About the atrocities in Bombay, I will say only this — something you have heard many, many times: There is no negotiating with or appeasing these people; they must be faced down, until they don’t bother us anymore. They are the same, really, wherever they strike: Bali, London, Madrid, New York . . . They are Islamists, or Islamofascists, and the civilized world must round on them, until they die or quit. This is a war of civilization against barbarism. All the rest is a matter of details.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ADVERTISEMENT

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, the view I have just expressed is often criticized as “Manichean.” But life is sometimes like that, for better or worse: Manichean.

Earlier this year, I was standing in front of the Taj Hotel (although I didn’t stay there). Does it make me feel the atrocities more acutely? No — human sympathy has no need of travel or direct experience. But one might imagine the scene more vividly, I regret to say.

Some Indians are pointedly identifying the terrorists as “Pakistani.” And they are, in some sense. But in a more important sense: They are Islamists, or Islamofascists. It doesn’t matter where they’re from — whether Pakistan or India or the Philippines or Egypt or Amsterdam or Marin County. They are Islamist terrorists, and they must be faced down until they bother us no more.

Or did I say that already?

I imagine that many people — including some who were very, very hard on the former president of Pakistan — wish that Musharraf were still in power. During his entire time, I thought of a phrase made popular by the title of a movie: “as good as it gets.” And let us remember that Pakistani authorities have killed more al-Qaeda than most of us have ever dreamed of killing.

Some of them are killed themselves, for their acts — see, for example, David Pryce-Jones on the heroic Gen. Faisal Alvi, here.

This is one of the most arresting opening paragraphs of a news report I have ever read: “The 2-year-old orphan found drenched in the blood of his parents at the besieged Jewish center in Mumbai left India on Monday on an Israeli Air Force jet, accompanied by the Indian woman who rescued him.” (For the full report, go here.) There is a lot about Israel in that sentence, too.

For the last six or seven years, the Democratic party, the establishment media, and some weak Republican sisters have cherished a myth: America is a pariah in the world; relations with our allies are in tatters; those relations need to be “restored.” So we read that Hillary Clinton has vowed to “reach out to the world again.” Obama says that Clinton’s appointment is a “sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances.” Of his wife, Bill Clinton says, “She is the right person for the job of helping to restore America’s image abroad, end the war in Iraq, advance peace, and increase our security.”

America’s image abroad has always been a mixed proposition. You may wish to see a Paul Hollander-edited book, Understanding Anti-Americanism: Its Origins and Impact at Home and Abroad.

And how exactly are our alliances in tatters? Do the Bush critics mean the Western Europeans? Relations with those governments, as with others, wax and wane, but they’re pretty good at the moment, don’t you think? And don’t Brown, Sarkozy, Merkel, and Berlusconi think so? How about the Eastern Europeans? Do they count? In addition, we have permanent interests, not permanent allies, right? Or are we no longer Palmerstonians?

Canada, Israel, Australia — are those alliances in tatters? And will Obama improve relations with Colombia? Furthermore, George W. has been pretty nice with the Red Chinese, just like the world wants, true? He has not even pushed “Pooty Poot,” as he is said to call the boss of Russia, very hard.

I could go on: Condi Rice has had a few sharp things to say about, for example, the jailing of Egyptian bloggers. But the administration overall has been fairly warm to Mubarak, right? In fact, some Bush critics have said that W. has not done enough to rock the boat with those of our allies who are less than democratic.

We see, once more, that, in many eyes, Bush can’t win: Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

When Democrats, their media allies, and the others talk about “the world,” they really mean the U.N. bureaucracy, I think: They mean the likes of Kofi Annan and Lord Malloch-Brown. Or Davos. And self-assertive, unapologetic Americans are very unlikely to win the favor of that crowd, ever.

You may have noted that Bill Clinton said “end the war in Iraq” — and the president-elect just said, “I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission as soon as I take office, responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control.” Why do these people talk about “ending” the war in Iraq — rather than winning or losing it?