The Newest “Political Hero”: Retired Lt. Col. Allen West, Culture of Fear Candidate 2010

The Newest “Political Hero”: Retired Lt. Col. Allen West, Culture of Fear Candidate 2010 May 6, 2010

Why is it that pro-torture candidates are seen as “political gold” by some Republican-voting Catholics? One of the “rising stars” being promoted by some Catholics is the retired Lt. Col. Allen West. He isn’t just a big supporter of an unjust war (Iraq), he isn’t just a big supporter of a failed immigration system, he isn’t just a supporter of torture — he was a man actively involved with and proud of torture.

Described in 2008 by The Independent, we get a clear view of the problem:

The men he named were seized and roughed up in turn. No evidence was found of any plot, and after another 45 days of terror, Yehiya was released. Today, he is severely traumatised, and collapses when he sees a Humvee approaching. The story only came to light after one of West’s soldiers began to protest against these practices, and the Pentagon launched an investigation. At a pre-trial hearing, West was fined $5,000, and now concedes grudgingly: “It’s possible I was wrong about Mr Hamoodi.” But he says he would do it again, and again, and again.

West has even taken to joking about it, gaining applause for telling Republican audiences: “It wasn’t torture. Seeing Rosie O’Donnell naked would be torture.” But the 1994 Convention Against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, is explicit: “Threat of imminent death” is the third form of torture it outlaws. There are reams of studies showing it can traumatise a person for life.

Yet the Republican Party has rallied to the defence of this torturer, and of torture in general. The Bush administration has ordered the simulated drowning of “high-value” suspects, and set up secret black ops sites across the world where it is practiced. After Afghan detainees were hanged from the ceiling and beaten to death, the officers responsible were merely given a “letter of reprimand”.

It’s not just that he engages torture, but he is also a known anti-Islamic bigot, who likes to continue to misrepresent Islam and its teachings to promote unjust wars in the Middle East. In a blog post, Allen West: Unfit to Serve, the blogger, Rafael, demonstrates some of the errors in West’s rhetoric. For example, West suggests that Islam has abrogated Koranic verses which call for peace, and so presents Islam as in a perpetual war with the non-Islamic world. Obviously, this is being used to support an aggressive stand in the Middle East, to take the war and turn into a war between the West and Islam. But it is also not how Muslims view their faith. Rafael writes:

And Muslim scholarship is divided as to whether can initiated except in defence, with a strong plurality opining that warfare is only sanctioned in defence.

More importantly, Rafael exposes West’s pretense for knowledge is really prejudice being used to justify his own bigotry:

West is not a scholar of Islam. Although he enjoins upon others to delve into Muslim Scripture and collected narrations, Mr. West has only a pale, one-sided superficial understanding of the topics he discusses. This is obvious when he mispronounces the terms he wants to talk about (Mr. West, the Arabic for a narrated saying is a ḥadeeth not a ḥaadith). His ignorance and bigotry is obvious when he calls Ishmael a “wild men” and uses the Bible, his “Word of God” and “immutable truth”, to justify perpetuating an endless conflict with Arabs (and by extension, Muslims, who as he says are obsessed with their own claims to supremacy). He claims, incorrectly, that the Muslims expelled the Jews from the Levant. He describes the Arabian Peninsula as the “Saudi Peninsula”,which both is incorrect and anachronistic pre-1932. Consistently refuses to properly capitalise the name “Muhammad” or “Muslim” or “Islam”. He describes “Islamic totalitarianism” as the “original enemy of the Jewish people”, as if they had no enemies before Islam under which they flourished; ask Maimonides. He claims lying is encouraged to promote Islam. He claims Israel has ceded land as if Israel has no obligation to respect the pre-1967 boundaries that the international community and the International Court define as proper. Misterms Arabs as the “Arabic people” (Arabic is a language, Arabs are an ethnic group). He says Muslims only claim to Jerusalem is from concocted stories and Saladin, not by a deeply held religious tradition and respect, nor by their being in Jerusalem as its guardians and patrons since 638. Instead Mr. West equates creating a Palestinian State with creating a terrorist (as if the allegation of crimes against humanity was never levelled against Israel).

This kind of ignorant hate is dangerous to promote. But it is worse for Catholics to fall for this bigotry and promote it. It is one thing to point out the defects of Islamic history, it is another to over-generalize claims about Islam based upon such facts (when they truly are fact). Catholics know full well the abuse which Christendom has promoted, and they do not want their faith to be judged and determined by such abuses. In the same way, Islam needs to be understood, both from its defects, but also from the good, to understand where the dangers come from but also ways to help promote peace through the positive good which can be found in Islamic teaching. Cardinal Arinze’s Religions for Peace points to those foundations: “Mercy, compassion, and peace are familiar concepts in the Qur’an.” [1] Indeed, the Koran teachings, similar to Christ, that we are expected to do good to those who would wish us evil:

The Qur’an states that if a person repays evil with good, that person will win the enemy over to become a friend: ‘Not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. Repel with that which is fairer and behold, he between whom and thee there is enmity shall be as if he were a loyal friend’ (Q 41:34). [2]

Vatican II tells us that we need to get to know Muslims better, and to end the dogmatic anti-Islamic rhetoric of the anti-Muslim polemical tradition:

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.[3]

Instead of listening to the Church and working to find common ground to help promote peace, many Catholics continue to look for those who would demonize Islam and listen only to them — no matter how silly or outrageous those demagogues end up being.

But, not only does his hate for Islam get followers, in today’s political climate, his position on migration gets him many followers :

There must be obstacles to deter the illegal aliens, human traffickers, drug runners, and Islamic terrorists who are exploiting our porous border. I support some type of physical deterrent, fence or wall, anything which will canalize activity to areas where we can have better control.

We have to end the failed ideal of “multiculturalism” as it pertains to subjugating American culture to every other culture. The practice of easily obtained student visas led to the horror of 9-11. We can no longer grant these visas, or any others, to citizens entering from Countries known to harboring terrorist groups, especially Islamic terrorist groups.

We must clean out our prisons of illegal immigrants and have harsher penalties against illegals perpetrating crimes against American citizens. The “anchor baby” practice must be terminated. Lastly, any American city classifying itself as a “sanctuary city” must be cut off from receiving any federal government funding.

There are many problems with this position. He does not, for example, ask why the illegal aliens are coming here. One wonders if he thinks pagan nations were right in advocating “physical deterrents” against Christian missionaries who they saw as illegally entering their nations? Does he understand that his stand against granting student visas from countries known to “harbor terrorist groups” would end up denying student visas from all nations in the world? And what about the “anchor baby”? Is he advocating an overturning of the Constitution (“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”)? While I can understand why someone who promotes big government over people might want to oppose “sanctuary cities,” which Catholics are wanting to promote and support someone who goes against Catholic understanding of migration and the charity we are to give to immigrants (legal or illegal?). I also think offering such harsh penalties, not only going against solidarity, are also going against subsidiarity.

Clearly, this is man whose promotion and engagement of intrinsic evils in his military career is willing to engage evil for the sake of national goals. He shows no concern for the dignity of the human person — his concern is for the dignity of the powerful nation-state. I cannot be end up being appalled that so many Catholics are willing to join his political wagon despite how antithetical it is to a culture of life. To be pro-life requires one to be more than merely against abortion. It requires one to be pro-life in all of its stages, to support human dignity. It is, indeed, to promote grace, charity, for one’s fellow human being, to look at them and see them with eyes of compassion. With West, we find the eyes of fear, a fear for the other, and this explains well the abuse he support against the other, the stranger in his midst. While we should look to West with compassion and understand why he has come to such a position himself, we must not, cannot let him spread that fear across the land. There is no way we can promote a culture for life if we do.

Footnotes

[1] Francis Cardinal Arinze, Religions for Peace (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 19.

[2] ibid., 19-20.

[3] Nostra Aetate, 3. (Vatican Translation).


Browse Our Archives