Brando70 wrote:Rob, I think the description of Saddam's Iraq shows why "Islamofascism" is not really an accurate term, unless you broaden "fascist" to apply to almost any type of authoritarian movement. Al Qaeda is a theocratic movement, where religious law dominates everything, much more so than the personalities of the leaders in charge. It's basically an empire modeled on the Taliban.
The problem I had with the way conservative thinkers handle it is that they tend to paint every Muslim thing with the same fascist brush. There is a big, big difference between Al Qaeda and Iran, for instance. Al Qaeda is a zealous, unreasonable terrorist organization hell bent on creating a type of world which, frankly, can't possibly exist (a modern world held together by a medieval mindset). If they can't make that world happen, they'll just blow s*** up.
Iran, on the other hand, acts like a more traditional nation. They tap into that same zealotry and exploit it. But they can be pressured and cajoled, and they also will put Iranian interests first and Islam second. They are probably the closest to an actual fascist state. I also think that, while they are dangerous, they are not nearly as dangerous as some people suggest. Iran is a successful nation that is on the rise. They have a lot to live for, so to speak. Once a nation's quality of life begins to increase, the populace tends to be less likely to throw that comfort away for a never-ending rain of hellfire (nuclear or conventional). I think they are on the path to becoming the Islamic China, a nation that eases up on it's authoritarianism as it becomes more prosperous.
Saudi Arabia, in my opinion, is the truly dangerous spot in the Middle East. It's the classic corrupt autocracy that takes the worst possible approach to the civil unrest fomenting beneath it: repressing it when it targets domestic concerns, but looking the other way when it channels internationally. They look a lot like Iran in the late 70s before the Shah fell , and just like Pakistan and Musharraf, there does not appear to be a good option between the two extremes.
The point of all this is that the Bush terror policies have, again in my opinion, been woefully simplistic and misguided. We invaded the one country that was the least Islamic in its outlook, have not focused enough on the wild zealots running amok in Afghanistan and Pakistan, gotten confrontational with an Iran when he have a lot of other chips to bargain with, and done nothing to prepare for the potential collapse of the Saudi regime.
All 3 of AQ, Iran and SA are indeed theocratic, but historically many theocracies are fascist. And as I said in one of my novellas yesterday, their brand of fascism simply utilizes Islam in lieu of the State or Race. I'm not saying that all 3 don't have differences, but they fundamentally fall into the commonly-held definitions of fascism. I find it hard to differentiate them based on ultimately superficial differences when all three want, to a greater or lesser degree, eradicate Israel, crush domestic opposition, homogenize their own societies (often by force) and impose or enforce socially and economically restrictive policies.
Now few thinkers of any utility or heft would suggest (or indeed have suggested) that we treat all of the Islamic world the same. And I don't think that using the term Islamofascist has in any way contributed to a policy which treats the entire Muslim world with uniformity. Even the Bush foreign policy has clearly identified the differences and implemented different policies in vis a vis the different states and non-state actors.
You apparently have the same world view on Iran as Obama, which is interesting. I can't share it, as it appears that we are talking about two entirely different states. I don't believe that your argument about the improving quality of life for the Iranian people acting as an impediment to international lawlessness holds water. Pre-WWII Germany saw its populace stabilized, its middle class grow and a whole host of improvements over the Weimar days. All it did was make them fat, happy and ripe for manipulation by Nazis, to whom many felt indebted. Same with the Japanese of the period. In the post WWI period, the Japanese boomed academically, integrated with the wider world on a hitherto unseen scale and saw their middle class expand despite the world-wide depression. All it did was make them hungry for the resources of greater Asia. Maybe Iran is different, but I'm reluctant to rely on the better angels of the Imams' nature to change the direction of one of the most belligerent nations in the world.
I really, really don't want to spend another day of my life arguing about the Iraq war. But...
The threat from Iraq (or from anywhere else from that matter) wasn't linked to the level of extremism in its religious composition. It was from the fact that Saddam had variously prosecuted and played footsie with international terrorists. Some were Islamic extremists, some were just otherwise cuddly "supporters" of Palestinian statehood. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism with a history of development and use of WMD and which was playing 3 card monty with the international arms control community. A valid target, in other words.
The Bush administration has obviously made mistakes in the execution not only of Iraq, but of the wider war. Then again, FDR made a boatload of mistakes in WWII, Lincoln was a shambles during much of the Civil War and on and on. Running a war, much like running a Bears season, is a process of overcoming multiple mistakes, adapting to a fluid situation and remaining committed to the overall cause. Neither one is pretty, but thankfully the US has a better record of managing the chaos than the Bears
