Because Conservatives are by nature generally kind, caring, generous, and thoughtful, most of us cringe when we hear someone supposedly on "our side" yell that we should "throw all the Muslims out of our country!", and we glance around, embarrassingly hoping that proximity alone won't get us associated with such an uncouth redneck. Why? Because most Muslims, at least here in America, are innocent of those activities the rest of us think about whenever we hear the word "Muslims", so throwing them out strikes us as being unjust.
And we're right. It would be unjust.
So we don't act. And we're no safer.
But hold up...
When did wars become about Justice? Was it Vietnam? I know, I know, men have been fighting "for just causes" since (probably) a few short weeks after Cain brained Abel with a rock. But that's just people having a "justification" for war, which is quite a different thing from fighting "a just war". I expect that most, maybe all, wars are fought with justification. The attacker thinks they have reason to attack (even if it is a horrible reason), and of course the defenders hardly need a justification but nevertheless they have one baked right in from the beginning.
So no, I'm not talking about needing a justification for war, I'm asking about when did we get the idea that this supremely awful thing we call "war" needed to be "just" in order to be fought?
Because it doesn't.
Your coworker Abda'rb Alrqs, a software tester from Oman, is a pretty nice guy. He's a devout Muslim, but when you and your team go out for lunch you can't help but notice that menu-wise he's far (FAR!) less trouble than your average vegetarian, especially compared to your cousin Janet. "Dabs", as everyone intentionally mispronounces his nickname, is concerned about rising anti-Muslim sentiment in our country, and is riding the fence as to whether this is all due to "Islamophobia" or whether it is an understandable reaction by the Americans around him. He's also worried sick the day is coming when his visa will be summarily revoked due to an atrocity committed elsewhere in the country by some murderous jihadi punk with whom he has absolutely no relationship, doesn't support, and given that not only have they never met but now that said jihadi has been transformed into a high-candlepower luminous mass and forcefully plasma-scattered into the trade-winds, never WILL meet, he feels such banishment would be unjust.
And he's right. It would be unjust. Quite, in fact.
But so what?
We conceptually attach "justice" to the judgement of a person's (or group's or nation's) behavior. "Is this or that a just consequence for what they're doing?" Not to get too sidetracked, but this is why "Social Justice" will never be an accepted thing across the board - too many people realize there's nothing "just" about it! There's no justice in punishing some innocent members of a group of which they had no choice in being counted part, in order to reward members of another group for real harm that none of them have experienced first-hand. But I digress...
Yes, it would be unjust to ship Dabs back to Oman for something he was not involved in.
But war is not about individual justice. War is about survival of your people and/or your culture, or it's about defeating your enemies. Those fighting a war must have the goal of "We are going to end up on top, victorious... Those other guys - not so much" or they're simply engaged in a complicated form of suicide. At the personal level, it is about loyalty, trust, assimilation, cultural adherence, "facing the enemy, united as one, with stern resolve", etc., etc.
If you're above a certain age, you're aware that in World War II our country put our citizens of Japanese descent into interment camps. I'm not going to argue this wasn't horrible, because it was. I'm not going to say it was "just", because it manifestly wasn't. So why did we do it?
Because we were fighting a war, and thought it a reasonable and necessary precaution. In other words, not "just", but rather "justified".
You may think that's a pretty flimsy justification, but take a look back across the eons of human experience and then try this other justification on for size: Japan was and is one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations of any respectable size on Earth. At the time of WWII, there were some heavily armed and powerful groups pursuing "ethnic cleansing" agendas full-speed (you may have heard about that - it was in all the papers). In the spirit of "This is war, we were sneak-attacked, and we've got to get them before they get us" we could have easily just rounded up our Japanese-Americans and summarily executed them. There's a lot of proven history behind that action.
But we didn't. And hooray for us that we didn't! Not only would that have been both a physical and moral atrocity, but it was also not necessary - it was not a requirement for ultimate victory. Good thing, too! Liquidating our Japanese would have permanently damaged the American soul, not to mention any future relationship with Japan.
So let's revisit the skillbilly above shouting "Throw all the Muslims out of our country!"
Despite the media's portrayal, he's probably a well-educated family man, and not some unwashed hippie Occupier. He's likely considered the ramifications of his suggested course of action, and has determined that ejecting the unassimilateable (according to their own Imams) is preferable to wholesale domestic slaughter and/or interment. And so far as that goes, he's right.
But there are several "due process" and "Bill of Rights" hurdles in the way, and frankly even though I'm writing on the subject I'm not at all clear on how these issues were overcome back in WWII. I think an Executive Order of some sort was involved. (Scholars, please weigh in...)
Also, unlike "being Japanese", being a Muslim has nothing to do with ethnicity (again, despite the media's portrayal). And since Muslims are encouraged to lie to the heathen, you can imagine how incomplete a response you might get to the announcement "OK, we're going to be deporting all Muslims... so, show of hands, please, who here is a Muslim?"
On balance, I don't think throwing out all Muslims is really "doable". Also, when it comes to our home-grown, US-born Muslims, throw them out to where?
Here's my extremely NON-PC, and obviously counter-to-Obama's plans, suggestion:
We should "Throw all the Non-US-Citizen Muslims out of our country!" We're talking about people who do not actually have an inborn right to be here. Cancel their visas. Make them leave.
You may ask "Well, won't you still run into the problem of determining who is a Muslim and who is not?" The answer to which is YES, yes we would. There's a solution for that as well - expelling all visa holders from predominantly Muslim nations.
Yemeni? Afghani? Saudi? Enjoy your trip! Try not to throw acid on schoolgirls when you get home, OK?
From Etceterastan? Try the in-flight salad, and yes I believe the goat sandwich is halal.
You may continue asking "Wouldn't that sweep up a bunch of innocent non-Muslims as well?"
YES, yes it would. Which would be sad. There might even be a reliable way around it - some way of genuinely separating Muslims from non-Muslims, but even if there's not (which is my guess), expelling entire nationalities, including your fine visa-carrying coworker Abda'rb "Dabs" Alrqs, is still a far cry better than exterminating them.
"But that sounds extremely unjust!" You may cry.
Well yeah, it IS unjust. There's nothing just about it!
"Then how can you justify it?" You may demand.
Because this is war, and we're fighting for our survival, which is paramount over all other concerns including individual justice being shown to visiting citizens of countries governed by an adversarial political philosophy.
If you're worried about the ramifications of fighting an "unjust war", just consider the ramifications of losing one.
"BUT WE'RE NOT AT WAR WITH ALL OF ISLAM, YOU IDIOT!" You may scream.
And it is high time we were...
Because Dar al-Islam is undeniably at war with US!
We must fight, and win, this unjust war.