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.