ME: Look there is no monolithic "Islamic extremism." Any more than there was, during the Cold War, a monolithic "Communist conspiracy." There are Islamic extremists of many different stripes
YOU: So what? During the Cold War, Moscow funded local insurrections of all stripes and turned them communist and loyal to Moscow; now the various factions of Islamic extremism have no problem allying themselves across ideological divides wherever convenient. Look at how the secular Baathists are allied with Al Qaeda in Iraq; how secular Alawi Baathists in Syria are allied with Iran; how Shiite Iran has become Wahabbi Hamas' new big backer.
So what? I gave a link to Trudy Rubin before, I am excerpting the relevant part below. It is our own diplomatic clumsy obtuseness that is helping AQ gain allies where they should have and could have enemies.
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. |
