Islama-fascism

The Republicans have coined a new term in connection with the war on terror that is at once clever, compelling, and incorrect. They are now calling every anti-government movement in Muslim lands `Islama-fascism.’

While quite a number of governments and movements in Islamic countries would appear to be covered by some sort of broad brush treatment of labeling them `fascist’, many do not, but, of course, the term has deeper meanings designed to differentiate between Republicans and Democrats in the upcoming congressional election and the ’08 presidential election. And we know who’s weak and who’s strong on national security, eh?

Without getting technical, fascists have classically reacted to the world of modernity and represent a conservatism that’s often based on race, class, or ethnicity. Anyone familiar with the ousting of the Shah and the present theocratic regime in Iran would have to see a darn good match, and, obviously, any reading of al Qaeda propaganda would draw one to a similar conclusion as it relates to the goals of Osama bi Laden and his followers.

The definition begins to fall apart when it - consciously – covers many other groups in Islamic countries that do not neatly fit the simplistic definition above. For example, one of the groups giving us great trouble in Iraq, the Baathists, does not appear to qualify. They were – and still are - a largely secular group of thugs formerly led by Saddam designed to impose their will and government on that country as we knew it prior to March 2003.

But if we lump the Baathists with the Shiite reactionaries in Iraq, who do seem to fall quite neatly under the new label, it is only a short step in justifying the Iraq War as part of the larger war on terror. If you buy that, I’ve got bridge that I want to sell the toll rights to that you might be interested in.

Last night on CNN, I saw Ed Rollins, a Republican insider who is almost always very clever in making his points without leaving right wing finger prints, move far right and imply that the Democrats were soft on terror and Islama-fascism. The evidence submitted in support of the thesis was the Democrat repudiation of Joe Lieberman ‘for voting his conscience’ in the Iraq War. That was clever, nasty, and wrong. Lieberman was dumped for a whole host of reasons not including his initial support of the war but for his insistence that the conflict was going well despite the constant pictures to the contrary being viewed by his constituents.

The Democrats seem far better organized this year - helped mightily by the obvious failure of our government’s efforts to impose democratic governance at the point of our guns - and they cannot cede the national security issue to the Republicans. If anything, the Republican led Iraq War has created more security issues than it has solved, and the far more dangerous members of the president’s Axis of Evil, Iran and North Korea, have far more flexibility in dealing with us than they would had we not unilaterally attacked Iraq.

Blog on!

Wild Bill