanis have successfully integrated with British culture, for example. The issue lies with the fundamental ideas and doctrines of Islam, which insist upon separatism for its followers. Islam is the problem.
Consider the Charlie Hebdo massacre at the beginning of 2015. The two brothers responsible for the killing grew up in France as the children of immigrants. Yet they still slaughtered innocent journalists—nearly a sacred profession to the secular French state— in the name of Islam. Pundit Rich Lowry observed that the Muslim-heavy suburbs of Paris “are not just alienated from the French state, they are actively hostile to it.”11 But this was not an isolated case, even within France which has had several cases of home-grown Islamic terrorism.
Across the channel in the UK, whole cities and neighborhoods have been taken over by the children of Muslim immigrants. The 7/7 suicide bombers of 2005, who murdered dozens of Londoners on their way to work, were (with one exception) born and raised in Britain. They spurned the opportunities their parents and their country gave them and chose jihad instead. A year after this mass murder, 25% of British Muslims said it was justified. In the same survey, 28% said they wanted Britain to become a fundamentalist Islamic state, and 68% said they wanted British people who insulted Islam to be arrested and prosecuted.12 Liberal day-dreamers would like us to see these numbers as a turning away from violence. But as readers of this book will notice, they show they opposite—the support among British-born Muslims for murder and intolerance is a sign that they still embrace Islam as it always is and has been: as a supremacist, imperialist, and genocidal ideology.
Such a creed and its adherents are fundamentally incompatible with Western society. How many more gang-rape sex rings are needed before Western media will admit there is a problem with Islam? How many mass-murders of civilians must take place? Such atrocities are not perpetrated by Hindu immigrants, Christian immigrants, or atheist immigrants.This is not a coincidence. A Muslim murders Jews in Brussels—it is Islam which told him killing Jews is a righteous act. Muslim boys repeatedly rape an 11-year-old English girl—it is Islam which told them how female war captives may be treated. European neighborhoods become Islamic fiefdoms where native authorities fear to tread—it is Islam which commands them to live according to its dictates and no others. British schools are taken over by Muslims and begin to impose Islamic doctrine—it is Islam which told them Muslims are destined to rule and dominate the rest. Everywhere in Europe you see the fruit of Islamic teaching: everywhere Europeans are pushed out of their own neighborhoods by incompatible Muslim communities. There is no “diversity” in the sense of living together with different people; there are only pockets of Islam which exist separately in their own world. Those pockets are getting larger.
This is recent history, but as an Indian I can add that past history tells the same story. This book has documented some small parts of that story. When I look at India, I see vast swathes of Hindu and Buddhist civilization which have been transformed utterly under the iron grip of Islam. I have read past Hindu calls for tolerance and understanding of the conquering Islamic armies. The end result is a fractured country, a land of a million mutinies. India’s history will become Europe’s future if nothing is changed.
Any realistic appraisal of past history and current experience with Muslim immigration should tell us that Viktor Orbán’s warning deserves serious consideration. As in the past, the politically correct elite today wish to bully the common people with talk of compassion and integration. But this is all a lie. We have seen how this plays out, and it is always a disaster. When today’s leaders are gone tomorrow’s society will be left with the consequences. Those consequences will be Islamization, cultural genocide, and complete disintegration of European society.
WHY CAN’T MUSLIM COUNTRIES TAKE MUSLIM MIGRANTS?
The Prophet Muhammad encouraged Muslims to immigrate to infidel lands as preparatory to Islamizing them. Indeed, the Islamic calendar begins with Muhamad’s own immigration to Medina, leaving Mecca (where he was no longer welcome) to become a power broker among competing tribes of Arabs and Jews. From the very beginning, then, Islam has used demographic conquest as a potent weapon. The same weapon is now being used to conquer Europe without firing a shot.
Consider the following: if this were truly a humanitarian crisis, why does Saudi Arabia, with a population under 30 million, refuse to take any refugees? Saudi Arabia is their natural home. They are Arabic-speaking Muslims who share the Sunni religion and a similar culture. Saudi Arabia is enormously wealthy. Why should the refugees be sent to Europe, which has a radically different religion and culture from their own? Why are the Saudis being outspent on aid efforts by distant Japan, which recently increased its aid package to over one billion euros?13
The Saudis have over two million square miles of territory, inhabited by fewer than 30 million people. Their per capita GDP is $53,149. By contrast, India has over three million square miles, but is inhabited by well over one billion (with a per capita GDP of $6,266). In short, there is plenty of room for a few million refugees. The Saudis have the space and the money to support all those streaming to Europe ten times over. Yet they have offered to take in no one.
Instead of offering to take in refugees, the Saudis offered to build 200 mosques in Germany. So rather than accept refugees, they offered to create new centers to radicalize the ones Germany was generous enough to accept. Saudi-funded mosques are well-known, as this book has demonstrated, as centers for indoctrination into literalist and fundamentalist Islam. Should Germany accept such an offer, it would be like letting foxes into the hen house.
Nor are other Sunni nations willing to accept migrants. Turkey will not give asylum to its Sunni brethren. The other wealthy Gulf Arab nations have also declined. As Dr. Abbas Kadhim, a teacher in California, noted on Twitter: “the only Syrian refugees that got attention in the Gulf States are the vulnerable underage girls they bought in the name of marriage.”14
THE DANGERS POSED BY MASS MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
Bulgarian Defense Minister Nikolay Nenchev caused a bit of a controversy when he divided the so-called refugees coming to Europe into three camps. One camp he called real refugees, “people fleeing the horrors of war.” A second camp were those he called “economic migrants,” meaning people who simply wanted the advantages of living in Europe rather than in a poorer country. A third camp were those “likely to be affiliated to terrorist organizations.”15 Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has criticized Europe’s open-door policy to “alleged Syrian refugees” for the same reason. Europeans were allowing people to stream across their borders and denouncing those who questioned their policy as intolerant, he stated, “Even as some of the newcomers were attacking and cursing policy, throwing bottles, and shouting ‘Allahu akbar’.”16
Certainly there is a danger that some number of those entering Europe will be committed terrorists. In any mass movement of people there will be some percentage that are undesirable. Given the high percentage of single adult males coming (70 or more by most estimates), the chance is even higher that some will at least have some terrorist sympathies. This does present certain short-term and medium-term dangers to Europe, where some of those admitted for asylum turn around and plot against their hosts almost immediately.
Some of the dangers have been spotted already, though the media is slow to report. Migrants in shelters are being targeted for sectarian violence, with Christians, Kurds, and Yazidis being hit particularly hard. The head of German intelligence has reported that his agents observed “Salafists are appearing at the shelters disguised as volunteers and helpers, deliberately seeking contact with refugees to invite them to their mosques to recruit them to their cause.”17 German police have noted that Muslim asylum seekers are enforcing Sharia law in their refugee shelters, with some Muslim groups “from different sects, clans, ethnicities, and nationalities” attacking each other.18
Far from being anomalies, these issues point to the long-term dangers posed by Islam itself. Fundamentalists of any religion have one thing in common: a vision of global conformity to their worldview and practices. What makes Islamic fundamentalism unique is its methods for dominating the world. These are many, varied, and advanced. It ranges from direct warfare to infiltration, subversion of governments, and gradual imposition of Sharia law. The position of Islam with regard to non-Islamic states is clearly stated by theologian Syed Abdul A’ala Maududi: “Islam wishes to destroy all states and government anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam … The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology and program.”19
This is the real reason the Saudis would prefer to push all the migrants off on Europe and fund their mosques. If the long-term goal is Islamization Saudi Arabia sees Europe as ripe for the plucking. Sure, many of the migrants—perhaps even most of them—may be “moderate” Islamic. They may not be very interested in religion themselves. But it’s a numbers game. Once Islam builds itself into a large enough minority, it can begin to agitate on behalf of its long-term religious interests. “Moderate Muslims” will not be in charge for the simple reason that “moderate” in this sense really means “a Muslim in name only.” Such people do not rule in the Muslim community.
Migration and Saudi-funded mosques is how Europe will be conquered. It is how the US would be conquered, given the chance. One cannot be at one time both a good Muslim and a good citizen of a non-Islamic nation. This is because a good Muslim must regard the Qur’an and Sharia as infallible and true and all institutions of men as fallible, defective, and irrelevant. Migration is the tip of the iceberg. The immutable force under the water line is Islam.
WHAT EUROPE MUST DO TO AVOID CIVILIZATIONAL SUICIDE
There are four central truths the nations of Europe must grasp now and act on immediately in order to avoid civilizational suicide. First of all: Ignoring real differences causes real disaster. It is a sad irony that the first thing Western societies must to defend themselves from extinction is the one thing they have made themselves incapable of doing. In fact, it is almost a curse in the West to say “discriminate.” But not too long ago the ability to discriminate was an essential element of moral action and adult behavior.
To discriminate is to recognize distinctions or differences which actually exist. A “discrimination” where there is no real difference is an act of prejudice, and this is rightly derided. But when a baby recognizes his father’s or mother’s face and does not recognize a stranger’s, this is to discriminate. When a teacher speaks loudly to an extrovert and softly to an introvert she is using discrimination to reach her students more effectively. When a citizen stops a man from assaulting his girlfriend but stands back while a policeman apprehends a shoplifter he is making a necessary discrimination. In short, there are many cases where preferences and distinctions have nothing to do with prejudice.
The word discriminate comes from a Latin root meaning to discern or notice. The basic idea is to notice crucial differences between things and to act accordingly. When it comes to noticing differences between individual people and between groups of people, the Western nations have become enormously skittish. But the fact is that no advanced society can survive without making some distinctions. For example, we distinguish between children and adults, and between citizens and foreign residents—such distinctions are not going to go away. Our task is to be reasonable and fair in making our distinctions.
With that said, I submit that a distinction must be made between Islam and the other cultural and religious creeds of the world. It is reasonable and fair for many reasons, but there are two which deserve to be highlighted here. The distinction is reasonable because Islam is different in its past and present behavior with regard to the other cultural and religious creeds of the world—most notably, it has tried and is still trying to exterminate them. The distinction is fair because Islam itself insists upon it! If we may make this distinction regarding Islam, then, we must look upon mass Muslim migration as a different order of threat. If Muslims are more isolated from their host cultures, more hostile and aggressive toward their host cultures, and more incompatible with their host cultures as compared with other immigrant groups, would it not be foolish to treat them the same as other immigrant groups?
Many of the arguments used to browbeat the Europeans into accepting Muslim migrants rely upon a complete absence of discrimination or distinction. Hungary is reminded that Americans and Europeans accepted its refugees from Soviet aggression in 1956. The implication is that they should therefore be more welcoming now toward Muslim refugees. But what happened to those Hungarian refugees? If you go to Cleveland, Ohio, you will find children of those immigrants—but you may have to look hard because they are largely assimilated into American culture.
We must be able to recognize and speak about obvious differences. It is simply obvious that Islam is different from other ideologies and its adherents therefore pose a danger that those of other ideologies do not. Until we can deal with these differences our difficulties with Islam will simply continue. Governments and the media have tried to deny the obvious facts for 50 years and it still does not make them any less true. Reality is what it is regardless of our ability to see it. Ignoring real differences causes real disaster.
The second truth is this: This is not a refugee crisis for Europe; it is a Muslim migrant crisis. Media coverage of this situation has largely been based on the assumption that the people streaming to enter Europe are refugees. Is the assumption accurate? According to a Wall Street Journal article, as few as 10% could be Syrians (judging from accents and dialects). More importantly, there is a brisk trade in fake Syrian passports taking place among so-called refugees now, suggesting that a significant percentage of the would-be migrants are not Syrians. German police have confiscated packages of these passports on their way to Germany.20
It is completely understandable that people living in Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria might want to live in Germany. I would feel the same way living in a country where Muslims massacre each other on a daily basis over sectarian differences. But this situation should make Europeans more, not less, wary and defensive about importing problems en masse into their societies.
Also, while the press continues to assume Muslim migrants are Europe’s responsibility, the fabulously wealthy Muslim nations of the Gulf sit back and watch. “The Saudis stopped issuing work permits to Syrians in 2011 when the uprising against the Assad regime began,” the Journal again notes; meanwhile, “Gulf states also refuse to sign the U.N. convention governing treatment of asylum seekers. The Saudi contribution to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs amounts to a little more than $18 million—as compared to $1 billion from the U.S.”21 In short, the Saudis are simply refusing to pull their own weight. Yet the Saudis are more than willing to continue the spread of jihad, offering (as noted above) to build Wahhabi mosques in Germany for new Muslim immigrants.22
The failure of wealthy Arab states to get involved demonstrates quite clearly that this is not a refugee crisis at all. It is a Muslim migrant crisis. Germany has indicated that it will accept one million people this year alone. This is a substantial number for a nation of just over 80 million total citizens. The Muslims Germany admits now are the sharp end of a spear that can destroy their civilization. As the last 50 years have shown, even if first generation Muslim immigrants may wish to integrate, the poison of Islamic fanaticism may well persuade their children to think and act differently.
Third: What is done in the name of compassion and tolerance will destroy both. This hard but crucially important truth has been a key theme of this book and is tragically relevant here. Consider, for example, the position of European Jews. The Jewish refugee crisis set off by the Holocaust has been used as an argument for Europe to take in unlimited Muslim migrants. As liberals love to argue, because Europeans were intolerant and uncompassionate toward Jews in the past, they must open their doors to Muslims now. The perverse irony in this argument is that it is Muslim immigrants above all who are driving anti-Semitism to a pitch not seen in Europe since the 1930s. Muslims have murdered Jews for being Jews in Paris, Copenhagen, Toulouse, and Brussels, and this is merely the tip of the iceberg. In France, Germany, and Spain, Muslims are four times more likely to have a negative view of Jews than the general population. In Britain, they are seven times more likely. These attitudes are reflected in anti-Semitic incidents across the continent, which are disproportionately committed by Muslims.23 In the end, however, it is not only Jews who are in the crosshairs of Islamic jihad. Ultimately, all of us are. European Jews are only the canary in the coal mine for the problem of Islamic immigration in Europe. Their increasingly difficult situation reveals the emptiness and hypocrisy of arguing for more Muslim immigration on the basis of compassion and tolerance. Other minorities living in Europe will also feel the brunt of this new wave of immigration—where is the compassion and tolerance for them? Where is the compassion for the next generation of Germans who will have to live with the decision to admit one million Muslims to the country despite leaders’ admission that their policies of multiculturalism have failed?
Fourth and finally: Immigration is the primary source of Islamic imperialism in the West. Jihadist states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan are not yet in a position to destroy the West. Even terror groups like al-Qaeda have only marginal impact, despite their high- profile atrocities. Ultimately, Islam will succeed or fail in its goal to destroy the West by means of demographic growth, infiltration, subversion, intimidation, and replacement.
Is this mere paranoia? I ask the reader to consider where Islam would be without immigration. Why are there one million Muslims in the Netherlands, 2.2 million in Italy, and 4.7 million in France?24 It is not because Islam has proven attractive and persuasive to Dutch, Italian, and French people. It is because these countries have admitted Muslim immigrants, who have children at a very high rate. Islam would hardly exist in the West without immigration.
This is not to say that Muslim immigrants are current or future jihadists. Of course only a minority will ever heed the call to jihad. But at a certain level of population, only a minority needs to answer the call for jihad to be successful. At a certain point, the Western nations will be destroyed from within. As the Explanatory Memorandum discovered by the U.S. government in its case against the Muslim Brotherhood reveals, this is indeed the plan for jihadist groups: “[our] work is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”25 This is how jihadist describe their plans when speaking to one another.
The more demographic pressure that Islam can bring to bear on Western countries through immigration the more success their hostile organizations will have in silencing dissent and intimidating host cultures. America is fortunate in this regard, as the majority of our own illegal immigrants are not Muslims. Europe, however, is not so lucky. It borders are overwhelmed daily and the pace seems to be increasing.
CONCLUSION
Western Europe is on the verge of committing suicide through its immigration policies. Its native populations are declining in numbers and everywhere they are letting in hundreds of thousands of Muslims, who take advantage of generous social funding to have large families. It is demographic conquest on a continental scale, and Europe’s leaders are letting it happen. The same thing happened to India 1,400 years ago—the difference being that at that time Islam arrived via military invasion. But the results will be the same, and India’s past will become Europe’s future if nothing is done. Leader’s like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán should be praised rather than vilified when they speak out in defence of European culture.
America and Western Europe should be making common cause with the nations threatened by Islam. One case in point is Russia, which American Neoconservatives want to hit with more and tougher economic sanctions.26 The Russians have just sent military assets to Syria to shore up the regime of Bashar Assad against anti-government rebels and the Islamic State. Russia is agitating in the UN to get ISIS specially listed as a terrorist group in the wake of revelations that ISIS may have elements necessary to put together weapons of mass destruction.27 Russia is not our enemy; our enemy is Islamic imperialism. We should be working with the Russians—as well as the Chinese, the Indians, and others—to defeat this enemy.
Immigration in Europe is a battleground in the fight against Islamic imperialism. If Germany does indeed admit one million Muslim migrants, with still more distributed across the European continent, this will be a massive and perhaps decisive victory for Islam. The 200 mosques the Saudis have offered to build in Germany will become fortresses of a hostile and unassailable creed. They will stand as symbols in the heart of Europe of Islam’s 1,400 year drive to destroy all other religions and cultures.
Once made, such decisions are impossible to undo. Millions of Muslims means tens of millions of descendants. Past history and present fact suggest these people will not assimilate to their host culture, they will despise it and actively work to undermine and destroy it. Such attitudes could be laughed away when Muslims were less than one percent of the population. Europe cannot afford to laugh now. For its own sake, Europe today desperately needs more men and women who understand Islam’s path of destruction and refuse to sit back and let it happen to their own nations and in their own neighborhoods.
This is also a moment for America to transform its approach to Islam and the Middle East. During the Cold War, America and its allies supported militant Islam as a proxy against the Soviet Union. The Soviets are gone, but militant Islam still remains—and it is a far deadlier enemy than the Soviets or even the Nazis ever were. Militant Islam has in one form or another been destroying civilization after civilization for 1,400 years. This book has documented and detailed this scourge.
A new approach is needed, beginning with nurturing the forces of secularism and democracy across the Middle East. Democracy without secularism will only bring to power Islamist groups—as happened with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. A united front of non-Islamic countries would have the power and influence to demilitarize, secularize, and democratize the entire Middle East, once and for all. Not only would this save us from Islamic imperialism, it would also put an end to events such as the Syrian migrant crisis.