Win, since you seem bent on retreading the tires on your rhetorical Yugo, here's a reply to you from the last time you quoted Fallows.
It appears Fallows doesn't see the fascist nature of the Baathist, Hussein regime as a "bogus analogy" but a serious matter. So serious it appears to "paralyze debate," he says.
He doesn't find in Baathist Iraq and the islamist ideological forces a similarity to the power of the totalitarian regimes of Nazi Germany and the Soviets. Of course, they don't have that sort of material power. But in the context of his neighborhood Saddam Hussein constituted a threat very much like that Hitler did for his. He was, unlike Hitler, not totally defeated and obliterated, and instead there was an armistice agreement which he has continually broken as he trys to rearm.
Both the Baathist secular and the islamist religious movements are strongly anti-democratic and anti-modernist and as Fallows says, are dedicatedly our enemies.
Now, Fallows is not entirely correct when he says Iraq has no industrial base. It has enough to at least be somewhat successful at import substitution when it comes to weaponry. Ans it also has a 'virtual' industrial base in that, with its oil revenues, it can and does buy weaponry and materials to make weapons even so-called WMDs. And manages this even in face of UN sanctions. Iraq also has enough of an industrial base to build and manage extensive public works and even manage under some serious restraints its oil industry. All this, despite sanctions and the exile of a good part of its most competent citizens. It has far more of an industrial base than its neighbours except possibly Turkey and Iran. It certainly has much more of a home grown industrial base than Saudi Arabia.
Fallows' concern in the article, and a concern of mine, as you know, is that the US might not have thought through what the after part of the war might look like. He claims in the quote above, but does not show, that the fascist description -which is factual- limits imagination with regard to the aftermath of invading Iraq.
It doesn't, of course, and the rest of his article is demonstration of that. You might read my notes on it.
The usefulness of the ideological description of Iraq's government (which is fascist) and how it's behaviour correlates with that of previous fascist regimes is that it informs us of what must be done to defeat it.
Now, with respect to your Orwell incantation. You seem to believe that Orwell at all times thought "fascist" was a meaningless word. Certainly it can achieve that status as a name calling device but it also stands for a way of looking at the world, which I even gave you a description of by an expert. Since you managed either not to notice it or deliberately elided it, I'll paste it here:
fordham.edu
In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism.
Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death....
...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after...
...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of?Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society....
After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage....
...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress....
...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State....
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.
In just about every respect the Baathist ideology and Hussein's activities coincides with the above.
I might say, with the happy omniscience of history, that most of the folk who "suffered and died" for fascism were its victims. Similarly in Iraq. Similarly in Afghanistan. Similarly in Iran.
With respect to Iraq, al Qaeda and OBL. This is my answer, not Bill's.
I don't think the connection in terms of coordination, mutual aid, etc, if there is one, (and there probably is), is nearly as important as their similarities. This is a much more important "connection" for the Middle East and for the West.
Iraq's regime, the Baathist pan-Arabism, and al Qaeda - the most visible spearhead of islamism - are profoundly anti-democratic and anti-modernist. This in an area where most of the governments are undemocratic and authoritarian. The nature of these governments provide a breeding ground for for islamist and Baathist type movements as their citizens are reduced to despair and fury. You know the rest of how it works as well as I do....
The West, particularly the US, has through inadvertance, or Cold War requirements, or convenience, has supported many of the rotten regimes which, for the advantage of ME rulers have prohibited citizens getting access to modernity and thus has given the Saddams and bin Ladens a focus for their expansionary fascist (yes, fascist!) programs. Furthermore, the West, especially the US is at war with both these forces and has been for some time.
It's time to shut down the recruiting ground. But this can only be done if there is visible change in Western, (for sure, US), policy.
It has to be clear that the US is no longer "siding with the dictators." That is the common sentiment among ordinary folk in the Middle East. Or, as I see it, the message that has to be changed is, "modernity, democracy, prosperity, is OK for us but not for Arabs, and Muslims, etc" with the unspoken sub-text, "we'll just buy the oil and you folk can remain in medieval misery."
Putting aside Hussein's regime and replacing it with something reasonable, is a strong message. That the US will invest its own treasure and lives in doing so makes it a powerful one.
Replacing the Saddam regime with a more reasonable, pro-democratic one is a necessary, but not sufficient requirement for inhibiting recruitment for al Qaeda type movements.
Whether or not bin Laden's bunch has a cooperative venture with Hussein is not important to me. They are both our enemies and both should be defeated. If they do have a coop venture going, then defeating Hussein is advantageous to us. |
