Mr President--Yellow Ain't Your Best Color

The Obama Administration has withdrawn US participation in the planning process leading to Durban II. The US will not, in all probability, be represented at what is widely dubbed the "Hatefest."

There is absolutely no doubt that the vile clique with Iran at the position of drum major has prepared a draft Outcome Document which is a reprise of the vitriol directed at Israel which characterised Durban I. There is likewise no doubt that the repressive men from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and their fellow travelers are further degrading Durban II with their all-out assault on free expression under the (transparent) cover of protecting religion (read Islam) from "insult" (whatever that might mean.)

These brute facts are no excuse to leave the process, to boycott Durban II.

These brute facts compel the opposite. The US and like minded countries must stay in the fight.

To surrender the field to Iran and Company is utterly, totally, completely wrong. It is utterly, totally and completely counterproductive.

True, the highest probability is that Durban II will be a conclave of antisemitism with or without our presence. This international band of Islamist Klansmen will, with the support of other, non-Islamic governments, seek a global gag order on assorted forms of free expression.

No doubt. Whether we are there or not the bad guys will outvote the good ones.

So what?

It isn't all about votes and resolutions. It is not about who carries the plenary sessions.

If not that sort of thing, what's it all about?

Glad you asked. Durban II including every dreary planning session, every miserable quibble over the Outcome Document, is really about ideals, values, rights. It's all about who stands for what. And, mark this, who stands against what.

It's all about the fight. It's all about the "Bully Pulpit" provided by the conference and the run-up to it.

It's all about letting the people of the world know clearly and unequivocally what the United States stands for. And, who stands with us.

And, mark this, who stands in opposition.

It is the opportunity for clear words, strongly stated, to capture the attention of people around the globe. It is the opportunity for diplomatic hissy-fits to demand the full view and coverage of the media both old and new.

Whether the Obama Administration and We the People want it or not, we are in a war of ideas and ideals, of values and worldviews. Whether the Obama Administration and We the People want it, like it, or not, the current battle like those which have gone before it, will have a profound and durable effect on the course of humanity.

Durban II is a skirmish in the war. It pits (or will do so if the Obama Administration exhibits both courage and realism) two clear cut visions of the future against one another.

On the one side resides fear of change expressed as repression and reaction. On the other resides hope for the future and openness to change expressed in the willingness to see ideas clash and people differ for the sake of a better tomorrow,

On one side at Durban II is the belief that tomorrow must be like a long ago yesterday in the Arabian desert. The other side is the side which acknowledges that tomorrow will be different from today, and, hopefully better by far than any yesterday.

It is to our detriment that our side--the side of freedom, opportunity, openness, a willingness, even an eagerness to see and work for a better future--simply resigns before the skirmish even gets underway.

There is no benefit in forfeiting a skirmish, a battle, a war.

There is only loss.

We have to go into the ring. Throw the diplomatic hissy-fits. Give no ground. Confront loudly, boldly. Capture the attention of the world with drama. With truth. Let the world see up close and personal just what the opposition is all about. Call them down on their rigid, fear driven intolerance. Demonstrate the opposition's commitment to a long dead past, its love of repression, its will to kill ideas that differ from their particular party line.

Do it with the intent of allowing and encouraging the people of the world to choose sides. Think of it as being akin to the real impact of the Marshall Plan--a mechanism for self-selection of side.

If we do this rather than withdraw in a finger pointing huff we will benefit.

But, and get a grip on this, we will not be the only beneficiaries of a good, loud fight at Durban II.

The other beneficiaries, you ask?

The minorities within Islamic countries such as Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan and dozens of others who do not want to live under backward looking Islamic (let alone Islamist) regimes. The minorities who do not want to live under Sharia and the dictates of those "clerics" who interpret it.

These people do not fear the future. To err on the side of accuracy, they do not fear change.

"Wait one, Geek! How does that scan? I'm missing something."

When the in-depth studies done in Islamic countries examining such core matters as the preference for living under a full-strength Sharia regime are closely parsed as to motivation, the answer becomes clear. People in countries as disparate as Indonesia and Jordan, Egypt and Azerbaijan say they want Sharia for three basic reasons.

The first reason is "preservation of traditional morals." The second is "to prevent adultery." The third is "to regulate women's dress and behavior."

Here's the point: Historically, people, including those in the US, when confronted by rapid and seemingly incomprehensible change, react by seeking to control the behavior of women. This desperate gambit is an attempt by men to keep at least one solid pillar in the storms of change.

"Huh?"

Yep, bucko, American history, particularly during the periods of intense and rapid change such as those occurring during the urbanization of the post-Civil War decades, the aftermath of the two World Wars, and the Sixties show a reactionary thrust against the behavior (particularly in public) and words of women. In our own society there were repeated calls for a sort of American Sharia.

Check it out for yourself. The information is all there and you don't need a PhD to connect the dots.

(Note for the feminists our there: This male orientation to reaction is not a simple matter of sexual politics and the presumed need of pale penis people for control and domination. Rather it grows from the simple, biologically determined evolutionary reality that men have to be inherently conservative to survive in hostile environments doing risky things. The same forces assure that women are far more open to change, even eagerly seeking it. Think of it this way: Men are lakes. Women are rivers.)

The people in the Muslim dominated societies who do not desire industrial strength Sharia need to know they are not alone. They need to know that there is strong support for their position. They need to know that the US and other countries (in one of those current buzz phrases the Geek detests) "are there for them."

Ethics and realpolitik both dictate that the US can no more leave these people in the ditch than it can or should toss its interests under the locomotive.

Backing out of Durban II including the planning process does just this. While taking this cowardly course may be easy and may very well satisfy some human rights and Jewish groups, it is tossing the game. And, Mr President, real men don't do this.

Mr Obama, you promised "hope" and "change." Durban II is a battlefield for both. Take off the white jacket with the yellow stripe on the back and put on a set of BDUs. The time to fight is now. The place to fight is Durban II.