Dropping the F-Bomb, Part II

The Uses of "Islamo-Fascism"

“Yes, [fascism will come to America], but we will call it ‘anti-fascism’.”
- Huey Long

There are several incarnations of the above quote floating around the internet. Another version goes "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag." But the general idea remains the same. Fascism, if it ever showed up in our society, would cloak itself in American garb and claim to represent "freedom on the march" or something like that.

This brings me, somewhat belatedly, to my earlier discussion of the strange use of the word fascism by the Bush administration. The term they've decided to throw around, "Islamo-fascism", has almost no meaning at all on its own merits. As we have seen, even taken within the context in which they use it, it fails the sniff test miserably.

So why would they use it? Before going into the details, let's first go back a bit to clarify some of the basics.

Fascism, as it is commonly understood and defined, is a secular phenomenon more closely associated with corporatism than religion. The term was coined by the Italian philosopher, Giovanni Gentile, ghost-writing "The Doctrine of Fascism" to describe the government and philosophy of Benito Mussolini. In a passage famously misattributed to Mussolini himself Gentile wrote:

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power".

It's pretty clear that of all the flaws we can associate with radical Islam the desire to merge state and corporate power is not one of them. The thing many radical Muslims do want to merge with government power is religion, namely Islam, not business. This is what happened in the Iranian Islamic revolution in 1979. As a result that country is now ruled by a Supreme Council comprised of powerful Shiite clerics.

Now, it can be argued that this coupling of Islam and government is why "fascism" is has been modified with the prefix "Islamo" in this new-fangled terminology. No doubt, that was clearly the thinking behind it. But the problem is that there already exists a word for this kind of governance. That word is "theocracy", a term that is never, ever associated with any known fascist regimes. Does anyone ever confuse Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy or Franco's Spain with a religious theocracy? The answer is no.

Words still have meaning and the word fascism refers to a specific style of governance characterized by secular, militaristic, nationalistic, xenophobic, authoritarian and often racist rhetoric, ideology and policies. Radical Islam, to the contrary, refers to a set of beliefs that are religious rather than secular; pan-Arab and pan-Muslim rather than nationalistic; multi-racial rather than racist; and multi-ethnic rather than xenophobic. The distinction is stark even if we limit our analysis to Islamic militants. It becomes even sharper if you mix in the inclusiveness of more moderate and orthodox Islamic views.

So the invented word, "Islamo-fascism", is really nothing more than a blatant contradiction in terms. The number of "Islamo-fascists" in the world is exactly equal to the number of Catholic Atheists you'll find. It's an absurdity, utter foolishness with no real meaning whatsoever.

So, again, why do they use it? Here's a hint. It's not that they're stupid. This terminology serves a few very important purposes for the Bush administration specifically, the American right more generally and many of their supporters.


The Preemptive F-bomb

First and foremost, the use of this terminology helps get the Bush Administration out in front of the issue of fascism itself. This is especially advantageous for them because as each day passes the analogy between the US in 2006 and Germany of the early 1930s becomes ever stronger. Even to them this comparison is inescapable, so much so that they've made a fetish of keeping ownership of the WWII theme, as you will see.

So, to cover up this vulnerability they have chosen to engage in a little projection. In short, they are labeling someone else, anyone else, 'fascists' before the label can be affixed to their own foreheads. So it seems, Bush's doctrine of preemption extends to rhetoric as well. By the way, if anyone doubts the plausibility of projection as a motivation, look no further than the case of Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fl) who, prior to his recent outing, was one of the most outspoken crusaders against sexual predators targeting underaged youngsters on the internet.

This projection is enabled by a media establishment that, up to this point, has faithfully shunted aside any attempt to study the authroritarian or fascistic aspects of our current government, its policies or its rhetoric. Quite to the contrary it has proven itself quite eager to promote and amplify the government's pre-packaged messages with respect to each of these. Any discussion to the contrary has been shouted down and deemed far too "shrill" or "extreme" for "serious" people to discuss. As a result, Bush's supporters have been free to scoff at the analogy for years without fear of rebuke or challenge despite the obvious corollaries. It is as if an invisible seal has been placed over the entire concept preventing even a cursory examination of it in the mainstream.

Into this void steps the Bush administration with its squadron of flying monkeys in the right-wing media. Because of the strict embargo the media has placed on the use of the term -- and the appalling timidity of the liberal and Democratic party establishment -- the Bush gang has been allowed to preemptively assume the mantle of anti-fascism as their own and, in the process, divert attention away from their own dances with the fascist devil.

"We're not fascists! We're fighting fascists!" If only it were true.


WWII Motif

By framing their policies as part of some epic, existential battle against the scourge of global "Islamo-fascism" the Bush administration also hopes to create an alternative World War II analogy that casts them in a more favorable light. In their Orwellian version, the fascists are not corporatists here in the US. Instead they point to the various factions of radicalized Muslims in the middle-east and the hodge-podge of oppressive regimes in that region. The reasoning goes; if those are the fascists and the Bush administration is fighting them, then George W. Bush must be a modern-day Winston Churchill (of course, Churchill wasn't even Churchill, but that's neither here nor there; let's stay focused). It follows then that anyone who questions the legitimacy or necessity of Bush's military adventurism must be the modern-day incarnation of "weak-kneed Nazi-appeasers" like Neville Chamberlain or, even worse, Islamo-fascist sympathizers or even traitors.

Once the world has been so defined it takes only a small leap of logic to conclude that enemies of Bush are enemies of freedom. In this manichean framework you're either with us or against us and if you're against us, even if you are an American, you are the enemy and are eligible to be spirited away on a mystery tour of black sites and torture rooms. So, it's entirely reasonable that we now have laws in place to empower our high protector to do just that, you see.


Mission Creep

Throw the "Powell Doctrine" out of the window. It was never a part of the plan. Almost every facet of that set of principles presented by Colin Powell has been systematically ignored by the Bush administration. Check the scorecard. Powell's doctrine required that the following questions all be answered in the affirmative before military action should be taken. Let's see how Bush's actions in Iraq stack up against that standard:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened? As has been proven, no.


2. Do we have a clear attainable objective? Clearly not.


3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Nope.


4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted? Ha!


5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? See #3.


6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? See #3.


7. Is the action supported by the American people? At the time, I must admit, sadly, yes. But, of course, that support was based on blatant lies. If they had been told the truth at the outset, I believe Americans would have responded differently.


8. Do we have genuine broad international support? Negatory!

So, clearly the Powell Doctrine does not influence this administration. From the very beginning it seems as though Powell was intended to function as nothing more than a show pony fronting for the cabal that really made policy. That's unfortunate because the key to that doctrine, though only implied here in item #2, is the avoidance of "mission creep", the notorious failing of the Vietnam War that Powell knew all too well. With mission creep, the scope and objectives of military operations are constantly shifting and expanding. The need to avoid falling prey to this syndrome is widely seen as one of the enduring lessons of the Vietnam experience.

However, as strange as it may seem, for the Bush administration mission creep actually seems to be the goal. We were initially told that war was being thrust upon us by an Iraqi regime that threatened us and the world with "the most lethal weapons ever devised". They told us that we had to go to war there in order to seize and destroy these "weapons of mass destruction" before Saddam Hussein rained death upon us all.

Then, once were were already involved we were told that WMD were not the issue at all. Instead it was democracy for the Iraqis, which necessitated a prolonged occupation of that country. From there it morphed into the democratization of the entire middle-east.

Now, finally it is now a full-blown struggle of global proportions. We find ourselves now unwittingly cast in a multi-generational, global conflict against the scourge of "Islamo-fascism" which threatens to take us into Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, Syria to fight Ba'athists, Iran to fight the Shia, not to mention Indonesia, Africa and strangely enough, Venezuela (Islamo-fascism knows no borders, you know; Hugo Chavez has been seen in the company of Muslims). All of this, we are told, was thrust upon our supposedly reluctant leaders by the vicissitudes of world events ("America didn't ask for this war", says Bush). It is only coincidentally convenient to the pursuit of the goals outlined 9 years ago by these folks). But now that we're in it, they say more war may be "inevitable".


Soft on Theocracy

As I've alluded to above, the radical Islamic ideologies that drive Islamic terrorism and oppressive Islamic governments are best described as theocratic. However, defining the enemy around that terminology is problematic for President Bush and his evangelical base of supporters. The Christian Right movement has an inherent vulnerability on the issue of theocracy.

With their base of support eroding to a small group of hard-core "dead-enders", so to speak, neither the Bush administration nor the GOP can afford to alienate even the most radical factions of that group. If they were to frame their global war-making as an epic struggle against theocracy they risk not only a frontal counterattack from critics on the rank hypocrisy of it all , but it would be particularly awkward for those radical factions on the right who hold theocratic views themselves (the theocratic tendencies of this government and its supporters is well-documented and something that they've even celebrated publicly, but I'll deal with that later).

For this reason, raging against the broad threat of theocracy can't be the centerpiece of the Bush team's pitch. It cuts too close to home and raises too many uncomfortable questions. Another term was needed in it's place, one that shields their most-favored theocrats from any potential political blowback. The word they chose for this purpose is "Islamo-fascism". In addition to serving all the purposes outlined above, this phrasing takes theocracy off the table and specifically excludes Christianity from it's scope, thereby placating the radical reconstructionists, dominionists and Christian Zionists who animate a significant portion of the evangelical right.

Fortunately for us in the reality-based community, this framing of the issue doesn't have to rule the day. Playing the fascism card, dropping the F-bomb, is a double-edged sword. It breaks the seal on the discussion of fascism and its characteristics in mainstream discourse and allows us to venture into previously forbidden but fertile ground.

Coming soon: Dropping the F-Bomb, Part III: "The Seal Has Been Broken"

See also: Dropping the F-Bomb, Part I

Read more...

Dropping the F-Bomb, Part I

Did you say, "Islamo-fascism"?

"Excuse me, did you say, 'Islamo-Fascism'?"

As illustrated in a previous post, our top leaders in Washington have been very busy as of late invoking the "F-word" in order to cast their policies in the heroic light of the World War II era. Recently we have seen a sharp increase in this kind of rhetoric with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference Rick Santorum and President George W. Bush himself all chiming in to explain to us that the United States is engaged in an existential battle against a force they alternately call "Islamo-fascism" or "Islamic fascism". For example:

"This is the beginning of a long struggle against an ideology that is real and profound. It's Islamo-fascism. It comes in different forms. They share the same tactics, which is to destroy people and things in order to create chaos in the hopes that their vision of the world become predominant in the Middle East."

George W. Bush
August 7, 2006

---

An aside: In Bush's own words, to "destroy people and things in order to create chaos in the hopes that their vision of the world become[s] predominant in the Middle East" is an "Islamo-fascist" tactic, yet it sounds strangely familiar.

---

But what is "Islamo-fascism" exactly and who are the "Islamo-fascists"? Last week in a speech to the American Legion in Salt Lake City, Utah (Utah again), President Bush took time out to explain:

When terrorists murder at the World Trade Center, or car bombers strike in Baghdad, or hijackers plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic, or terrorist militias shoot rockets at Israeli towns, they are all pursuing the same objective -- to turn back the advance of freedom, and impose a dark vision of tyranny and terror across the world.

The enemies of liberty come from different parts of the world, and they take inspiration from different sources. Some are radicalized followers of the Sunni tradition, who swear allegiance to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Others are radicalized followers of the Shia tradition, who join groups like Hezbollah and take guidance from state sponsors like Syria and Iran. Still others are "homegrown" terrorists -- fanatics who live quietly in free societies they dream to destroy. Despite their differences, these groups from -- form the outlines of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology. And the unifying feature of this movement, the link that spans sectarian divisions and local grievances, is the rigid conviction that free societies are a threat to their twisted view of Islam.

All emphases are, of course, mine.

As usual when this man speaks, volumes are required to fully address the torrent of doublespeak that ensues. I will try to stay focused. He claims that the unifying feature that binds these groups together is a conviction that free societies threaten their view of Islam. But how does that feature apply to secular, Ba'athist dictatorships like the Saddam's Iraq or Assad's Syria? Islamic groups like Al Qaeda consider these regimes direct threats to their goals and to Islam. They've even gone on record to say so. These leaders are known for their hostility towards Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden.

---

Another aside: If Syria is in league with "Islamo-fascist" terror, why is the Bush administration sending "Islamo-fascist" terror suspects to Syria for interrogation? Alternatively, why does Syria have such a reputation for torturing and killing these supposed allies?

---

How does this feature apply to Hezbollah in Lebanon or Hamas in Palestine, movements that are an active, legal participants in the democratic process in their respective countries, democracies that Bush himself praised just last year? Is it because they resist Israeli aggression? Is that what is meant by the "advance of free societies"? To the non-Jewish citizens of Lebanon and Palestine an approach by Israel is anything but an 'advance of a free society. Read more about that here.

Moreover, Bush's statement we didn't give us much detail about what exactly this "totalitarian ideology" is. Instead he has attempted to bring together a wide array of differing groups under a single umbrella of his own creation. The people he mentions come from places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria (just to name a few). If we are to believe the president, "Islamo-fascism" is a single movement comprised not only of all these cultures but of Sunni fundamentalists, Shia fundamentalists, secular governments, Islamic governments and a Muslim family near you.

Now, in fairness, I have to admit that he does narrow it down a bit. First of all he makes it clear that he's only talking about the extremists within these groups so I'll accept that. But then he also makes a point of pre-empting questions about the obvious flaw in his argument by adding:

"Despite their differences, these groups... form the outlines of a single movement..."

These are nothing more than weasel words. By qualifying his claim of their supposed sameness with the phrase "outlines of" Bush is intentionally creating a hedge against the fact that these groups are not the same at all and in fact are, in many cases, in direct conflict with one another. Think of it as an escape hatch. For example, if one were to say:

"But Mr. Bush, if the Sunni extremists and the Shia extremists are part of the same movement why are they fighting one another in Iraq?"

He could respond with:

"Nobody in my administration ever said they were exactly same movement. I said they form the outlines of a single movement. "

Clearly this would be a ridiculous defense but nevertheless there is no reason to doubt that such nonsense is in the playbook (after all, this president has shown no fear of making ridiculous assertions in the past). To illustrate, Senator Rick Santorum advanced exactly such an argument just last week:

"Were the Japanese imperialists with their mind-set and their ideology the same as the Nazis? Obviously not. Were they the same as the fascists in Italy? Obviously not. But they were still a common enemy... We're at war with Islamic fascism... Afghanistan and Iraq and southern Lebanon and every country around the world is a front."

That sets it all up quite nicely doesn't it? Here we see the Transitive Axiom of Muslim Equivalence in all it's maddening glory. All of these Muslims are now the same and any glaring differences among them that may contradict that point can be summarily dismissed. Why? Because they are all official enemies of the United States and that makes them all the same.

It matters not that -- unlike Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany before WWII -- Saddam and the leaders of Iran were blood enemies before the US invasion of Iraq. It's doesn't matter that the Islamic Revolution of Iran reviled Saddam's secular Ba'athist regime as did most radical Islamist groups. They're still part of the same "Islamo-fascist" movement, we are told.

---

Yet another aside: Why did the US see Saddam as a stalwart against the advance or Iran's Islamic Revolution if he was part of the same movement? Why did he start a war with them?

---

It is deemed imperative to our very survival that we ignore the fact that the Sunni and Shia militias in Iraq are at each others' throats, bombing each others' mosques, torturing and executing one another (a horrific frenzy of internal bloodletting that the US will steadfastly refuse to call a civil war until Stonewall Jackson shows up). This is all irrelevant, you see, because they are still on the "outlines" of the same movement.

Likewise, the Shiite Hezbollah movement in Lebanon is the same as the Sunni Muslim Hamas movement in Palestine. The fact that one is Shia and the other is Sunni means nothing, they say. The Transitive Axiom dictates that a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim so it follows naturally that their extremists, regardless of their stripe, are all the same too and we can call them all "Islamo-fascists". Got it? Good.

---

Last aside: I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the danger that this rhetoric may already represent a self-fulfilling prophecy, whereby the US government is proving to the Muslim world what Osama bin Laden has been claiming for years; that the US is engaged in a war against all of Islam.

---

Somehow, we still seem a bit unclear as to what "Islamo-fascism" is all about. Is this movement only about the use of certain tactics? If so, to what end? What is this vision Bush alludes to that they are trying to advance? Is it a vision of secular dictatorships like the regimes in Iraq and Syria (not to mention the ones the US supports in Egypt, Jordan and now Libya)? Is it a vision of religious theocracies like Iran or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan? Is it a vision of monarchical/religious dictatorships like the US ally in Saudi Arabia? Could one movement possibly serve all of these interests at once or is Mr. Bush's argument completely untenable?

Allow me to suggest the latter. If Bush is trying to find a common thread among these groups he has missed the mark wildly. The only common political thread uniting these diverse groups is their universal distaste for the Israeli occupation of Palestine and parts of Lebanon and Syria. A much stronger link can be found there but this dynamic is conspicuously missing from the dialogue about what might be bugging these "Islamo-fascists". Why would the White House pass on the chance to use this issue to link these group legitimately, choosing instead to give us this re-mixed version of "they hate your freedom"? Is it to avoid shifting the focus onto Israel's destabilizing role in the middle-east? That certainly sounds like a plausible motivation (at least one of them). Unfortunately for Bush, outside of the context of the Israel/Palestine conflict his premise simply doesn't work.

Believe it or not, despite the obvious shortcomings of our president, I am not of the belief that the leaders of our nation are all dumb people. They choose their words very carefully and know exactly what they're saying. They know very well that these disparate groups are not synonymous. They have an entire State Department and intelligence-gathering apparatus that produces reports and assessments of the lay of the land in the middle-east the way IHOP makes pancakes. This information is readily available to them. They don't need an obscure blogger to point it out to them. Yet they're pushing this meme anyway. There is something behind this framing of the issue that we're not being told about. In Part II of this series, "The Uses of Islamo-fascism", I will look into some possible explanations.

Read more...

Olbermann Drills Rumsfeld

Because I am not a full-time blogger, I can be a day or two slow getting some things. Here's an actual good one from the idiot box that I've been meaning to put up.

Earlier this week Donald Rumsfeld, bravely facing the hostile crowd at the American Legion in Utah (snark), gave this disgraceful speech in which he more or less said that over 60% of the American public are "morally confused" fascist appeasers. Of course, at one time this was actually true, but Bush's poll numbers have dropped significantly since then. At any rate, the speech has been well-documented and everyone by now has heard about it so I wont bother with quoting it here. Check the link if you have a morbid fascination with such garbage.

In response, Kieth Olbermann of MSNBC's Countdown scores a direct hit:



Why aren't there more Kieth Olbermann's out there?

Read more...