You need to read the column below by Trudy Ruhin on "Islamo-fascism". Well, it would be good if you read and understood it, but I'm not sure that you can in your current frame of mind. But many people need to read it, because it is an idiotic term, obscuring far far more than it illuminates, and doing so in a dangerous way. At the rate they are going, the Bush admin will indeed succeed in being "uniters not dividers," but will succeed in united not only our enemies but groups that have been enemies for about 1300 years or so, despite the best efforts of any number of people to get them together.
I suppose that is a fine accomplishment. He can go down in the annals of Islam as The Great Uniter. Though, of course, the way history is generally written, he won't even get the credit for that, lol.
'Islamo- fascism': a good word?
By Trudy Rubin
Philadelphia Inquirer
Are we "at war with Islamic fascists"? That's what President Bush said right after British police broke up a plot to blow up aircraft crossing the Atlantic.
The term Islamo-fascism is being used with increasing frequency in the blogosphere and in conservative journals as an all-purpose label for extremist Muslims. It's certainly a convenience for politicians -- a great sound bite to rally voters by giving the enemy a concrete image.
The label provides a rallying cry for those who want to cast themselves in the mantle of Winston Churchill fighting World War II. But does raising the specter of "Islamic fascists" aid the anti-terrorist struggle?
First, let's examine the accuracy of the phrase.
Fascism originated in Italy as a mass movement that Benito Mussolini rode to power in 1922. But the term fascist is widely thrown around to cover almost any authoritarian movement or bully.
Webster defines fascism as "a system of government characterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized government control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism."
In other words, fascism is a political doctrine. Muslim critics say the president's term defames their religion. Indeed, it would be more accurate to use the term Islamist fascism or fascist Islamism. The distinction is more than a semantic quibble.
Why so? Because it's important to stress the difference between religious Muslims and those who use the religion for political purposes. Islamism is the term for a political ideology that misuses religious precepts as a tool to take power. Islamism is similar to the many "ism"s of the 20th century, and Islamists are its followers.
Islamism is gaining ground in the Middle East after the failure of Arab socialism and nationalism, and growing Arab cynicism about liberal democracy. In its most radical forms, Islamism espouses a rigid Islam as the basis for an authoritarian system. Radical Islamism is hostile to the West (not just to Western policies) and to non-Muslims. In some virulent Sunni forms, Islamism calls for the death of Muslims who don't toe a particular religious line.
The Taliban are radical Islamists. Those who join al Qaeda are radical Islamists. The label also applies to the present Iranian government, which suppresses political opposition, squeezes Iran's economy and stirs up a poisonous brew of populist nationalism and virulent hostility toward Israel and Jews. During the last Iranian election campaign, some reformist candidates warned that presidential candidate Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's populism could lead to "fascism."
So it is philosophically apt to apply the term fascism to specific Islamist political movements. But does it help the anti-terrorist struggle for the president to label it a "war against Islamic fascists"?
For several reasons, the answer is a resounding "no."
This blanket term confuses the American public about the nature of the struggle they are facing. This is not World War II, where an Adolf Hitler was bent on, and capable of, territorial conquest. This is not a war of standing armies seeking to capture land.
The West is engaged in a long-term fight against disparate radical Islamist groups that are alienated by globalization and the backwardness of their countries. In the words of Steven Cook, Mideast expert for the Council on Foreign Relations: "There are different groups with different political interpretations of Islam and different goals. There is no real address for 'Islamo-fascism.'"
Lumping all these groups under a single rubric creates the image of one worldwide and powerful jihadi movement rather than disparate groups whose differences can be exploited. For example, Iranians hate al Qaeda, which considers them to be infidels. And Arab Sunnis will never follow the lead of Shiite Iranians, no matter the current cockiness of Tehran's leaders.
By exaggerating the unity and destructive power of terrorist groups, we play into al Qaeda's hands, says James Fallows in the current Atlantic Monthly after conversations with 60 of America's top terrorist experts. We bolster Osama bin Laden's ego and reputation (along with the inflated self-image of Ahmadinejad.)
We also blur the strategies for countering such groups as Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, Pakistani's Lashkar-e-toiba or British Islamist cells. Such strategies differ by country and involve diplomacy and police work as much as military action.
Raising the "Islamo-fascist" cry fosters false hope that terrorism can be halted with one great military strike -- a Berlin or Hiroshima.
I keep getting e-mails suggesting that we can win if we bomb Tehran. On the contrary, al Qaeda would get thousands of new recruits who, although they despise Shiites, would join up because America was killing Muslims. In the meantime, the Iranian regime would grow stronger. There is still a chance to change Iran's direction through diplomacy -- backed by carrots and (economic) sticks.
The term Islamo-fascism has political wings and plays to the president's mantra of good vs. evil. But it obscures the complex nature of the struggle that Americans will face during the next decade. It misleads more than it informs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial board member at The Philadelphia Inquirer. trubin@phillynews.com |
