I’m glad that I am not the only one that finds the word ‘fascism’ inappropriate when applied to Islamists. Here is Sam Schultz, “who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with the Indiana Army National Guard and acts as the Republican Senior Advisor to VoteVets.org.”
“I am a proud Republican, who ran for my party’s nomination for Congress in Indiana, because I believe in traditional values.
I also believe we need to be vigilant in defending America. That is why I feel I must speak out about the Administration’s recent contention that the war in Iraq is part of the fight against “Islamic fascism.”
First, we are not fighting an enemy that fits the definition of fascist, nor does Iraq resemble anything close to Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy. Second,I do not believe the war in Iraq has furthered our battle against radical Islamism.
Our strategic defeat in Iraq will have consequences. Many of those consequences will be negative. But it will not be a victory of fascism over democracy. It is more likely to be a victory of instability over stability. Our allies in the region (Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt) are not democrats and with the exception of Qatar, they cannot really be considered reformers either. We have seen three experiments with Democracy in the region since the Iraq War commenced. In Palestine, Hamas gained power and Israel responded by arresting a large chunk of their Parliament. In Lebanon, Hizbollah made gains and received ministry positions. Israel responded by bombing their country and occupying the south. In Iraq, the theocratic Shi’a parties took control. This has led to sectarian warfare on a frightening scale. It would be inaccurate to define the governments in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine as fascist. That designation would be more accurate if applied to Egypt and Syria. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are authoritarian monarchies. Iran is a strange mix of authoritarian democracy and theocracy.
The Ba’ath movement combined elements of Stalinism and fascism. In its initial stages it moved back and forth between an anti-communist movement and a self-avowed Marxist movement. But once the Ba’athists seized power in Syria and Iraq, they emulated both the nationalism of European fascists and the police state tactics of Stalinist Russia. It was really the worst of both worlds.
There are two main obstacles to the democratization of the Middle East. The first obstacle can be seen in Palestine and Lebanon. When Arabs are allowed to express their political will, they will vote for parties and candidates that are committed to resistance of Israel’s occupation of Palestine and that are hostile to American interests. The second problem can be seen in Lebanon and Iraq. The Arab states are not natural states with logical boundaries. Without a strong ruling elite, they are prone to collapse into factional and sectarian fighting.
These two factors seem to have been totally overlooked by Bush when he set out his solution for terrorism.
If we just look at the nationalities of the 19 hijackers we can see why Bush’s plan makes no sense. The hijackers included two natives of the United Arab Emirates, a Jordanian, an Egyptian, and 15 Saudis. Yet, Bush has not pushed for free and fair democratic elections in any of those countries. At best, he has asked for incremental liberalization of the franchise. But his actions have made those reforms increasingly dangerous for the leaders of those countries.
The more Bush backs Israel and neglects the peace process, the less legitimacy our Arab allies have, and the less they can afford to grant political power to their people. If anything, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt have to become even more repressive police states in response. In this way, Bush’s policies turn our allies into more fascistic states, while our enemies express their democratic will with increasing anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric. And, of course, they risk falling into civil or sectarian war.
The Bush administration sees any expression of anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism as fascist. That’s simply not the case. The more nearly fascist states are the ones that are still able to suppress such rhetoric.
So, in what way is the struggle in the Middle East similar to the struggle against Germany, Italy, and Japan? The only real similarity is that we are facing an enemy that is hostile to American interests. They are willing to kill Americans to express their resistance. However, there is little likelihood that they will disturb our way of life if we leave Iraq. At least, they will not do so any more than if we stay, and perhaps less.
Contrary to official administration rhetoric, we have to fight them here because we are fighting them over there. They will continue to fight until there is an equitable agreement on the Palestinian question. After that is accomplished, there will be much less appeal in terrorism. The Arab world will be much more concerned with improving their economic situation than in alienating potential investors. If our allies can secure a decent settlement for the Palestinians they will gain legitimacy and be able to relax their police states, allowing for more participatory democracy.
The Bush administration uses the term ‘fascist’ to describe the Islamist movement, but opposition to American policy is nearly universal among all Muslims, most of the rest of the world, and roughly half the American people. That is why Rumsfeld found himself accusing the majority of the American people of treachery.
We must remove these people from office. They’ve got everything bass ackwards.
Yes.
as defined by Webster’s:
often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Sounds more like this administration than anyone in the Middle East to me.
sounds like Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the former Iraq…
Doesn’t sound like America to me. Although, this administration is abusing its power and pursuing a unitary executive theory that begins to look like dictatorial control.
That is why I said “this administration” not America. Are we agreeing here?
“Fascism is a radical totalitarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, authoritarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-anarchism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
The original fascist (fascismo) movement ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems. The most notable of these parties are the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) under Adolf Hitler but also Hungary’s Arrow Cross Party, Romania’s Iron Guard, Spain’s Falange and the French political movements led by former socialists Marcel Déat and Jacques Doriot and others. Some authors reject this broader use of the term or exclude certain of these parties and regimes.[1]…”
“…Definition
Many diverse regimes have self-identified as fascist, and defining fascism has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets. Since the 1990s, however, there has been a growing move toward some rough consensus reflected in the work of Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin, and Robert O. Paxton. See Fascism and ideology.
The word “fascism” comes from fascio (plural: fasci), which may mean “bundle,” as in a political or militant group or a nation, but also from the fasces (rods bundled around an axe), which were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates. The Italian Fascisti were also known as Black Shirts for their style of uniform incorporating a black shirt (See Also: political colour).
Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”[2].
A recent definition is that by former Colombia University Professor Robert O. Paxton:
* “Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.” [3]
Paxton further defines fascism’s essence as:
* “1. a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination.” [4]
Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:
* “Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.” [1]
Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
Stanley Payne’s Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism [5]. A similar strategy was employed by semiotician Umberto Eco in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt[6]. More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of populist fascist rhetoric that argues for a “re-birth” of a conflated nation and ethnic people[7].
Most scholars hold that fascism as a movement from the political right, especially after attaining state power. This is even more complicated when discussing Nazism, which as a socio-political movement began as a form of National Socialism, but altered its character once Hitler was handed state power in Germany. See: Fascism and ideology.
Fascism has expressed itself through both political and economic practices, and academics have examined these elements both together and in isolation. Hannah Arendt, whose focus is largely political, argues that regimes commonly thought of as fascist, such as Nazism, belong to a larger category of totalitarianisms [8]. Thayer Watkins, a professor of Economics from San José State University, identifies fascism as aligned with corporatism, a form of economic oppression that he argues includes most of the world’s governments[9]. Watkins, who some accuse of being out of step with the academic mainstream, considers Mussolini’s Fascist regime to be merely one example of the corporatist states that emerged during the Great Depression, including such diverse political systems as that of Spain, Argentina and the United States. See Fascism and ideology and Economics of fascism.
After the defeat of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in World War II, the term has taken on an extremely pejorative meaning, largely in reaction to the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis. Today, very few groups proclaim themselves fascist, and the term is often used to describe individuals or political groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian or totalitarian manner; by silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, promoting racism, or otherwise attempting to concentrate power and create hate towards the “enemies of the state”. Because of the term’s use as a pejorative, there is a great deal of controversy surrounding the question of what political movements and governments belong to fascism….”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Great work, Boo – tight, clear, and succinct.
The borders in this region were drawn by colonial administrations who were preparing to leave, around fake countries with a basic shared culture and a history of movement. Their societies and loyalties are tribal and familial, not national.
That sounds like pretty basic stuff to me.
I don’t think the Cheney administration is blind to these facts. They just don’t give a shit.
The blind followers of the Cheney administration, however, are ignorant of these basic facts, and aren’t about to start learning now.
More on this misuse of the term: Juan Cole has an excellent piece on just this subject, from Aug. 8, 2006.
A quote:
“He [Bush] contrasted “Islamic fascism” to “democracy,” presumably a reference to the Lebanese Hizbullah.
This point is incorrect and offensive for many reasons.
It is a misuse of the word “Islamic.” “Islamic” has to do with the ideals and achievements of the Muslims and the Muslim religion. Thus, we speak of Islamic art. We speak of Islamic ethics.
There can be Muslim fascists, just as there can be Christian fascists (and were, in Spain, Italy and Germany, and parts of Central and South America; the Spanish fascists and the Argentinian ones, e.g., were adopted by the United States government as close allies.)
But there cannot be “Islamic” fascists, because the Islamic religion enshrines values that are incompatible with fascism.”
http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/bush-islamic-fascism-and-christians-of.html
There are two main obstacles to the democratization of the Middle East.
Democratization? That’s deception
If we just look at the nationalities of the 19 hijackers we can see why Bush’s plan makes no sense.
Hijackers? What hijackers?Many were reported to be alive after 911. You still seem to hold on to the belief that we were attacked from without. Scary and sad.
now available in orange.
I’m glad that I am not the only one that finds the word ‘fascism’ inappropriate when applied to Islamists.
Well I have to partially disagree with you on this one. Some years ago, in fact quite some years, I had the pleasure of attending a guest lecturer from Morocco, an expert on political Islam, at the University of Oslo, Norway on Middle-Eastern affairs. He compared Islamism to Fascism and found quite a lot of important similarities. First of all the fascists are nurturing the concept of violence in the same way as early Islamism. Later it was a schism between “traditional” Islamists and Islamic jihadists, sometimes called Salafist Jihadists.
The Islamic/Salafist jihadist, as the name suggests, nurture the “holy war” against the infidels. In fact “holy war” was right and indeed even cleansing. It emphasised the boldness of the fighters in a similar way that the fascists, and even more so the Nazis, encouraged violence as a cleansing concept. The death cults in both the Nazi ideology and the salafist jihadist thinking are striking. To die for the Fuhrer and the fatherland was an honour and should be encouraged just as the salafist jihadists are emphasising the importance of and idolizing the martyrs that sacrifices themselves for the cause. Indeed the highest achievement is to die for the cause they are even promising direct access to “paradise”, indicating that all sins are forgiven when you die in combat, as a martyr. The Nazis had their “death head”-squads (SS units), while the salafist jihadists have their martyr brigades.
Suicide squads were not visible characteristics of the SS units, but the honour of dying for the fatherland and self-sacrifice was quite distinct. Surrender was seldom an option for SS units and higher officers, generals and field-marshals. One interesting example was the promotion of general von Paulus to field-marshal in the late stages of the Stalingrad battle and one of the reasons for this promotion was , obviously, the fact that all field-marshals in the German army was prohibited from surrendering to the enemy. The keyword is combat. You are purified thru combat and this is a common denominator between Fascism/Nazism and Salafi Jihadists.
The Ba’ath movement combined elements of Stalinism and fascism.
Concerning the Baath movement, it was not really an ideology that combined Stalinism and Fascism in the beginning. It was more a purely nationalistic socialism resembling the Stalinist era, which emphasised socialism in one country/empire. Nasser’s mixture of Arab nationalism and socialism was an inspiration to the Baathist founders, Michel Aflaq and Salah al-Din al-Bitar, which the union between Syria and Egypt into the United Arab republic in 1958 was a sign of. It tried to unify the Arab world into one political entity based upon secular principles. But the secession of Syria from the union in 1961 following a military coup within Syria combined with the successful coup of the Baathist Abd al-Salam ‘Arif in Iraq led to a gradual rift between the two national Baathist movements and the evolvement of nationalism on the expense of the socialist element within the ideology.
A little correction is in order. The later Baathists in Syria was inspired by the potential of Nasser’s ideas and saw a great potential for Arab unity in it. The Baathist ideology was conceived in Lebanon in the 1940s some years before Nasser’s free officers took over the reigns of Egypt.